GSK’s strategy towards this case that I believe falls under Accommodation stance. This is because Glaxo pleaded for his wrongdoing or misdemeanor criminal charges. And gave extreme importance to it. This indicates that the firm not only accepted its social responsibility, it also tried to satisfy economic, legal, and ethical criteria. They were also more than willing to provide information and facts to interested parties hence, they are now allowed and are currently selling these drugs in the market and used for their approved indications. Also, for the drug’s (Wellbutrin and Paxil) violations, Glaxo were charged and had to pay a $757 million fine. Which also proves that this firm that adopted the accommodative strategy because they meet their legal and ethical obligations and also went beyond their obligations. Hence, the managers of the firms made choices that try to balance both the interests of shareholders and those of other stakeholders and in a statement, he said that employees have been removed from positions as a result of the changes that will allow the company to take back compensation from executives if they don’t match to the company’s standards. They had also pushed forward with efforts to develop medicines for poor nations, including a malaria vaccine for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.However, I strongly disagree with Glaxo’s response. He should have taken the proactive strategy. That involves acting in advance of a future situation rather than simply responding to a situation that has already happened. Proactivity is about initiating change within the organization. I think they should have recalled their faulty line of products rather than wait for customers to complain and deal with the issue down the road. This is because I strongly support the statement “Why Be Reactive, When You Can Take a Proactive Stance With Your Business” (even though their stance was not reactive/obstructionist). As a pharmaceutical company, it is their motto to save lives or for the betterment of health. Whereas taking the accommodation stance, they showed the world how they completely contradicted with their motto. Even if they did agreed and corrected their mistake, there will be a long road ahead to gain their customer trust.
For a big business like GSK, negative publicity is an occupational hazard. They could have simply gone ahead of the game and saved themselves from getting tagged of ‘fraud’. If they had taken the proaction stance before they were sued, they could have stayed ahead and saved their image from the public eye. The fact that they pleaded showed how the company had major management issues and this proved that Glaxo lacked in both foreknowledge and creativity.