Case Study Help on Becton Dickinson
In 1988 when the field test were completed by Becton Dickinson, the company than decided which size of syringe to market, this decision was mainly based on the data collected and the results retrieved from the field test. Though Becton Dickinson had four major syringe sizes, 1-cc, 3-cc, 5-cc and 10-cc, now the only decision was which syringe will be marketed with the protective sleeve. Since Becton Dickinson bought the exclusive rights from Sampson and Mitchell, the company now had the sole decision power to decide which product to market. Though the field tests were already done, and all the product range should and must be introduced in the market, still the company had no obligation to provide the safety syringes in all its sizes, as there were various other factors that one can consider from Becton Dickinson view.
Becton Dickinson main aim was to capture the market share at any cost while keeping in mind that there’s not much competition in the market, so the company can easily play a monopoly in the market. Though it is the their social responsibility to be equitable in relation to their employees and society at large, from the nurses and doctors point of view they preferred all different sizes of syringes, as by having only 3-cc size syringe the company had limited applicants. This act of Becton Dickinson cannot be considered as ethical, or fair for the society mainly because of the reason that business ethics is usually considered as the way companies and their managers consciously apply ethical principles to their conduct and various other activities, aiming to do good for the society Van de Ven, J. (2003) . According to the Business for Social Responsibility organisation webpage (see the link in vUWS, Module 2), business ethics can be defined as ‘how a company integrates core values – such as honesty, trust, respect and fairness – into its policies, practices and decision making, where in the case of Becton Dickinson all these core values were missing.
Socially and ethically a corporation should be held accountable for any or all of its actions that may affect people, their communities and their environment (Zulkifli. B, 2001). However in my personal opinion a company cannot be held liable failing to market all of its products for which the company owns its exclusive patents, as there might be various factors involved from the company’s perspective. Rather than investing a lot of amount in all of its products, its better to introduce one product in the market first and after making it a success than the company can release its other range of products. Though at the same time keeping in mind that by not releasing all its products in the market, there might be some risks of injuries associated with it, for this purpose a company should and must provide the safety precautions. From a company’s perspective its Social responsibility is its duty to create wealth (by using means that avoid harm) and to protect or enhance societal assets (Zulkifli. B, 2001). Over the last few years the concept of socially responsible behavior moved beyond “do-goodism” into the area of corporate strategy. It mainly depends on the intention of the organization, what’s the basic purpose of not introducing all ranges of a particular product in market? It implies that harm to people and society should be acknowledged and corrected by the corporations. It may require a company to forego some profits if its social impacts seriously hurt some of the stakeholders.
 Should manufacturers be held liable for failing to market all the products for which they hole exclusive patents when someone’s injury would have been avoided if they had marketed those products? Explain
The above assignment is not complete, if you are looking for complete assignment, similar assignment or a new one you can contact us by filling up the quote form