• Recent Articles

  • Sodexo awarded for ethics as workers make minimum wage
  • Who owns your genes?
  • Apologies
  • The Robber Barons of Social Change
  • Good Intentions
  • Toyota’s Tylenol moment
  • “Walking away” not immoral, prof says
  • How Will the Citizens United Decision Affect Sustainable Business?
  • UK Business schools put ethics high on MBA agenda
  • Does Kraft’s Takeover Mean the End of Cadbury’s Fair Trade Policies?
  • U.S. Attorney: Johnson & Johnson Paid Millions In Kickbacks To Boost Sales Of Schizophrenia Drug In Nursing Homes
  • With Tylenol recall 2010, a corporate icon stumbles

• Archives

  Select Month January 2012 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 April 2008 January 2008 December 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 April 2007 February 2007 May 2006 January 2006 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005

Read the full article here.

Excerpt:
Employee sources said that a significant percentage of workers live paycheck to paycheck; they are forced to frequent soup kitchens and charities to feed themselves and their families. The problem has been ongoing since at least fall 2008, when one employee estimated that between 65 and 70 percent of workers used charities to get food. Paul Kerns, general manager for Sodexo at BU, said he could not verify the statistics.

Sodexo partners with Community Hunger Outreach Warehouse (CHOW) to collect food donations on campus.

Photo by jurvetsonGreat blog post with background on this week’s decision by a federal judge upholding a lawsuit that challenges the granting of patents for human genes. Read the article here.

Excerpt:
The danger of letting corporations patent human genes is that they can use the monopoly created by patents to deny access to diagnostic and therapeutic treatments to those who can’t pay a premium. Patents on human genes also choke off a patient’s ability to get a second opinion (before, say, removing ovaries or a prostate) and close off scientific research by other corporations or academic institutions.

The decision — which is sure to be appealed — has raised dire warnings from some corners of the pharmaceutical and venture capitalist sectors, as well as from the patent bar. They argue that patents encourage research and innovation by making it profitable for corporations to engage in the financially risky business of developing new diagnostic tools and therapies, and warn that the Court’s decision will thus hinder innovation.

But this case is different. It’s not about denying corporations the right to patent specific tests, methods, or drugs. These are inventions that deserve and will continue to receive patent protection. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to award patents in order to promote the “progress of science and the useful arts, by securing, for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their writings and discoveries.”

Read more…

← Previous Page — Next Page →

• Search for:

• Articles/Posts

  • Uncategorized
  • Articles
  • Resources
  • Academic Sites
  • Audits/Reports
  • Company Statements/Principles
  • Organizations
  • Other Business Ethics Sites
  • SR Investments
  • SR Job Resources
  • Sustainability
  • Tools

• Article Tag Cloud

  Scandals Sweatshops Pledges Corporate Governance Pharmaceuticals Corporate Personhood Banks Mortgages Investing Reports Obstructionists Corruption Shame Bioethics Business Ethics Litigation Company Audit Statements Economics Jeff Academia Essays/Papers/Presentations Regulation Fair Trade Compensation International Censorship Greenwashing Stock Market Sustainability Philanthrocapitalism Wall Street SEC Transparency Legislation

• Twitter Posts