June 06, 2023
In 2020, AmerisourceBergen Corporation, a Fortune 50 firm within the drug distribution industry, agreed to verify hundreds of court docket cases filed nationwide in opposition to the firm for its opioid distribution practices, which critics alleged had contributed to the opioid crisis within the U.S. The $6.6 billion global settlement caused a find loss bigger than the cumulative find profits earned throughout the tenure of the firm’s CEO, which began in 2011.
As well to, AmerisourceBergen’s lawful and monetary troubles were accompanied by shareholder demands aimed at utilizing corporate governance changes in corporations within the opioid present chain. Sure to help the firm’s leadership responsible, the shareholders launched a campaign in early 2021 to reject the pay packages of executives.
Must the board nick the executives’ pay, as of methodology of enhancing accountability? Or does punishing the AmerisourceBergen executives for paying the settlement ignore the larger enviornment of a industry’s responsibility to society?
Harvard Enterprise Faculty professor Suraj Srinivasan discusses government compensation and shareholder activism within the context of among the U.S. opioid crisis in his case, “The Opioid Settlement and Controversy Over CEO Pay at AmerisourceBergen.”
