葛兰素史克公司的管理体系还不清楚。公司的股东没有有效控制和葛兰素史克公司的投资操作,负责其床上政策的业务和小品牌声誉以及贿赂和中国药品市场不当行为的指控。这是因为中国政府声明说,公司的员工穿着不遵守行为准则(Twomey和詹宁斯,2010)。他们还使用虚假发票在未指明的违反税法和公司没有透露具体细节葛兰素史克公司高管的数量,是相对参与国家安全部门的腐败。中国政府针对外国公司在多个领域包括所谓如价格、质量控制和消费者权利。之后,它专注于跨国品牌在国家来定义他们的声誉,然后建立葛兰素史克情况最引人注目。在初步调查,中国的法律体系表示,葛兰素史克公司高管将被正式起诉因涉嫌受贿和侵犯商业秘密。另一方面,葛兰素史克公司表示,它愿意配合当局在这个调查(伯克和库珀,2009)。
葛兰素史克公司的管理系统很穷和无效的药物产品。股东没有控制葛兰素史克公司的业务和生产活动。他们不了解企业文化,也有批评的医药产品的消费者和股东。而且,GSK公司结构不佳,无法维持其业务和其他伦理问题,公司还创建了有效的不端行为(Leipziger,2010)。葛兰素史克也缺乏企业社会责任,因为它最大的员工只关注产品制造和推广高和忽视了安全和健康问题。而且,葛兰素史克公司的管理层没有有效地指导商业行为和遵循所有业务的规章制度。所以,员工没有严重的公司的行为准则(伯克和库珀,2009)。葛兰素史克是发展业务的集中系统的过程,这不是有效的跨国公司。这是因为集中业务流程创建几种壁垒等大型企业控制能力差,无效的沟通和业务活动的漫长的过程。这些障碍也在组织产生不良行为准则。而且,集中式系统还创建了可怜的监控所有人力资源的业务。这是因为集中系统效果低于分散的系统。所有业务活动不由总部控制,这有助于维护所有道德和企业问题(Twomey,詹宁斯,2013)。
GSK’s management system was not clear. The company’s shareholder did not effectively controlled and invested the GSK’s operation, which is responsible for its bed policies of the business and small reputation of the brand as well as bribery and misconduct allegations in the China’s drug market. It is because China’s government statement said that the company’s employees wore not follow the code of conduct (Twomey and Jennings, 2010). They also used fake receipts in unspecified tax law violations and company did not give details on the number of GSK executives, which were relatively involved in the corruption to the country’s security ministry. China government has targeted foreign firms on multiple fronts including alleged such as price-fixing, quality controls and consumer rights. Then after, it focused on multinational brand to define their reputation in country, and then it founded that GSK case had the highest profile. In the preliminary investigations, China’s legal system said that GSK executives will be formally charged for taking bribes and stealing commercial secrets. On the other hand, GSK said that it is willing to cooperate with the authorities in this inquiry (Burke and Cooper, 2009).GSK’s management system was poor and ineffective for the drug products. Shareholder were not controlling the GSK’s business and manufacturing activities. They did not understand the corporate culture and also have criticism from both the consumers and shareholders of the pharmaceutical products. Along with this, GSK has poor corporate structure, which could not maintain its business and other ethical issues that also created effectively misconduct in the company (Leipziger, 2010). GSK has also lack of corporate social responsibilities, because its maximum employees only focus on the high product manufacturing and promotion and ignored the safety and health issues. Along with this, GSK’s management did not effectively guide to business conduct and to follow all the rules and regulations of the business. So, the employees were not serious in the company’s code of conduct (Burke and Cooper, 2009). GSK was developing its business in the centralized system process, which is not effective in this multinational corporation. It is because centralization of business process creates several kinds of barriers in the large businesses such as poor controlling power, ineffective communication and long process of the business activities. These barriers also generate poor code of conduct in the organization. Along with this, the centralized system also creates poor monitoring of all human resource in the business. It is because centralization of system is less effective than decentralization of system. All business activities do not controlled by the head office, which is helpful to maintain all ethical and corporate issues (Twomey, and Jennings, 2013).
