Study Question for Module 2: Truth & Disclosure
Disclosure of information, although simple and easy to understand to most of the public, seems to always be a tough consideration for businesses and their leaders. Unfortunately, disclosure of information can be very detrimental to what business leaders hold dearest: the bottom line. This adherence to the bottom line, the need to consistently improve results, and the incentives given to executives for maximizing shareholder returns impacts the amount of information voluntarily disclosed to the public. However, executives do have an obligation to disclose information that will harm company by virtue of morals, ethics, and by government regulations.
Even though it may harm your organization, information regarding clear conflicts of interest (such as the sources of funding, other sources employment, and governance) should always be disclosed as it gives the public a strong level of trust in one’s actions or statements. Companies should have responsibility to disclose information that expands the …show more content…
In this specific case, I believe it is okay to withhold information because nondisclosure of the study would not put the public at risk. Doctors, States, and insurance companies are free to pay for their own studies and place alternative drugs on formulary lists and make their own patient recommendations. As there is no requirement, the case of disclosure comes down to what Halbert and Ingulli refer to as deontological ethics. What are the principles guiding Boots executives? Could outside stakeholders such as UCSF be obligated to disclose information as well? Unfortunately bluffing is an integral part of business, and in my opinion, Boots went up to the line of when bluffing becomes illicit
Disclosure of information, although simple and easy to understand to most of the public, seems to always be a tough consideration for businesses and their leaders. Unfortunately, disclosure of information can be very detrimental to what business leaders hold dearest: the bottom line. This adherence to the bottom line, the need to consistently improve results, and the incentives given to executives for maximizing shareholder returns impacts the amount of information voluntarily disclosed to the public. However, executives do have an obligation to disclose information that will harm company by virtue of morals, ethics, and by government regulations.
Even though it may harm your organization, information regarding clear conflicts of interest (such as the sources of funding, other sources employment, and governance) should always be disclosed as it gives the public a strong level of trust in one’s actions or statements. Companies should have responsibility to disclose information that expands the …show more content…
In this specific case, I believe it is okay to withhold information because nondisclosure of the study would not put the public at risk. Doctors, States, and insurance companies are free to pay for their own studies and place alternative drugs on formulary lists and make their own patient recommendations. As there is no requirement, the case of disclosure comes down to what Halbert and Ingulli refer to as deontological ethics. What are the principles guiding Boots executives? Could outside stakeholders such as UCSF be obligated to disclose information as well? Unfortunately bluffing is an integral part of business, and in my opinion, Boots went up to the line of when bluffing becomes illicit