[zo1]

"It is a long and tough debate, and there is no right answer. However, for those that think Cipla is all about saving the world, remember that it is a for-profit company." Ah yes, the non-profit/for-profit organization fallacy. Boils down to something like: Organizations that don't make profits will only do good. Completely disregarding the fact that a lot/most of its leaders/workers are there working for-profit via a salary, and it's in their best interest to perpetuate their organization. And also there is an incentive to not fix the problem the organization is supposed to solve because that will mean the dissolution of the organization.

Now, don't get me wrong. Some of these organizations do a whole world of good, have very passionate and dedicated individuals that are probably working for free, and there are a lot of causes that benefit greatly from their presence. But let's not fool ourselves into putting non-profit organizations on an almighty moral pedestal where we claim they can do no wrong. While simultaneously demonizing organizations that try to make a profit out of giving people what they want/need.

[fozzieBoston]

I do not intend to imply that by being a for-profit company Cipla cannot do any good, nor do I argue the reverse. I do argue that Cipla, as a for-profit, has responsibility to its shareholders first and foremost, and has a goal of making money. It can, and as we saw does, much good in India, Brazil and other developing markets.

Nike's corporate responsibility over the past several years and its investment in new technologies and supplier monitoring is a great example of a for-profit company doing good.

[Retric]

For profit does not mean it needs to maximize profit. For example a steady income may be considered more important than maximizing income. As such a business may try and sell out an event instead of increasing prices closer to what the market will support.