Case questions: 1. If Merck decided not to conduct further research, how would it justify such a decision to its scientists? How might the decision to develop the drug, or not to develop the drug, affect employee loyalty?
2. How would the media treat a decision to develop the drug? Not to develop the drug? How might either decision affect Merck's reputation?
3. Think about the decision in terms of the CSR pyramid. Did Merck have an ethical obligation to proceed with development of the drug? Would it matter if the drug had only a small chance to cure river blindness? Does it depend on how close the company was to achieving a cure, or how sure they were that they could achieve it? Or does this decision become a question of philanthropy only?
4. How does Merck's value system fit into this decision?
5. If you were the senior executive of Merck, what would you do?
Information related to above question is enclosed below:
Attachment:- 2591534_1_merck-and-river-blindness-case.rar