Juana Rocha | March 2021
Many large biopharmaceutical companies are in a race to provide a vaccine that is efficient and safe, to combat COVID-19. One of the companies, Pfizer, was one of the first to ensure a vaccine with a high-efficiency rate and was able to begin the process of distributing these vaccines to nations globally. While Pfizer, a company that can develop vaccines through investments and sales, is distributing the vaccines, it must consider the various stakeholders. Pfizer has a moral obligation to ensure that all countries, regardless of wealth, can have the same opportunity, financially and equitably, to obtain the vaccine. As a leader in medical innovation, Pfizer not only can develop and distribute vaccines to those who pay hefty amounts, it must take into account those that cannot afford to.
Not only are companies who are developing the vaccines to combat COVID-19 at the center of the battle of the morality behind distributing vaccines, but other stakeholders have great interest and are impacted by decisions made. At the top, countries like the United States have already secured 100 million doses of the vaccine, costing the country 1.9 billion dollars (Zimmer, 2021, para. 7). As a wealthy country, the United States has the monetary means to invest in Pfizer and other biopharmaceutical companies to make certain that they will be a priority when receiving the vaccine. Wealthy nations are buying their way onto the list by investing and buying numerous doses so that they are given priority. Their interest is to get companies like Pfizer to give them priority since they can provide the money needed. Low-income nations have a lot to lose, as they will most likely not be prioritized when it comes to vaccine distribution. They are the group that has the biggest to lose, because not only do they not have the means to purchase vaccines by the millions, but they do not have access to healthcare in general. This makes it difficult for them to receive other vaccines and medicines that many find to be common and accessible, which makes the COVID-19 vaccine even harder to obtain.
Another stakeholder is health care workers. Health care workers are detrimental to the slowing of COVID-19 because of the skills and resources that they offer. In “COVID-19: Protecting Health Care Workers” by The Lancet, they mention “Health-care systems globally could be operating at more than maximum capacity for many months. But health-care workers, unlike ventilators or wards, cannot be urgently manufactured or run at 100% occupancy for long periods” (The Lancet, 2020, para. 3). This brings to light that regardless of where the healthcare workers reside, not only are they being overwhelmed by the number of cases, but there is a great concern to protect them. If healthcare workers in underdeveloped countries die, not only are these countries losing valuable resources, but they are also at risk of potentially making the pandemic last longer and deadlier.
Lastly, the working population has an interest in vaccine distribution, not only to ensure their health but to return to a sense of normality. As vaccines can be distributed to all, the working population looks ahead to what the aftermath of COVID-19 is like. What the effects will be like regarding their jobs, their finances, and their life in general. COVID-19 has impacted the working population in ways that many didn’t think would ever happen. Some industries, like restaurants and events, suffered a vast amount compared to online retailers, like Amazon, who were able to thrive during the pandemic. The faster that all people can be vaccinated, the quicker it is to return to life pre-pandemic. In “The World after COVID-19” by Sharfuddin, they bring forth the problems that will arise once the pandemic is over especially what governments did to help their people and how countries will be able to interact with one another after the pandemic. It is in the best interest of everyone to have a vaccine distributed globally.
In “COVID-19 Mortality in Rich and Poor Countries” by Schellekens and Sourrouille, they bring forth the idea that in a sense two pandemics are happening. One, that the wealthy nations face and the other pandemic that poor countries are facing. Each country is being affected differently, and because of this, their interest in the vaccine is vastly different. In countries like the United States, there is a large growing population of elderly people because of the life expectancy becoming larger over time because of their access to healthcare. In low-income countries, although their elderly population isn’t the majority, they have a large amount of younger people who do not live as long because they do not have access to good healthcare (Schellekens and Sourrouille, 5). As a company that has seen various diseases and has developed medicines to combat these diseases, it also must realize that different countries are facing different challenges. Low-income countries with high youth/middle age rates may seem that their countries won’t be as affected by COVID-19 because it mostly impacts older people. In reality, these countries do not have the resources to prevent the spread of COVID-19, and it is decreasing their older population even greater. Instead, these countries are seeing declines in elder populations because they do not have the medicine or the people who can treat preventable diseases. Pfizer must recognize that the countries cannot afford to do so, and step in to provide the vaccines for COVID-19 in these countries. This is to ensure that these countries have the financial help to obtain the vaccine and that they are being treated fairly as the countries that do have the money to purchase the vaccines.
As a leading biopharmaceutical company, Pfizer, itself recognizes that it has a purpose, and that is to develop “breakthroughs that change patients’ lives” (Pfizer, para. 1). Within this purpose, it has committed to global health, by striving to “provide access to medicines that are safe, effective and affordable” (Pfizer, para. 1). With a commitment to providing its assets to people around the world, not only does that apply to wealthy nations, but it applies to the people in poor nations who have no access to medical services or healthcare. By doing this, Pfizer is not only executing its purpose, but it is also proving that corporations like Pfizer do have a social responsibility when it comes to providing all people regardless of wealth, access to crucial medicines. As their purpose, they are paving the road for what they are ought to do. This includes making sure that these poor nations can have the vaccine at costs that they can afford, and in quantities that will help their people. Through its purpose, Pfizer states that safety, effectiveness, and affordability are its main goals. If they do not provide COVID-19 vaccines to countries at an affordable price, they are going against their purpose. Through their purpose, Pfizer has proved that their commitment to global health can be done by sharing the resources they have to populations that are in most need. With COVID-19, Pfizer must take into account their purpose and ensure that all people can access the vaccines regardless if they can afford them. Not only would it go against their stance on “medicines that are safe, effective and affordable” (Pfizer, para. 1), but it would also go against their views on the role that medicine plays in global health.
While companies strive to make themselves profitable, in situations like the COVID-19 pandemic, companies must value people over money. In “Corporate social responsibility in global health” written by Vian et al., they focus on the pressures that companies are facing to address the social responsibilities they have that affects people around the world. “Businesses and their leaders are being called upon to exercise virtue in fulfilling obligations to employees, communities, and the environment: in other words, to become responsible citizens of the world” (Vian et al., 3). This brings forth the push that corporations are facing to not only focus on making a profit but also strive to make impactful changes that would benefit communities around them. Pfizer has taken stances, through its purpose and values, that equity is important to it. “We believe that every person deserves to be seen, heard, and cared for. This happens when we are inclusive, act with integrity, and reduce health care disparities” (Pfizer, para. 5). Pfizer acknowledges that people are valuable, and that people are not all in the same position as others. At the moment, the call for corporations to take responsibility has been the main focus. Many corporations have been releasing Corporate Responsibility Reports (CSR), that highlight the work that they have done especially philanthropy. This real-world example shows that Pfizer values the importance of letting others know what they have done for others and what they will continue to do. Pfizer released a CSR in 2014, where it focused on its efforts to follow through with its purpose, specifically in under-resourced communities, and bringing them the resources that are needed to improve their access to healthcare. Pfizer acknowledges that it has the power to help poor nations that do not have the means to develop their medicines or have the economical means to obtain the medicines (Pfizer, para. 5). Through this real-world example, Pfizer’s obligation to the equitable distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine, must take into account all people, regardless of money, and distribute vaccines at a fair price for everyone and not prioritize giving one country more vaccines than the other.
Due to the nature of this argument, two assumptions must be made clear. Some countries have the economical means to secure vaccines for their people, and they will be one of the first to do so. By either investing in the development of the vaccine or preordering doses, wealthy nations are the first on the list. These countries will be using the privilege that they have of being wealthy to take advantage of how quickly they can obtain the vaccine. Since they have the funding, they will be using it to obtain the vaccines as quickly as they can. Second, middle-income and low-income countries are disadvantaged, and will not be first on the list, due to their inability to either invest in vaccines, produce, or compete in the open market to secure vaccines. These assumptions are important in understanding why Pfizer has a moral responsibility to provide equal access to the vaccine because of the unfair playing field that these countries are currently facing. Wealthy countries can obtain vaccines for their people by having enough money to buy themselves a place on the top of the list. Meanwhile, countries that do not have the economical means, are left to look elsewhere to ensure that they can obtain at least some vaccines for their people.
While there is a moral responsibility for Pfizer to ensure that all people have equal access to the vaccine, there are many objections as to why this must be true. First, Pfizer like any other company needs to focus on profit to ensure its company can remain a leading biopharmaceutical company. Pfizer has expenses like any other company, especially concerning research. In 2020, Pfizer’s research and development expenses were 9.5 billion dollars (Pfizer Annual Review, 1). This does not include the expenses for equipment, the people who do the research or development, and any dividends it needs to pay to its stockholders. With a large amount of expense, Pfizer needs to be profitable to maintain its status as a leading pharmaceutical company. It is a part of its identity to be seen as a top competitor and a reliable source for vaccines. While this is true, Pfizer is no small, locally owned business. With a net income of 6.9 billion dollars in 2019, Pfizer demonstrates that they have sufficient funds that give them the flexibility to focus on communities that are underserved and disadvantaged (Wall Street Journal). All company's main focus is profit, but when the profit surpasses large numbers, that company must use its power to help others.
Another opposition involves the role of government and its responsibilities to their people. If vaccines are desperately needed, governments should invest instead of waiting for others to help. During a crisis like COVID-19, governments should be prioritizing vaccines instead of other areas, if they want to return to times before COVID-19. One example of this is the United States, which already has a large federal budget, but has focused on obtaining vaccines for its people. They are responsible for their citizens and by getting the vaccines they are doing their job as a government. While many countries are doing this, some countries know that they are not in the position to create their vaccine or obtain large amounts of vaccines, given that they do not have the money, resources, or equipment to do so. Governments who do have the means to develop vaccines are often having to send them out to other countries that have pre-ordered them, leaving the citizens to be left with no access to the vaccines. In “For COVID-19 Vaccines, Some are too Rich, Some are too Poor”, Apuzzo and Gebrekidan attract attention to the situations that some countries are being left in, especially countries that are not eligible to receive assistance because they are considered middle-income. Countries like South Africa are considered middle-income and having to rely on organizations like COVAX to obtain vaccines for their people (Apuzzo and Gebrekidan, para. 6). While COVAX is an adequate solution to low-income nations, countries like South Africa that cannot compete in a free market, must invest in COVAX and is not guaranteed vaccines for their people. Governments buy into but are not told what vaccine they can get or when they will receive any vaccines. While these governments do what they can with the money and resources that they have, it does not meet the demand for vaccines.
Pfizer, being a large profit company must see the hurdles that low-income and middle-income nations are having to face and step in. Pfizer has the means to distribute the vaccine equally without favoring wealthy nations that can pay for large sums of doses. This only makes it harder for these countries to get any closer to getting access to the vaccines. If Pfizer prides themselves in their purpose, not only will they make the vaccine affordable, but they will make it equally accessible to people around the world.
Works Cited:
Apuzzo, Matt, and Selam Gebrekidan. “For Covid-19 Vaccines, Some Are Too Rich - and Too Poor.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 28 Dec. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/12/28/world/africa/covid-19-vaccines-south-africa.html?searchResultPosition=25.
Lancet, The. "COVID-19: protecting health-care workers." Lancet (London, England) 395.10228 (2020): 922.
“Pfizer 2019 Annual Review.” www.pfizer.com/sites/default/files/investors/financial_reports/annual_reports/2019/index.html.
Pfizer. “OUR PURPOSE.” Pfizer's Core Values of Social Responsibility and Philanthropy | Pfpfizeruscom, www.pfizer.com/purpose.
Schellekens, Philip, and Diego M. Sourrouille. "COVID-19 mortality in rich and poor countries: a tale of two pandemics?." World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 9260 (2020).
Sharfuddin, Syed. “The World after Covid-19.” The Round Table, 2020, www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00358533.2020.1760498.
Vian, Taryn, et al. "Corporate social responsibility in global health: the Pfizer Global Health Fellows international volunteering program." Human Resource Planning 30.1 (2007): 30.
Wall Street Journal. “PFE | Pfizer Inc. Annual Income Statement - WSJ.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/PFE/financials/annual/income-statement.
Zimmer, Carl, et al. “Coronavirus Vaccine Tracker.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 June 2020, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html.