Shareholders are, for the most part these days, automated trading computers and mutual funds. Shareholders come and go like the wind. Furthermore, every shareholder goes in with the understanding that there may not be a profit. If you treat your customers poorly just so you can show a profit to the shareholders, then you will lose your customers, your profit, and your shareholders. However, if your primary obligation is to the customer, then you will generate more profit, and please the shareholders.
This is a good point about the reality of what "shareholders" mean in today's economy. While probably true for the majority of shareholders, it is probably not true about the majority shareholders. That said there seems to have been a shift in business ethics in the last 20 years.
Now I am not saying that everything has gone to hell in a hand basket for this or that reason nor am I looking on our past with rose colored glasses.
With recent and not so recent scandals, time and time again we hear a company line about making profit for our shareholders is our goal while still providing a product(or service) we believe in.
This is the problem.
It should be Providing a quality product/service we believe in while maintaining profitability for our shareholders.
They really aren't putting the customers and products first and consumers are starting to see that.
Regardless of whether shareholders are people banging down the door when things are going bad, its more about decisions being made about which drugs get funding based not on effectiveness but rather on marketability.
Consider that the attitude of many large companies is profitability first. This is what happens when you have a board made up of people who were not the founders. Once a company outlives the life of the individuals who started it, its direction naturally shifts towards maintaining profitability and growth.
Decisions are made based on profit margins and costs which drives efforts towards markets that are producing profit. No longer is the company's vision that of an individual but rather its a formula of corporate survival. Its not necessarily a malevolent drive, but it does tend to be devoid of empathy and accountability. So instead of one mans drive to improve the world or whatever, its about growing the brand.
New treatments mean new profits.
New cures mean that ultimately that product will no longer be needed which, when you consider the costs of bringing a new drug to market and the R&D costs and if the ailment being cured is sufficiently rare enough, even if they have a 100% cure, it won't get funding because on paper, there's no profit in it. For the people suffering from that ailment it definitely looks like the drug companies don't "care about a cure"
What it really boils down to is that we aren't really learning anything, we're just inventing new bandaids. Once we're sufficiently knowledgeable in genetics and understanding just how our metabolism works, I have a feeling that drug companies may not be needed for much outside of pain management and other transient problems where manipulating cellular tissue wouldn't help.
The fact that someone found a naturally occurring substance that happens to work for a particular problem but didn't want to test further for whatever reason isn't really the point though is it?
Its a question of the millions of dollars in donations going to cancer research, if this sort of thing ISN'T what those charities are about, then where is the money going?
Its part of a larger "Awakening" that I think is happening where people snap out of it and start asking for some sort of accountability for charities and companies. Take some responsibility and take some pride in your business. I think people should ask themselves, "what would my mother say if she knew I made this decision?"or"would I be embarrassed if this decision made the front page?". Too often it seems the answer is, well if I don't get caught it won't matter and the odds are that I won't get caught since nobody is looking.
