Should James Murdoch Stay On The Glaxo Board?
8 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // July 18th, 2011 // 9:35 am
Media scandals enveloping governments are not the usual fare on this site, but there is an interesting aside to the Murdoch follies in the UK - James Murdoch, the 39-year-old son of the embattled Rupert Murdoch, is a member of the GlaxoSmithKline board. As you can see here, he is listed as a non-executive director, a role he has held since May 2009.
The Murdoch affair, of course, is all about bad behavior - charges that various employees in the Murdoch media empire in the UK hacked into phones belonging to families of murder victims, terror victims, police and politicians. Then there is the overlay of all-too-cozy relationships between the Murdoch regime and the highest reaches of the UK government, notably the prime minister.
What has any of this to do with Glaxo? Well, Rupert and James face increasingly harsh scrutiny. To wit, was there any adult supervision? Did the Murdochs knowingly condone hacking phones? And if they did not know, well, why not? All sorts of questions are on the table. And the scandal already runs deep and wide. But at its core, this raises a host of concerns about managerial skills, practices, philosophies and ethics at the top of the Murdoch empire, including James, who is chief operating officer of the News Corporation parent.
With this in mind, one wonders what James Murdoch can further add to the Glaxo board. After all, the pharma industry has its share of problems and Glaxo is no exception. The drugmaker paid a hefty $750 million fine to settle charges over production problems - contaminated meds, mislabeled packaging and incorrect dosages - at a facility in Puerto Rico and the feds say the investigation is ongoing (read more here and here). And a former Glaxo attorney was indicted for obstructing an FDA probe into off-label marketing, although charges against her were dismissed (look here).
The episodes underscore the need for board members who can offer useful guidance and not just about strategy, but also for conducting affairs in a way that enhances corporate standing and builds needed relationships with shareholders, government, partners and patients. Consider that Murdoch sits on two committees - remuneration and…drum roll, please…corporate responsibility (see here and here).
Of course, one may also argue that having a board member with experience in skullduggery has its benefits, but is that really a virtue? UPDATE: A Glaxo spokeswoman writes us to say that Murdoch has made a “strong contribution” to the board…and that “we believe that the full facts must be established and the ongoing investigations be allowed to take place and come to a considered conclusion.” What do you think?
Should Glaxo Ask James Murdoch To Resign From The Board?
- Yes (78%, 144 Votes)
- No (23%, 42 Votes)
Total Voters: 185
Loading ...
Fid
Should Andrew Witty remain on the UK government Business Advisory Council?
It’s all horses for courses Ed.
The minute our government intervene re GSK’s tainted history, they [GSK] will simply threaten to move their business to the far east.
Fid
Hey Hey GSK...
Values and transparency. Deidre, have you figured out yet why we all hate you? It looks like your new culture of values and transparency is just more B.S. You can talk the talk, but can you “walk the talk?” Just more lip service from GSK!
Jack Friday
http://yfrog.com/ke27ynuj
I’ve changed my phone PIN number!!
Pharma Giles
Murdoch Junior’s GSK board role is solely to ensure that GSK continues to get favourable publicity and lots of puff-pieces for its senior management in News International outlets.
I’ve been chuckling about that cosy little relationship for a while (see here and here)…
gyges
The question for me is … what was he doing on the board in the first place?
Being some newspaper magnate’s child shouldn’t qualify someone to become a board member of a Pharma company; or should it? Is that really how corrupt our system of corporate capitalism has become?
Maxadolf
Doesn’t feel or sound good! And why was Brooks allowed to testify at the recent Governmental Committee inquisition immediately after watching the Murdochs lie their way through the questioning. Damn it, she is under arrest and out on bail. In a situation like that witnesses/defendants are normally not allowed to communicate or benefit from other co-defendants’ input. Allowing her to testify simply allowed here to repeat the lies and selective amnesia displayed by the Murdochs.
Hey Hey GSK...
On our side of the pond, witnesses are questioned, and testify sequestered from each other. The tag team of Rupert and Jimmy with Reba listening just before she tells us sorry. It was like an episode of South Park! I hope DOJ and FBI do something and don’t lose anyone, due to them being on the take just like Scotland Yard was. This Is how News Corp does business! Let’s not forget the whistleblower died 3 days ago from very suspicious circumstance. I would hypothesize murder by poisoning. With Scotland Yard on the case, surprise “suicide” is what they are selling today. We’ll see if that’s their story and they’ll stick to it! With out a doubt this behavior is systemic inside News Corp, here in the USA. I hope DOJ keeps us posted!!!!!
Irish eyes
they have always showed us a better way to do business…wait till the farce of picking an RE provider becomes public…it will be another ethics violation!