London ( CNN ) -- Whether or not the British parliament decides to subject the proposed takeover of UK-based AstraZeneca by American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer to a public interest test , it 's clear we have already seen much more political intervention than is typically involved in an acquisition of one company by another . The chief executives of both companies are being hauled in front of not one , but two parliamentary committees this week to give evidence about the possible implications of a deal , when an offer has n't even been accepted yet . Pfizer 's pursuit of AstraZeneca has stirred up a wealth of protectionist feeling in Britain , despite the fact the company was originally created from a merger with Sweden 's Astra and has the bulk of its employees outside of the UK . The reaction to Pfizer 's bid raises the question of what nationality really means for modern multinationals . Over 50 % of shares on the UK stock market are owned by investors from the rest of the world and many of the companies have employees and customers on several continents . They make their investment decisions based on a range of commercial and reputational factors , with nationalism way down the list . When companies choose to locate their operations in the UK , they do so because it is an attractive place to do business . The UK accounts for 10 % of world 's pharmaceutical research and development spending and AstraZeneca says it supports more than 33,000 jobs . Companies have chosen to conduct their R & D here in part because of the strength of Britain 's universities and a positive tax system , including the `` patent box '' which incentivizes businesses to invest in research . Government has a significant role to play in promoting life sciences , and creating a stable tax and regulatory regime , but ultimately it will always be up to companies to make those investment decisions . Many have argued that the government should be doing all it can to protect these R & D jobs , but that displays a degree of wishful thinking about the state 's ability to pick winners . British politicians have a poor record in this area , as shown notably with British Leyland in the 1970s and 80s . Some have argued that , while not intervening in the running of companies , the government should require firmer commitments to retain research facilities and employees . The memory of the Kraft takeover over Cadbury , which saw significant lay-offs soon after the takeover , is fresh in the memory . The Shadow Secretary of State for Business , Chuka Umunna , is right to argue that there are no assurances that a company could give that they would be able to preserve jobs forever after a takeover , but it does n't follow that we should demand ever more promises . The merged company , large as it would be , would still be subject to commercial pressures , and forced to adapt as necessary to an ever-changing world . The very impossibility of cast-iron guarantees should convince us that politician intervention is at best futile , and at worst risks undermining the UK as a destination for investment . This may have been an unusually large reaction , but foreign companies looking at Britain may be entitled to think that being the subject of a parliamentary debate and receiving a grilling from two select committees are not the hallmarks of an economy which allows firms to conduct their lawful business as they think best . None of this , of course , is an argument in favor of the takeover . There may even be good reasons to think that the tax benefits for Pfizer give the whole thing a fishy smell . But the people to decide this are the board and the shareholders . This is n't about making a quick buck from the sale . Under the UK Corporate Governance Code , the company 's directors are explicitly required to deliver success over the long-term . The board of AstraZeneca must consider a range of stakeholders , including employees and the scientific community . If it continues to feel that it has a stronger future as an independent company , as it did when it rejected the recent bid , then the board should continue to advise shareholders to ignore Pfizer 's advances . Ultimately , the decision is in the hands of shareholders . They must consider carefully whether even an increased offer should make them sell up -- after all , any deal would involve part payment in shares of the combined company , not something you want to hold if you think it 's a bad deal . READ MORE : Pfizer seeks to save AstraZeneca bid . READ MORE : Wall Street 's addiction to healthcare mergers . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the Roger Barker .
Institute of Director 's Roger Barker says the Pfizer bid for Astrazeneca has prompted significant political intervention . He said Pfizer 's pursuit of Astrazeneca has stirred up a wealth of protectionism , even if it 's a global company . BARKER: