There is the problem of inaccessibility. Most of the people in these impoverished areas live in regions that are unconnected by roads or any other transportation system, living far from hospitals, pharmacies, health personnel and institutions, and from any commercial system as it is understood in the conventional sense of the word. Superfluous drugs, therefore, languish in government warehouses or end up on the black market, raising additional dilemmas.
Keeping up with free distribution and criterion for stopping free distribution
As the distribution process picks up, it is evident that the organization was increasingly receiving support from civil groups and established health organizations. This means that the distribution strategy is likely to progress until the organization achieves its objectives thus eradicating river blindness. Consequently, the eradication of the ailment will determine the closure of the distribution program. Additionally, development or public health entities may incur distribution costs consequently relieving Merck.
How long can Merck keep up free distribution?
Despite Merck's most strenuous endeavors and admirable idealism, it needs to recover some of its lost margins and cannot afford...
From a simple financial sustainability point-of-view and Ivermectin profitability perspective alone, reason would dictate that Merck recuperate some of its losses through government-assistance such as via tax-relaxation polities. This is all the more crucial since Merck's employees and shareholders would suffer from a diminished returns or from a no returns policy and it would, therefore, be not only unethical but also foolish for Merck to distribute its drugs without promise of some sort of profit, or return, on its charitable activities.
In short, survival of a firm necessitates harmony between philanthropy and business. Merck needs to equilibrate both in order to fulfill its responsibilities towards its shareholders whilst accomplishing its social goals.
Alternatives:
1) Proceed with self-distribution, whilst investigating whether PR can be established in order to promote Merck's generosity.
2) Temporarily, at least, relinquish the idea of creating a cure for river blindness concentrating instead on other less costly but equally essential concerns such as AIDS.
The Business Enterprise Trust. (1991). Merck & Co., Inc. Massachusetts, MA: Harvard Business School
