private company
Purdue Pharma
Industry Health
A privately controlled opioid manufacturer whose OxyContin conduct led to federal criminal guilty pleas and mass addiction-related harm. Purdue Pharma scores low because of documented human harm, person-dependent governance, and toxic or materially harmful products, with poor loss-bearing fidelity and extractive economics reinforcing the negative evaluation.
Why this matters: Severe human harm can overwhelm every other score component.
Letter grade F Malignant High confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1
Final Score
-25* F - Malignant
F* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.
Represent this organization?
Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.
Evaluation Overview
F - Malignant
The score turns mainly on Ownership, with the largest penalty coming from Human Harm.
Strengths
- Ownership2/10
- Labor Sovereignty2/7
- Governance1/10
Penalties
- Human Harm-20
- Reversibility-5
- Toxic Products-5
- Accountability Opacity-2
Evidence state
- ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)
- ThoroughnessPartial (AI)
- Linked claims13
- Direct axis claims13
- Coverage12/14
Scoring Axes
| Axis | Score | Why this score |
|---|---|---|
Ownership
?
Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control
at 10.
|
2 / 10 |
The Department of Justice maintains a public criminal-victim case page for United States v. Linked evidence
|
Governance
?
Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic
stakeholder control at 10.
|
1 / 10 |
The Department of Justice maintains a public criminal-victim case page for United States v. Linked evidence
|
Extraction
?
Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured
extraction judgment.
|
1 / 10 |
The Department of Justice maintains a public criminal-victim case page for United States v. Linked evidence
|
Labor Sovereignty
?
Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at
7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence
shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling,
retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of
worker voice, or extreme turnover.
|
2 / 7 |
The Department of Justice maintains a public criminal-victim case page for United States v. Linked evidence
|
Solidarity with the
Unemployed
?
Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment,
and non-competes.
|
1 / 7 |
The Department of Justice maintains a public criminal-victim case page for United States v. Linked evidence
|
Loss-Bearing Fidelity
?
Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and
public obligations.
|
0 / 7 |
The Department of Justice maintains a public criminal-victim case page for United States v. |
Market Conduct
?
Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.
|
1 / 5 |
The Department of Justice maintains a public criminal-victim case page for United States v. Linked evidence
|
Product Integrity
?
Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.
|
1 / 5 |
The Department of Justice maintains a public criminal-victim case page for United States v. Linked evidence
|
Scale Integrity
?
Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.
|
0 / 5 |
The Department of Justice maintains a public criminal-victim case page for United States v. |
Penalties
| Penalty | Applied | Why this penalty |
|---|---|---|
Reversibility
?
Applied when positive conduct depends on current living leaders,
founders, family owners, or other person-contingent governance rather
than durable structure. Range: -5 to 0.
|
-5 |
Purdue Pharma's favorable conduct depends partly on current leaders, founders, family owners, executive discretion, or other person-contingent control rather than a fully locked democratic stakeholder-control structure. Linked evidence
|
Human Harm
?
Severity, scale, culpability, vulnerable targets, willful reoffense,
reputation laundering, pattern escalation, and time decay. Range: -20 to
0.
|
-20 |
Purdue Pharma pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges as part of DOJ's opioid-related resolution. Linked evidence
|
Toxic Products
?
Current sale of products whose ordinary use, exposure, ingredients,
residues, packaging, or formulation creates toxic, addictive, or
consumer-safety risk. Food products receive at least light scrutiny for
artificial colors, artificial flavors, petro-derived additives,
pesticide residues, contaminants, endocrine-disrupting packaging, and
ultra-processed formulation. Ordinary adult nightlife or alcohol service
is not penalized by itself without evidence of predatory marketing,
youth targeting, addiction-extractive design, or unusual product-safety
misconduct. Range: -5 to 0.
|
-5 |
Purdue Pharma currently lists prescription opioid products including OxyContin, Butrans, and Hysingla ER; the listed opioid warnings include addiction, misuse, overdose, and death risks,… Linked evidence
|
Accountability Opacity
?
Material opacity, reputation laundering, or hidden accountability
structures that prevent public accountability. Range: -2 to 0.
|
-2 |
The Department of Justice maintains a public criminal-victim case page for United States v. Linked evidence
|
Ideological Disavowal
?
Concealed ideology presented as neutrality, expertise, professional
necessity, public-service administration, market inevitability, or
non-ideological common sense while exercising power. Range: -3 to 0.
|
-2 |
Purdue Pharma's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Purdue Pharma exercises meaningful institutional or cultural power while strongly presenting contested… Linked evidence
|
Bonus Credits
No bonus credits applied in this version.
Confidence Basis
Confidence Basis
Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.
High 83/100
13 verified linked claims 13 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 12/14 components covered
This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.
Claim confidence 18/20
13 verified linked claims
Source quality 18/18
Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability
Direct axis-specific claims 9/18
13 direct claims across 14 active components
Dispute load 12/12
0 disputed claims on this entity
Recency 10/10
Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026
Reviewer status 7/12
Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding
Component coverage 9/10
12/14 evidence-bearing components have direct support
Evidence State
Evidence State
Profile stateAI draft / human-pending
VerificationUnverified
ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessPartial (AI)
Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for
factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation
mistakes.
Company responseCompany representatives can
submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or
reviewer authority.
Claims and Sources
Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.
* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.1The Department of Justice maintains a public criminal-victim case page for United States v. Purdue Pharma L.P.
- DOJ United States v. Purdue Pharma L.P.Primary public record · 100%
2Purdue Pharma pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges as part of DOJ's opioid-related resolution.
- DOJ Purdue Pharma global resolutionPrimary public record · 100%
3The DOJ Purdue case record concerns a privately controlled pharmaceutical company, so affected patients, families, workers, and communities had no ownership power over the business model that generated opioid harms.
- DOJ United States v. Purdue Pharma L.P.Primary public record · 100%
4Purdue's criminal and civil opioid resolutions show governance failure at the institutional level: public enforcement arrived only after severe harm, not through internal stakeholder control able to stop the conduct.
- DOJ Purdue Pharma global resolutionPrimary public record · 100%
5The DOJ opioid resolution is extraction evidence because Purdue's charged conduct tied revenue-seeking pharmaceutical distribution and marketing to addiction and public-health costs borne by patients and communities.
- DOJ Purdue Pharma global resolutionPrimary public record · 100%
6The reviewed Purdue record identifies no worker ownership or labor-governance mechanism capable of overriding management's opioid business strategy or serving as a counterweight to executive control.
- DOJ United States v. Purdue Pharma L.P.Primary public record · 100%
7The DOJ criminal-victim case record documents Purdue opioid conduct that harmed patients and families outside the company rather than protecting people with the least bargaining power.
- DOJ United States v. Purdue Pharma L.P.Primary public record · 100%
8Purdue's opioid criminal and civil resolution documents pharmaceutical market conduct serious enough to trigger federal criminal charges and civil settlements.
- DOJ Purdue Pharma global resolutionPrimary public record · 100%
9Purdue's listed opioid products and FDA opioid warnings tie the core product category to addiction, misuse, overdose, and death risks despite legitimate medical use cases.
- Purdue Pharma productsGeneral web source · 58%
- FDA opioid medicationsPrimary public record · 100%
10Purdue Pharma's favorable conduct depends partly on current leaders, founders, family owners, executive discretion, or other person-contingent control rather than a fully locked democratic stakeholder-control structure.
- DOJ United States v. Purdue Pharma L.P.Primary public record · 100%
11The Justice Department opioid resolution described Purdue Pharma criminal and civil investigations tied to opioid marketing and distribution conduct, placing Purdue at the severe-harm end of the human-harm scale.
- Justice Department Purdue opioid resolutionPrimary public record · 100%
12Purdue Pharma currently lists prescription opioid products including OxyContin, Butrans, and Hysingla ER; the listed opioid warnings include addiction, misuse, overdose, and death risks, describes conduct considered under Toxic Products the Toxic Products axis.
- Purdue Pharma productsGeneral web source · 58%
- FDA opioid medicationsPrimary public record · 100%
13Purdue Pharma's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Purdue Pharma exercises meaningful institutional or cultural power while strongly presenting contested choices as neutral expertise, safety, objectivity, professionalism, administrative necessity, or public service.
- Purdue Pharma official sitePrimary public record · 100%
- DOJ Purdue Pharma global resolutionPrimary public record · 100%
- Purdue Pharma productsGeneral web source · 58%
Help Improve This Profile
Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.
How This Page Is Maintained
Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.
Civic Note
Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.
Submit evidence for Purdue Pharma Add one source-backed fact for review.
Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.
Audit Log
Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.
Added tentative AI-generated Toxic Products penalty -5 and directory value for current toxic, addictive, pesticide, livestock, chemical, or consumer-safety product exposure.