GlaxoSmithKline is working with Save the Children to cut infant mortality – but how far are the motives behind the initiative more than just philanthropy?
It looks like a perfect partnership. One of the world’s best-known charities, Save the Children, has teamed up with pharmaceuticals giant GlaxoSmithKline. They will jointly apply their considerable weight to tackling the tragedy of infant mortality in poor countries.
The overall aim is to prevent a million child deaths in Africa, Asia and Latin America, starting with pilot programmes in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Kenya. Save the Children will provide the network and on-the-ground experience. GSK will provide products that will be trialled in difficult conditions, such as in very hot regions that lack refrigeration.
Save the Children says the initiative is about solving basic problems through the application of tried and tested medicines, specifically an antiseptic that can be used to clean new-borns and prevent infection, and an antibiotic that acts against pneumonia. The project is “looking at the hardest-to-reach children”, says a spokesman. “It’s not about testing [new products]. It’s about existing products and how they can be reformulated for difficult environments.”
In its statement on the announcement of the partnership, Save the Children points out that “almost seven million children died in 2011 through lack of access to basic healthcare, vaccines or nutritious food.” Over its five-year duration, the partnership with GSK aims to reduce the terrible toll.
But the partnership, though its aims are laudable, has also brought to the fore concerns that Save the Children is cosying up to GSK just a little too much. In August 2012, only a few months ahead of the announcement of the scheme, Save the Children recruited a new chief operating officer, Rachel Parr. She brought to the charity considerable corporate experience, most recently as finance vice-president of GSK, where she worked for more than 20 years.
Of course, GSK could certainly use a good news story. In 2012, it settled a US healthcare fraud case with a $3bn payment – the largest in US history – and in April 2013 the UK Office of Fair Trading accused it of making underhand payments to delay the production of generic versions of a branded antidepressant.
Huge gains
The Save the Children spokesman says that to focus on this would be to miss the point. GSK’s misbehaviour “was left over from a long time ago. Now there is a huge gain that can be made for children, and that is the priority.”
John Hilary, executive director of War on Want, says GSK stands to benefit by making inroads into developing countries where markets could be established, but for Save the Children the long-term benefits are less evident. For companies, “these types of initiatives are important loss-leaders,” and “part of a major long-term strategy for growth,”, he says.
A GSK spokesperson says the company wanted to cooperate with Save the Children because there was “a realisation of what we can do and achieve together”. GSK adds: “The size and scale of this partnership show that it is much, much more than a PR stunt.”
For War on Want, the application of pharmaceutical products as a solution to health problems in poor countries should not obscure the need to tackle underlying problems, chiefly poverty. “We are sceptical at the prospect of these partnerships being good news for communities in the long run,” Hilary says. “From our point of view, it is not a good model for delivery of long-term structural change.”