Sarbanes Oxley and Whistleblowing

Whistle-Blowing and Sarbanes-Oxley The relevance of whistleblowers in an organizational setting cannot be overstated. As a matter of fact, whistleblowers have in the past helped bring about the much needed changes in organizations. They can, therefore, be referred to as guardians of public accountability. It is, however, important to note that whistleblowing does have its own unique challenges. This is particularly the case given that whistleblowers risk isolation, ridicule, loss of employment, etc. once they go public with certain information.

In essence, a whistleblower, in an organizational setting, is an employee or any officer or representative of the firm who lifts the lid on issues or undertakings within the firm that he or she deems illegal, dubious, or generally harmful to the interests of various stakeholders (Holt, 2007). In general terms, whistleblowers possess specific characteristics. To begin with, in addition to being brave, whistleblowers are typically morally upright.

To lift the veil on organizational malpractices, an individual must be ready to face the repercussions of his or her actions, which could include, but are not limited to, losing their job, court action, or even physical harm. Whistle blowers permit their own beliefs and attitudes, as well as the general good to guide their actions and are largely utilitarian, i.e. take a specific course of action on the basis of whether or not it maximizes utility.

There have been many instances of whistle blowing in organizations in the past. Some of the most notable whistleblowers of the last century, according to Secunda (2009) include, but they are not limited to, Jeffrey Wigand (who blew the whistle on a tobacco maker's attempt to introduce a harmful element in its products) and Courtland Kelley who was allegedly fired from her position at General Motors after she spoke up about the company's refusal to address a faulty ignition switch issue. One of the more recent cases of whistleblowing involves Pfizer.

The company concerns itself with not only the manufacture and development of veterinary and human drugs, but also the marketing and promotion of the same. The whistleblower, John Kopchinski, a sales rep hired by Pfizer, exposed the company for a number of alleged marketing misdeeds that involved fraudulent promotion of one of its drugs by the name Bextra (Mattera, 2015). It was the lawsuit Kopchinski filed against Pfizer's tactics that sparked state and federal interest, eventually leading to both criminal and civil penalties to the tune of $2.3 billion.

One of the key issues raised was that the drug significantly increased the risk of not only strokes, but also heart attack. An army veteran, Kopchinski was used to protecting the people in his previous engagement (i.e. the army) before joining Pfizer. Being hired as a sales rep meant that his duty was to make profits for his employer. His moral uprightness could not, however, allow him to continue selling a product he knew only too well had a negative impact on the health of the masses.

Kopchinski's revelations cost him his job. At the time of his dismissal, he was earning $125,000 an year. He later landed another job as an insurance agent, earning a meager $40,000 an year. This is an indicator of his brevity and resolve to put his own interests after those of others. He took the utilitarian approach. His course of action was in this case for the benefit of the majority. In my opinion, Kopchinski was justified in reporting the actions of the company.

At stake were the lives of millions of individuals who for one reason or another encountered the drug. Being a pharmaceutical company, Pfizer is charged with the research, development, as well as production of drugs meant to alleviate the suffering of those who suffer from one health condition or another. It is for this reason that the pharmaceutical industry remains one of the most controlled spheres of business. Given the nature of their business, pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer ought to embrace the basic tenets of ethical conduct.

Pharmaceutical companies should, therefore, see to it that consumers of their products receive high quality products that not only have a high level of efficacy, but also have assured safety. Personally, I am more of a deontologist. I believe that we should do to others that which we would have others do unto us. In that regard, therefore, I strongly believe that the well-being of an individual surpasses anything else. Making money should never be a priority when it comes to the.