For Paper #2, I will be discussing Pfizer’s recent decisions to sell both its infant nutrition and animal health businesses, as well as its decision to separate the company’s business entities into three different units: two Innovative business segments and one Value business segment. One Innovative business segment will consist of those drugs that possess patent exclusivity past 2015. The other Innovative segment will consist of vaccines, oncology, and consumer healthcare. The Value business segment will possess all of Pfizer’s off-patent/nearly off-patent drugs that provide consistent cash flow for the company. The problem I will be identifying is whether or not these decisions were made in consideration of the shareholders or stakeholders. To establish strong positioning, I will be utilizing the idea of consequentialism.
So far, I believe that Pfizer’s decisions have greatly affected both its shareholders and stakeholders. Pfizer wants to currently slim down the company so it can solely focus on developing new drugs. While it will provide its businesses with greater abilities to respond to changing market demands (satisfying investors’ desires by maximizing profits), I also believe that it will greatly affect the company’s employees. These changes will inevitably lead to the laying off of many employees, which very well could affect the general company morale. I definitely believe that Pfizer’s recent decisions to sell two companies and split the rest into separate business segments is primarily a way to please investors.
The business sources I have chosen for this paper are articles that both Pfizer and Zoetis released on their company websites informing the public about Pfizer’s decision to completely sell-off Zoetis and its infant nutrition businesses, and later on its internal spinoff decision. Although somewhat bland, CEO Ian Read announced that the company’s spinoff decision will create value for both Pfizer and its shareholders. He also discusses creating new value for the company’s patients, but this comes at the end of his statement.
The social sources I have chosen for this paper all discuss the financial aspect of this divide. They focus primarily on how the selling and split will affect investors instead of focusing primarily on how the company will be better able to serve its patients.
Lastly, the government sources (specifically SEC sources) I have researched show the investor impacts of selling off Zoetis and its infant businesses, and spinning off the company’s business entities. They explicitly state the financial impact of such decisions. This information supports my argument that all of Pfizer’s slimming down decisions are for the primary benefit of the company’s investors.
I believe that the resources I have found add tremendous support to my argument that Pfizer’s recent business strategy has been solely focused on investor relations. Many of the resources I have collected state that Pfizer’s new business model will increase its attractiveness to investors. After the articles state this, they are often followed up by “the company will be better able to focus on its core businesses and provide better service to its patients.” It seems to be a trend that the investor relations are Pfizer’s primary concern.
The information I have gather is very reliable. My business sources have come directly from Pfizer and Zoetis themselves. My social sources have come from various reputable magazines and scholarly articles including: Bloomberg, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, Google Scholar, and New York Times. Lastly, my government sources are all from the SEC. To insure that my social newspaper sources are reliable, I have noticed a similar conclusion from all of them…that Pfizer’s decision to sell both its infant nutrition and animal health businesses, and to spinoff its core business entities are all aimed towards attracting new investors and pleasing current investors.
Dilemmas... 