Cipla 2011, Harvard Business Case, March 27, 2012
1°) Since AIDS was identified in 1982, various entities have been aiming at limiting the expansion of the pandemic. However each of these entities has had a different role and thus different results: * The World Health Organization has had a critical role through the coordination of the different actors involved. It has obtained significant results in terms of treatments coverage in the last few years. Its action has been completed by the UNAIDS recently; * Cipla has developed a unique business model and has made AIDS treatments affordable for almost anyone (1$/day with “Triomune”) by focusing on both humanitarian and financial targets (break-even). For example, Cipla has allowed programs like the PEPFAR to provide treatments to millions of people in Africa; * Some governments (South Africa in particular) have decided to modify their nations’ patent laws to import and/or manufacture cheap generic drugs. Nelson Mandela has put a huge pressure on MNCs which were accused of focusing too much on profit. This paved way to the introduction of efficient drugs at low price by companies like Cipla in South Africa; * NGOs and non-profits have engaged the fight by lobbying and raising funds. Their efficiency merely depends on their fame and financial means; * Western Governments have invested much in R&D to prevent the pandemic from expanding more and to give their pharmaceutical companies a competitive advantage towards their competitors (R&D is subsidized and patented by western companies which sell medicine at high price); * The “Big pharma” were the 1st to launch efficient medicine against AIDS and thus found potential ways to slow the progression of the pandemic. But they did this to make profit and developing countries’ inhabitants couldn’t afford their treatments. “Big pharma” could have had a huge impact on AIDS treatment but their focus on profits has limited their efficiency.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document