When the Courts Step In, the Industry Must Listen.
- Global Impact Ambassadors
- 2 days ago
- 2 min read
Updated: 2 hours ago
The Supreme Court of India recently made a clear and important observation:
patients and the public must have access to proper remedies when pharmaceutical companies engage in unethical practices.
The Court questioned whether voluntary industry codes are sufficient and pointed to the need for stronger, enforceable mechanisms rather than merely signal good intent. This is not an anti-pharma argument. It is a pro-ethics, pro-patient, and pro-trust one.
Unethical behaviour in our industry does not exist in only one form. It can surface in aggressive or misleading marketing, in secondary packaging choices that prioritise cost over clarity or safety, or in partnerships with questionable CDMOs where transparency, quality culture, or compliance standards are compromised in the name of speed or margin.
These decisions may appear minor in isolation, but shape the ethical character of a company and, ultimately, the level of trust society can place in it.
Medicines influence clinical decisions, patient outcomes, and public health at scale. In that context, ethical conduct cannot be optional or secondary to commercial considerations. When governance relies too heavily on self-regulation without meaningful enforcement, accountability risks becoming symbolic rather than real.
Academic studies, regulatory reviews, and court observations over the past decade have repeatedly highlighted concerns around pharmaceutical practices, opaque incentive structures, weak enforcement of existing codes, and limited avenues for patient redress in several fast-growing markets.
While unethical behaviour is by no means unique to Asia, evidence suggests that where regulatory frameworks are fragmented and enforcement is weak, systemic problems are more likely to persist. This is not a question of geography alone, but of governance maturity and leadership choices. Where oversight is limited or penalties are minimal, ethical shortcuts tend to survive. Where leaders actively choose transparency and accountability, culture follows.
Personally, I have chosen a clear corporate line based on integrity:
I will not compromise on our values, transparency, or patient safety to save money.
Not in marketing. Not in packaging. Not in partnerships and certainly not in future investors.
Ethical practices must be backed by real consequences and real leadership.
Innovation without integrity erodes trust. Profit without responsibility undermines legitimacy. Unethical shortcuts ultimately fail the people they are meant to serve.
I have learned my lesson, have you?
Full article by Business Standard:
Comments