Table of ContentsIntroductionBackgroundWhy Unethical Behavior Occurred?Models of EthicsConclusionIntroductionIt is 2007, you are at the pharmacy and purchase a pack of two EpiPens . You take your package to the counter and pay just under a hundred dollars. Nine years later, in 2016, you buy the same pack of two EpiPens, but this time your total comes to almost six hundred dollars. This drastic 600% price increase is more than just annual inflation, it is an act of unethical business practices. People with severe asthma and allergies rely on EpiPens in an emergency. The rising price of this life-saving device is raising concerns: is it financially justified to have such a high price increase or is it an act of corporate greed and selfishness? Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the Original EssayMylan Incorporated is one of the world's leading generic and specialty pharmaceutical companies. Mylan and its CEO, Heather Bresch, offer their products in more than 165 countries and have been facilitating access to medicines for more than 50 years. In 2017, Mylan became the sole seller and distributor of EpiPens, giving them a monopoly in the market (Ginn & Waldman, 2016). On August 18, 2016, US Senator Bernie Saunders shared his opinion on Twitter about the outrageous price. EpiPens provided by Mylan (see Appendix A). This tweet brought widespread public attention to the issue and was the starting point for several investigations into the controversial pricing of Mylan's EpiPen (Czarnecki, 2016). Background Mylan's actions can be described as an abusive monopoly of his power. Along with the 600% increase in the retail price of EpiPens, the company was also accused of overcharging the US government for the device (Livni, 2017). They managed to implement this system by classifying the product as a “generic” product rather than a “branded” product. This classification caused taxpayers to pay approximately $1. 27 billion more than they should have and Mylan only pays a 13% rebate. Livni explains later in her article that the classification of an EpiPen, or any other drug, is a determining factor in the amount of rebate the manufacturer will have to pay. In September 2016, the US federal health agency informed Mylan of this misclassification, but Mylan did not react or impose changes (Bartz, 2016). After numerous extensive investigations, Mylan agreed to pay a $465 million settlement to the U.S. Department of Justice. Bresch made an appearance at a Forbes Health Summit event where she readily expressed her thoughts on the price hike: “We absolutely raised the price and we take full responsibility for it” (Weintraub, 2016). Along with this statement, she attempted to justify the company's behavior. actions by insisting that the price increases were due to improvements in the product and its production. When asked to further explain her reasoning, she avoided answering the question directly (Weintraub, 2016). This scandal raises many questions regarding corporate social responsibility and business ethics. These issues will be discussed in more detail throughout this analysis. Why did unethical behavior occur? Gareth Jones, author of Organizational Theory, Design and Change, suggests three reasons why unethical behavior occurs: personal ethics, self-interestpersonnel and external pressure. The Mylan scandal may be closely linked to the reasoning behind self-interest and outside pressure. Before explaining why these two theories are linked, it's worth noting one important factor revealed by CNN's Chris Isidore. He informed the public about a bonus plan that Mylan had implemented in 2014. This plan was intended to focus the top five executives on aggressively increasing profits (Isidore, 2016). The goal was to increase Mylan's profits to six dollars per share by 2018. If that goal was achieved, the executives involved would be eligible for a bonus that would likely be worth millions. This information will help to better understand theories of self-interest and external pressure. Unethical behavior can occur due to self-interest when a person weighs the effects of their self-interest against the impact it will have on others. Jones suggests that people who have a career choice or money on the line are more likely to act unethically. In Mylan's case, top executives had a large sum of money if they could achieve a profit of six dollars per share by 2018. Mylan executives were weighing their own interests against the impact that this had on consumers. People who perform poorly economically are also more likely to commit unethical acts. This should not have been a factor in Mylan's situation because they have a monopoly on the EpiPen market and thousands of people across the United States rely on this product. Outside pressure, as Jones stated, is also a reasoning behind unethical behavior. This can happen when a reward system is put in place to encourage employees to perform in a certain way. The unique bonus opportunity Mylan offered to top executives was a reward that caused the company to act unethically in hopes of achieving its goal. It is also possible that industry competitors could collaboratively raise prices to make additional profits. Where Mylan has a monopoly on the EpiPen industry, this was a very simple action to take. Both of these theories analyze potential reasons as to why the behavior occurred, but it is also crucial to determine whether the actions were truly unethical. Models of Ethics Jones summarizes three models that provide guidelines for determining whether a decision is ethical or unethical: Utilitarian and moral rights. and model of justice. The utilitarian model is described as a “decision that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people” (Jones, 2013). Mylan's decisions did not create the greatest good for the greatest people because they became greedy for bonuses and did not take into account the impact that a significant increase in costs would have on consumers. The moral rights model is “a decision that best maintains and protects the fundamental rights and privileges of those affected” (Jones, 2013). Mylan's decision to continue raising the price of EpiPens could have a significant impact on customer health. with asthma or allergies who depend on this product but cannot afford it. The justice model is a “decision that distributes benefits and harms among stakeholders equitably” (Jones, 2013). Technically, Mylan distributed its EpiPens fairly and equitably to consumers, so everyone paid the same amount. . The opposite aspect to 2017..