Denis G. Arnold

The Paradox at the Base of the Pyramid: Environmental Sustainability and Market-Based Poverty Alleviation

Base of the pyramid (BoP) business strategies focus on the delivery of goods and services to the worlds poor. Proponents argue that previously unrecognised opportunities for profit are available to companies that target this underserved population. This strategy is commonly presented as an example of social responsibility, or social sustainability, since it targets consumers that have not traditionally had access to consumer goods and services. However, business activities can have a disproportionately harmful impact on the natural environments in which the BoP live and work. We argue that businesses engaged in BoP activities with the ostensible goal of benefitting the BoP may paradoxically harm the BoP by degrading the natural environments on which they are dependent. We provide a conceptual framework for understanding the environmental impacts that firm products, services, and operations can have on the BoP, and we provide a pragmatic solution aimed at resolving this apparent paradox.

Misapplying Moral Hazard in Bioethics

Moral hazard problems arise in markets where one party has an incentive to behave badly and in so doing creates higher than anticipated costs for another party. Modern discussions of moral hazard o...

Pharmaceutical Industry Compliance with Industry Guiding Principles for Direct-to-Consumer Advertising

Since 1997 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has permitted direct-to-consumer prescription pharmaceutical advertising via television commercials. The pharmaceutical industry has argued that direct-to-consumer advertising is an effective means to educate consumers about diseases and appropriate treatments. In contrast, direct-to-consumer television advertising has been criticized for the level of information provided and for undermining physician patient relationships.

Managing Pharmaceutical Innovation: Evaluating the Roles of Marketing and Research Expenditures (WITHDRAWN)

Pharmaceutical companies have been criticized for developing and aggressively marketing “me too” drugs that do not provide significant benefits relative to existing drugs but retain the benefits of patent protection. This behavior is rational for managers because it seems to result in value creation for both shareholders and the stakeholders who accept the marketing messages. In this paper, we consider the impact of differing levels of marketing and research and development expenditures on the generation of more and less innovative new drugs by publicly traded firms from 1999-2009. While increased marketing expenditures increase the development of the least innovative drugs, we find a large and negative impact of increased marketing expenditures on development of the most innovative drugs. We also find a significant positive impact of increased research and development expenditures on the development of the most innovative drugs. Policy and managerial implications are discussed.