Tag Archives: CEO

Create Purpose-Driven-Brands To Win Marketing Warfare In The New Reality

Posted on by
Reply

As we navigate through the Covid days, the hope of somehow getting back to the pre-pandemic normal still lingers – notwithstanding a host of uncertainties in its way. The longing is driven by the hype of availability of scientifically proven, safe and effective drugs and vaccines – unrealistically soon, despite top experts still keeping their fingers crossed. Some are even more forthright in their expression, as reflected in a September 30, 2020 report. It flashed a headline - “There is no getting ‘back to normal. The sooner we accept that, the better.”

Alongside, COVID-19 crisis has also triggered some disruptive changes in the business processes around the world. Amid this global health crisis, interestingly, several global pharma CEOs are sensing a number of game-changing opportunities – having business implications, even much beyond the pandemic.

One such example, as Bloomberg reported on September 29, 2020, the CEO of GlaxoSmithKline Plc feels: The Covid Pandemic is ‘a Shot at Redemption in Pharma Industry.’ Elaborating the point, she said: ‘the sector’s push to find vaccines and drugs to end the crisis, if successful, could change the perception of pharmaceutical companies in the future.’ Coincidentally, the researchers from The Harris Poll found:

  • As of May, 40 percent of the American public said pharma’s reputation had improved since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak
  • And 81percent recalled seeing or hearing something about the industry during that time.
  • This is a continuation of the former trend that The Harris Poll first noted on March 2020.

There shouldn’t much doubt, either, that similar general impression on the pharma industry, with a varying degree, may now be felt in most countries, across the globe.

Curiously, flowing from this ‘redemption of pharma reputation’ angle – with new drugs and vaccines, the scope for leveraging another opportunity is also surfacing. This is from pharma ‘branding’ perspective and pertains to creating ‘purpose-driven brands’ for success in the new reality – during the pandemic and much beyond. In this article, I shall focus on the second area, and would start with its relevance to increasingly more informed health care consumers of date.

‘Purpose driven brands’ – attained greater relevance in Covid time:

The concept of creating ‘purpose driven brands,’ is profound – it goes much beyond product features, benefits and intrinsic values. It is motivated by – why the brands exist not just for providing a solution to manage or cure a disease, but also to meet a crucial need in society.

Studies have unfolded, with better stakeholder connection – and greater share of their mind, ‘purpose driven brands’ help improve brand loyalty, resulting into increased revenue and profit. We will see below, why in Covid time, this trend has started gathering wind on its sail, and deserves to find its place at the very core of any pharma branding strategy.

The consulting arm of The Beautiful Truth, also echoed the same sentiment in the article – ‘How Pharma Can Navigate Change With Purpose.’ It reconfirmed, at times of external crisis, like the global pandemic, creation of ‘purpose-driven brands’ is vital. Not just ‘for saving and maintaining business, but also for boosting internal team morale, and reconciling public trust.’

The pandemic has redefined the core purpose of a brand:

Another recent article –‘Through COVID-19, Leading Brands Have Found Their Purpose,’ published in CMO by Adobe, among many others, vindicated this point. Acknowledging that the COVID-19 pandemic has redefined the meaning of brand purpose, the paper explained the reason for the same.

In pre-Covid days, many organizations used to build brands following traditional norms – curing or effectively managing a disease is the purpose of a brand. But, since last few years, a growing number of new generation health care customers expect a brand’s ‘purpose’ to expand beyond the product and the company. It has to be inclusive in nature – benefiting the macro-environment, including governments, health care professionals, and the public. With this expectation gathering momentum during Covid time, pharma players would also need to redefine the core ‘purpose’ of a brand. Incidentally, many pharma CEOs also believe, if this trend continues, the image of the industry would probably undergo a metamorphosis.

Surveys vindicate the rationale for redefinition:

Several top consulting organizations have published excellent articles covering a number of critical points in this area. One such paper - ‘Purpose is everything,’ was published in Deloitte Insights, on October 15, 2019. It wrote on how brands that authentically lead with ‘purpose’ are changing the nature of business today.

The rationale for redefinition of brand purpose, also gets reflected in a contemporary Deloitte survey, as quoted in the above article. It revealed the following top three issues that stakeholders identify with, while making decisions about brands: 

Top Issues

% of respondents
How the company treats its own people/employees

28
How the company treats the environment

20
How the company supports the community in which it operates

19

Aligning purpose to create deeper connections with stakeholders:

Especially at the Covid time, if companies try to align their purpose in doing good – for the society, they can build deeper connections with their stakeholders. And, in turn, amplify the company’s relevance in their stakeholders’ lives. From this perspective, it’s good to note in the above Bloomberg article, that one of the top pharma CEOs articulating the same in public. I reckon, increasingly, pharma businesses would endeavor harnessing the power and opportunity of aligning the ‘core purpose of brands’ with societal good, as came out in the above Deloitte article.

Mostly millennial generation favor ‘purpose-driven’ brands:

The initiation of this trend dates back to pre-Covid time with wider usage of internet. However, with the increasing democratization of health care - social media based instant information sharing, the ability to communicate with others as needed, have increased manifold. Consequently, stakeholders, particularly, the millennial generation with a different mindset, aspirations and expectations are expecting pharma players to act more on the pressing societal issues. This makes them lean towards a purpose driven brands and companies. The unprecedented Covid health crisis is acting as a force multiplier in this area.

Another study – ‘Why Customers Are Supporting ‘Purpose-Driven’ Brands,’ published in Link fluence epitomized this evolving customer preference succinctly. It reiterated, ‘It’s no longer enough for brands to deliver great products and experiences. Instead, consumers are demanding for brands to be more proactive and conscious in delivering value to society as a whole.’

‘Purpose-driven brands’ – the latest ‘marketing buzzword’?

This question was conclusively answered about two years ago -  from the 2018 Cone/Porter Novelli Purpose Study. Although, this survey was conducted in the United States, it has a global relevance amid Covid pandemic. Some of the key findings include: 

  • 78 percent believe companies must do more than just make money; they must positively impact society as well.
  • 77 percent feel a stronger emotional connection to Purpose-driven companies over traditional companies.
  • 66 percent would switch from a product they typically buy, for a new product from a purpose-driven company.
  • 68 percent is more willing to share content with their social networks over that of traditional companies. 

Examples of ‘purpose-driven’ pharma brands/companies:

Let me give just two examples each – from pre-Covid and Covid times. The article – ‘Mission-Drive Pharma Brands,’ published by Wonder on January 15, 2018, cited several examples of ‘purpose-driven’ pharma brands. This was based on a research of individual drug campaigns for top-selling drugs around that time. These include promotional campaigns on:

  • Humira: Highlighted the participation in a community food drive, and volunteering in a playground construction project.
  • Lyrica: Highlighted the engagement in a multi-generational interaction and helping others.

Encouragingly, while combating COVID-19, several pharma companies have also displayed a sense of ‘purpose’ to save the humanity from the pandemic, mainly through collaborative approaches. Let me quote below two such examples:

  • On April 14, 2020 GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi announced a very unusual collaboration to develop a COVID-19 vaccine, expeditiously. This was done for a greater purpose, responding to the critical need of the society – saving millions of lives.
  • Roche called on and campaigned for the governments for focusing on testing and prevention, to maintain adequate medical supplies for health care professionals  around the world. It also urged the health authorities to work closely with the life sciences industry to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic through international collaboration to tackle Covid-19 pandemic.

Conclusion:

Meanwhile, as on October 04, 2020 morning, India recorded a staggering figure of 6,549,373 of Coronavirus cases with 101,812 deaths. Still there is no respite from Covid-19’s unprecedented onslaught on the country. Be that as it may,  coming back to the creation of ‘purpose-driven brands’ in the Covid time, let me quote again from the above CMO by Adobe article, where it underscored:“Never before have brands been asked to show their true purpose and leadership as they are today. It’s inspiring to see companies across industries and throughout the world come together to address some of the most pressing needs brought about by this crisis.”

As Accenture had articulated: ‘In an era of radical visibility, technology and media have given individuals the power to stand up for their opinions and beliefs on a grand scale.’ Keeping this in view, with gradually changing stakeholder mindset and expectations, the ‘purpose of a brand’ deserves to be a critical centerpiece in the pharma ‘branding’ process. Various studies have established – since pre-Covid time, and more during this pandemic – brands, reflecting a robust sense of ‘purpose’ on societal values, people and the environment, connect better with customers.

Consequently, as the stakeholders find these companies walk the talk, they develop a strong and sustainable brand preference, and reward the manufacturers commensurately, both directly and also through word of mouth. Alternatively, if the stated ‘brand purpose’ is not genuine – which customers can quickly find out through digital transparency, they shift their preferences to the deserving ones. Going by this growing trend, I reckon, creating ‘Purpose-Driven-Brands’ assumes a critical importance to win marketing warfare, in the new reality.

By: Tapan J. Ray    

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

 

While Pharma Leadership Change This Atypical Skill Counts

Posted on by
Reply

Effective September 01, 2019, the global pharma major Sanofi will have a new CEO, as the present CEO retires attaining his retirement age of 65 years. This appears to be a mandatory announcement from the company, as is required during the top leadership change in any large and listed organization.

However, there is something novel, as well, in this announcement, especially when specific qualities, skills and experience of the new CEO were highlighted by the company’s Board of Directors. According to Sanofi Press Release, the new CEO – Paul Hudson “has proven his strategic vision, his strong leadership and his ability to achieve the greatest challenges, particularly in terms of innovation and digital transformation.”

Among the stated experience and skills, the one that appeared atypical to me, is the experience of digital transformation, particularly in the position of the CEO of a global pharma major. I In this article, I shall, therefore, explore, why knowledge and experience in this atypical skill is gradually becoming critically important for pharma leadership positions, at all levels.

Why is the need for digital transformation of pharma business?

According to the Internet Trends Report 2019 by Mary Meeker, at 3.8 billion internet users, more than half the world’s population is now online and it is growing. This number would obviously include patients.

As we know, the core purpose of pharma business is to offer a unique patient experience during any disease treatment process. And, the expectations of which from Internet-savvy individuals will be significantly more for various related reasons.

To achieve this objective, drug players would always require to be in sync with customers’ perceptions, expectations and aspirations, among others. Moreover, it’s also not ‘one size fits all’ type of a solution. These will significantly vary for different patient groups, so are the processes of engagement with them – based virtually on real-time information.

Interestingly, the core purpose of digital transformation is also to facilitate this process, with a great amount of precision. The entire process of creating a unique patient experience, involves generation of a massive amount of customized data, customize analysis of which is done through sophisticated analytics, and thereafter, translating and using them as key strategic business inputs, on an ongoing basis. Traditional organizational methods, systems and processes are incapable to deliver the same. Hence arises the crucial need of digital transformation of the organization, across the board.

The transformation is not just about software, hardware and data: 

That said, it is also essential to realize that digital transformation is not just about software, high-tech hardware, mobile apps and sophisticated wearables and data. These are, of course, some of the vital tools – used while transforming a company into battle readiness to create and provide a unique customer experience.

Such unique experience for each customer should cover all touchpoints, spanning across – before, during and after treatment with the company’s medication. This, in turn, helps generate an increasing number of prescriptions from doctors, which otherwise would not have been possible, following the conventional means.

Why this atypical skill is in demand today?

Like any other transformation process within an organization, digital transformation should necessarily be driven by the company CEO, having adequate experience in this area. Even the Board of Directors of many pharma players believes that such a CEO can facilitate the process faster and more effectively. Hence, the demand for this atypical skill is increasing, also for a pharma CEO position, besides leaders in various functional areas, as it is being considered as pivotal to achieve the core purpose of a pharma business, in the digital world.

Thus, if a CEO doesn’t properly understand, how the digital world operates with increasing number of visitors in the cyberspace and convinced about its relevance for business excellence, the organization would ultimately lose its competitive edge. One may, therefore, question, did the need for this atypical skill also arise during the selection of the new CEO of Sanofi?

Is this atypical skill for a new CEO more important now?

The answer, I reckon, could be both, ‘probably yes’ and also ‘no’.

‘Probably yes’, mostly because, being an uncommon skill for a pharma CEO, so far, it arrested the attention of many while reading ‘Sanofi Press Release’, for the appointment of their new CEO. Nevertheless, Sanofi is not the first pharma company placing so much of importance on digital transformation, especially for the key leadership positions. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) of February 18, 2018, the CEO of Novartis said: “We need to become a focused medicines company that’s powered by data science and digital technologies.”

Why it is so important for a pharma CEO?

The AT Kearney paper titled, “New Medicine for a New World – Time for Pharma to Dive into Digital,” also captured that an increasing number of pharma customers are now getting engaged and have started interacting in the digital space, more than ever before. This trend is fast going north – becoming an ‘in-thing’ of the industry, as it were. But more probably to be seen as trendy or display that they are also in it, by ‘dipping a toe in the digital waters.’ Whereas, ‘it’s time to take the plunge,’ as the paper cautions them.

‘Plunging into the digital water,’ doesn’t mean sending people to some external training program – with the word ‘digital’ prominently featuring as the course objective. It means bringing out ‘digital transformation’ of the entire organization, spearheaded by the CEO. The leadership of each functional area would then implement from the same playbook, with a structured and custom-made plan designed specifically to achieve the vision, mission, goals and values of the company.

We have recent examples of, at least, two top global pharma majors taking a plunge in the digital water to make the digital transformation of the organization a reality. The key purpose of the same, is to create a unique customer experience, being on the same page with them, in more effective ways, for business excellence. To move in this direction, the organization must imbibe the non-negotiable principle – ‘digital first,’ across the organization.

Only the CEO can decide ‘digital first’ as guiding organizational principle:

None other than the CEO of a drug company, can decide that ‘digital first’ will be the guiding principle of the company, across all the functional areas of the business. As the above paper articulates, it ‘should be explicitly incorporated into core business processes.’ It further says: ‘Top management must challenge any parts of the business that have not explicitly considered the opportunities from digital in their plans.’

Functional leaders to be in sync with digital transformation: 

All in the pharma organization, across all functions, must work for the end consumer of any pharma business – the patients. Every single employee in the company should strive delighting them with the company’s products and services, at every touchpoints, during their quest for relief from illnesses. As I said before, this is the single most important factor that determines not just the pace of growth of a drug company, but help enhance its reputation, too. It goes without saying, its ultimately the patients who are playing a catalytic role in the digital transformation of an organization.

It is essential for the CEO to make sure that entire corporate, functional and even departmental leadership teams are in tune with the need of digital transformation of the organization. Despite the detail explanation, if some remain unconvinced about the rationale behind the transformation of the core business process, the right leader should assume the responsibility.

This is because, even with one loose knot at the leadership level in this area, the entire objective can seriously get thwarted – down the line. Such changes, as, if and when required, can be achieved in various different ways, not through attrition alone. For example, by encouraging them to work with members of his peer group who can set good examples to emulate.

Brand promotion to physicians will still remain as important:

In tandem, no company should lose sight of the fact that their face-to-face interaction with physicians, will continue to play an important role in brand promotion. Primarily because, doctors and hospitals help patients to get desired solace from ill-health by prescribing recommended medicines, and consequently, will keep prevailing as an integral part of the pharma marketing process, supported directly or indirectly by every employee in the company.

The key challenge in digital transformation:

The key challenge in the digital transformation of a pharma company is broadly possible inflexible or a rigid mindset of some of its leaders. This is generally fueled by the fear of moving out of their respective comfort zones – rather than resources and expertise required to make the technology put to use. A well-running-business with a grand idea for the future, will generally be able to garner necessary resources and other wherewithal, without much problem.

All pharma leaders should always consider themselves as an important solution for the future success of the organization, Otherwise, he or she may be construed as a part of the problem and a hindrance in achieving the corporate goal and should make way for the capable ones, in this area. Hence, selecting leaders with the right spirit to make digital transformation effective, is so critical for the CEO.

To commence this journey, the leaders may either be willing to acquire the experience of a disruptive digital transformation, guided by the domain experts or may be recruited from outside having the necessary experience. Collective and well-coordinated steps towards this transformation can neither be tentative, nor should it commence without having the right leader at the right place with required will and experience.

Digital players entering into health space with game changing ideas:

Pharma players should also note, how the big technology companies, such as, Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon, besides many startups, are trying to create space for themselves in the health care arena. Several of them are also trying to reinvent health care with zest, much beyond what traditional drug companies could even envisage, till recently.

The digital transformation of the organization would help drug players to align the company’s business model with the tech companies in those specific areas to reap a rich harvest. More opportunities will also unfold – either to collaborate with them for targeted projects or moving into the tech space with well-calibrated measures, for business synergy. Without digital transformation of business, either facing such competition or benefitting from the available opportunities, will be challenging for drug companies.

Conclusion:

In the digital world, while patients are emerging as a key driver of change in the health care space, traditional pharma operational systems, including sales and marketing are likely to give a diminishing return on investment. Although, many drug companies can sense this ongoing metamorphosis, several of them are still wondering how to go about it. Moreover, to test the ‘digital water’, some of them have started converting several traditional operational methods, systems and processes in the digital format, as well. Yet, are unable to fathom, why such efforts are not clicking – leading to a quantum increase in the operational efficiency – in pursuit of excellence.

The good news is, global pharma organizations, such as, Sanofi and Novartis, besides several others, have realized that incremental performance improvements with small tweaking here or there, across the organization, aren’t just enough. The corporation needs to move towards a holistic digital transformation, spearheaded by its CEO, having experience in this process. This new breed of pharma CEOs, well-supported by his team of leaders, fostering a burning desire to produce pace setting results, can usher in this ‘disruptive’ transformation. Because, they realize, traditional pharma operational systems, when tempered through the fire of the digital transformation process, can yield game changing outcomes for the organization.  The entire process, as it comes to fruition, helps delivering greater customer value, creating a unique customer experience – similar to what customers want – on an ongoing basis.

In fine, strategic intervention of this genre, initiated by the CEO and cascading down the organizational hierarchy, creates a whole new patient-centric outcome, which is much more than what a company can get through re-engineering the operational processes. Hence, especially the young mangers of date, may wish to note note that during virtually every leadership transition, this atypical skill is now likely count much more than ever before – with an ascending trend.

By: Tapan J. Ray  

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Why Many Successful CEOs Don’t Want to Retire – in Pharma Too?

Posted on by
Reply

“On Eve of Retirement, Jack Welch Decides to Stick Around GE a Bit,” reported the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on October 23, 2000. Nevertheless, even the legendary Jack Welsh was made no exception to GE’s mandatory retirement policy for the CEO at 65. After holding the position of Chairman and CEO of GE for 20 years – with stellar performances, Welsh had to retire on September 07, 2001, as he attained that age.

This happened almost immediately after the US$ 45 billion merger with Honeywell. Welsh spearheaded this initiative, intending to create one of the world’s largest industrial companies, with manufacturing operations in plastics, chemicals and aerospace products, at that time. It’s a different matter altogether that later on, the report onThe Anatomy of the GE-Honeywell Disaster narrated a different reality on the consequences of this acquisition.

The key point to ponder – why many successful CEOs don’t want to easily retire, passing on the baton to a younger generation, unless directly or indirectly compelled by the investors or the regulators. In this article, I shall try to explore this point.

Many older CEOs not eager to head into retirement:

While discussing a similar point, an article titled: “For older CEOs, the issue is knowing when to bow out,” published in the USA Today on April 19, 2016, made some interesting observations. It said: “Just as older employees stay in jobs out of desire or necessity, some of those occupying the C-suite aren’t eager to head into retirement.”

According to a survey done by Korn Ferry among Fortune 500 CEOs, over the past decade:

  • The number of CEOs with age between 65 and 60 years, nearly doubled to 36.
  • Those with age between 70 and 74 increased from 9 to 13.

Korn Ferry also found in another survey that CEOs are the oldest and longest-tenured individuals compared with other prominent C-suite roles. Some of the oldest and famous global CEO names would include, Warren Buffett – 85 years of Berkshire Hathaway and Rupert Murdoch – also aged 85 years and is the Executive Chairman of News Corp. and Twenty-First Century Fox.

A couple of Indian examples of large Indian business conglomerates would include, A. M. Naik (born on June 09, 1942) who served as the Group Executive Chairman of L&T even at the age of 75 and the other – Y.V. Yogeshwar (born on February 04, 1947) was at the helm as the Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at ITC Ltd till February 4, 2017, at the age of 70. More recently, on October 22, 2018, the Reserve Bank of India accorded its approval for reappointment of Mr. Aditya Puri as its MD & CEO of HDFC Bank Ltd. till October 26, 2020 – the date of his attaining age of 70 years.

What’s happening in the pharma industry?

The pharma industry too is no different. For example, Merck & Co’s distinguished top leader – Kenneth Frazier, who turns 65 on December 2019, will stay on as CEO beyond 2019. This was reported on September 26, 2018 stating that Merck has scrapped the policy requiring its CEO to retire at the age of 65. Curiously, this announcement is quite unlike what we witnessed in a similar case with GE where no exception made to the CEO retirement policy even for someone as globally famous as Jack Welsh.

Another recent example from the pharma industry, would possibly include one more celebrated pharma CEO – Abbott’s Miles White. He is currently at 63 and in his 20th year as the Chairman and Chief Executive of Abbott Laboratories. Just as Merck & Co, Abbott also announced that White doesn’t have any plans to leave his position as Chairman and CEO “anytime soon.” This happened, after the appointment of company’s President and Chief Operating Officer (COO), which is the first official No. 2 executive and COO Abbott happening after more than a decade, as reported on October 18, 2018.

A couple of similar examples from India that I gathered from the available data, may include: Pankaj Patel, 67 years (born 1951), the Executive Chairman of Cadila Healthcare and Basudeo Narain Singh,  reportedly 77 years of age, currently the Executive Chairman at Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Let me hasten to add, these names are absolutely illustrative, and not intended to be specific to individuals, in any way.

All publicly listed companies and not privately held:

The companies that I have quoted above, both global and local, are publicly listed companies. Thus, their ownership is dispersed among the general public in many shares of stock, which are freely traded on a stock exchange, or in over the counter markets. In view of this, the general questions come up:

  • Why the incumbent CEO can’t develop a successor from within or even outside the company during his/her tenure spanning over so many years?
  • Is there any other underlying reason for the same? If so, what it is?

Not considering the country-heads of MNCs in India:

Let me admit upfront with all due respect, for the purpose of this discussion, I am not considering the country-heads of pharma MNCs in India. This is mainly because, they don’t fall in the same category as the CEOs of Indian publicly listed pharma companies, having much broader global responsibility, commensurate authority and accountability.

At the most, the country heads of pharma MNCs may be compared with those managers who are in charge of only India, or South Asia operations of the domestic pharma players. Which is why, country heads of MNCs are commonly called ‘General Managers’ – internally, especially by their respective headquarters.

Is mandatory CEO retirement policy a good idea?

There are many studies on whether a mandatory CEO retirement policy is a good idea. I shall quote below one such important study to illustrate the point.

‘Should Older CEOs Be Forced to Retire?’ That’s the title of an article, published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on February 15, 2016. The author found that more than a third of S&P 500 firms have a mandatory retirement policy for their CEOs. The aim is to drive out executives who are past their prime. In the overall perspective, the HBR article is in sync with the idea.

Referring to a research paper recently published in the Journal of Empirical Finance, the above article highlighted some important findings of the researchers, as below:

  • Older CEOs were less “active,” as measured by a mix of hiring, firing, mergers, joint ventures, and more.
  • Mandatory retirement helped firms avoid the declining performance associated with older CEOs.
  • The negative correlation between CEO age and firm performance disappeared in companies with mandatory CEO retirement policies.
  • Mandatory retirement seemed to be helping firms with older CEOs to avoid the under-performance trap.
  • Length of CEOs’ executive experience plays a great role in a company’s financial success.
  • When there are two CEO candidates, both having requisite experience of equal number of years, the data suggests the younger one should be preferred.
  • Conversely, when there are two CEO candidates of the same age, bet on the one who’s been with the firm longer.

Should CEO retire at the peak of his/her golden era? 

This issue seems to be a contentious one. Be that as it may, about one third of S&P 500 firms have mandatory retirement policies for their CEOs. The goal is to systematically let go of leaders who are past their peak performance years.

An article published in The Washington Post on September 27, 2018 came with a headline: ‘Fewer companies are forcing CEOs to retire when they hit their golden years.’ It observed: ‘Sometimes a mandatory retirement age is lifted to give the current chief executive a little more time on the job, potentially clearing the way for a successor to prepare. For instance, in June 2017, manufacturing giant 3M said its board of directors was waiving the mandatory retirement age of 65 for its then-CEO, Inge Thulin, and then named a successor, chief operating officer Michael Roman, earlier this year.’

While retirement norms may be shifting, there’s seems to be a trend of indirect pressure on companies to add younger executives and directors to the board. This is primarily prompted by a growing demand for digital insights and technology experience in the CEO position – commented another article published in the Los Angeles Times on September 28, 2018. It also reported, many experts on corporate governance and executive succession believe that rescinding its policy requiring the CEO to retire at the age of 65, Merck & Co, ‘added to a long downward trend in the companies that have mandatory retirement ages for their top executives.’

Conclusion:

Regardless of whether a mandatory CEO retirement policy is a good idea or not, the aging high performing CEO’s desire to continue with the job for an indefinite period, has some downsides. It could thwart aspiration of similar high performing younger direct reports of the CEO. They include especially those who are ready to take charge and catapult the organization to a greater height of success, sooner.

A CEO’s desire to continue with the job, even after a generally accepted age of retirement, could also adversely impact a well-charted succession planning process for the top position. A time-bound succession plan is essential not only for a natural and smooth transition in the CEO position of an organization, but also to address any unforeseen emergency, such as a ‘drop dead like situation.’

Further, if there is no mandatory CEO retirement policy, or even rescinding it when there is one for a high a performing CEO, why there should be such policy for other C-suite, or many other important leadership positions of the same organization, with similar performance records?

One of the reasons behind a high performing aging CEO or an Executive Chairman not wanting to retire may also include the intent of the Board members to play safe. Nevertheless, it is a complicated and contentious issue. Regardless of whatever reasons lead to such a situation, the point to ponder is: What signal does it send to other high performing leaders? Does it convey, even the CEO is governed by similar policies as applied to other leaders of the corporation? Or, it smacks of a a discretionary corporate culture of governance? There is a need to ferret out a robust answer to this question – for a long-term sustainable success of any organization, including pharma.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Holistic Disease Treatment Solution: Critical For Pharma Success

Posted on by
Reply

The speculation over quite some time has ended now. The most important C-suite office of the world’s top pharma company will find a brand-new occupant at the dawn of a brand-new year, on January 01, 2019. Albert Bourla will now be on the saddle to lead Pfizer moving towards a new horizon of success, in place of Ian Read.

What makes this change interesting to me, is the new leader’s not just shaking up the top team at Pfizer, but his simultaneous announcement for another brand-new C-Suite role in the company – The Chief Digital Officer (CDO). She will ‘lead the company’s digital efforts across research, discovery and business processes.’

Merck & Co. also joined ‘the chief digital officer parade’ on October 17, 2018 when it announced the appointment of chief information and digital officer, also as a member of the company’s Executive Committee. Notwithstanding a few global pharma companies’ have already started creating this role, the timing of this initiative by the top global pharma player, sends an interesting signal to many. Undoubtedly, it is a strategic move, and is surely backed by a profound intent. In this article, while exploring this point I shall try to fathom whether or not any fundamental change is taking shape in the strategic space of pharma business.

A fundamental change is taking shape:

This fundamental change, I reckon, is driven by realization that just discovery of new medicines, high quality manufacturing and high voltage marketing can no longer be regarded as success potent in the industry. There emerges a palpable and growing demand for holistic solutions in the disease treatment process, for optimal clinical outcomes and reduction of the burden of disease.

That several top global pharma companies have recognized this fact, is vindicated by what the Sandoz Division of Novartis acknowledged on its website. It quoted Vas Narasimhan – CEO of Novartis saying: “We are on the verge of a digital revolution across every aspect of the healthcare sector, from the lab bench to the patient’s bedside.”

Interestingly, pharma stakeholders’ interests and expectations, including those of patients, are also progressing in the same direction. This, in turn, is changing the way of leading and managing a pharma business – requiring a kind leadership with specific expertise in several new areas. The new C-suite position for a CDO is a proof of this change gathering strong tailwind.

What prompts this change?

As I see it, besides scores of other associated factors that digital technology offers to all, a single characteristic that stands out is the changing patients’ expectations for optimal clinical outcomes out of an affordable and involved disease treatment process.

This has always been so, but is now changing from mere expectations or just a hope, to patients’ demand, from both physicians and the pharma companies. This is a clear writing on the wall in the days ahead, and all concerned should take note of it, seriously. Does it mean that the broad flowchart of the disease-treatment-process, as I call it, has changed? Before delving into that area, let me briefly explain what exactly I mean by saying so.

A flowchart of the disease-treatment-process:

The broad flowchart for most of the disease-treatment-process, have primarily 6 ‘touchpoints’ or points of references, as I see it, which may be summarized as follows:

Patients – Signs & Symptoms – Doctors – Diagnosis – Medicines – Clinical outcomes

This means, patients with signs and symptoms of a disease come to the doctors. With various diagnostic tests, the disease or a combination of diseases is diagnosed. Then, doctors prescribe medicines or any other required medical interventions for desired clinical outcomes.

Has it changed now?

There doesn’t seem to be any fundamental change in this flowchart even today. But, the way the pharma players cherry-pick their areas of focus from its various touch points, is undergoing a metamorphosis.

As it stands today, to sell medicines – innovative or even generic pharma companies primarily focus on the doctors and off-late on patients – but just a few of them, to offer clinical outcomes better or same as others. In the evolving new paradigm, a successful drug companies would need to focus on each of these six elements of the flowchart with great expertise and sensitivity, from the patients’ perspective.

The position of CDO is expected to be a great enabler to facilitate the process of integrating all the touchpoints in the disease-treatment-flow. This will, in turn, offer a holistic treatment solution for patients – selling more medicines being the endpoint of this objective. If it doesn’t happen, the touchpoints where pharma is not focusing today would be captured soon by the non-pharma tech players. This will make achieving the financial goals of the organization even more difficult.

Let me illustrate this point by adding just one important area from this flowchart to the traditional pharma focus areas. This touchpoint goes hand in hand with the prescription of medicines – medical diagnosis. Providing patient- friendly disease prevention and monitoring tools may be yet another such area.

Current accuracy of medical diagnosis – ‘only correct in 80 percent of cases’:

The above was quoted by Sandoz (a Division of Novartis) in its website. It highlighted that the researchers at John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, UK found that several medical diagnoses based on a limited range of factors are only correct in 80 percent of cases. It means ‘a diagnosis may miss imminent heart attacks, or it may lead to an unnecessary operation,’ it said.

The January 31, 2018 article published by Futurism.com - the publishing arm of Futurism, based in New York City, also underscores some interesting facts in this regard, including the above example. Some of these are fascinating, as I quote hereunder:

  • Researchers at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, England, developed an AI diagnostics system that’s more accurate than doctors at diagnosing heart disease, at least 80 percent of the time.
  • At Harvard University, researchers created a “smart” microscope that can detect potentially lethal blood infections with a 95 percent accuracy rate.
  • A study from Showa University in Yokohama, Japan revealed that a new computer-aided endoscopic system can reveal signs of potentially cancerous growths in the colon with 94 percent sensitivity, 79 percent specificity, and 86 percent accuracy.
  • In one study, published in December 2017 by JAMA, it was found that deep learning algorithms were able to better diagnose metastatic breast cancer than human radiologists when under a time crunch. While human radiologists may do well when they have unrestricted time to review cases, in the real world a rapid diagnosis could make the difference between life and death for patients.
  • When challenged to glean meaningful insights from the genetic data of tumor cells, human experts took about 160 hours to review and provide treatment recommendations based on their findings. IBM’s Watson took just ten minutes to deliver the same actionable advice.

Thus, the bottom-line is: Medical or clinical diagnosis is a crucial area where the tech savvy environment can add significant unmet needs to save lives of many. Consequently, this space is emerging as an Eldorado, as it were, for all those who are seriously interested in diving deep in search of a golden future in the related business.

Technological players are making forays:

Several tech companies have sensed the reward of a pot of gold in the above space, despite the journey being quite arduous. Consequently, many of them are coming up with user-friendly and disease-specific digital tools and health apps, compatible with smart phones or smart watches. These help patients monitoring their own health data, independently, and be aware of the disease progression, if any. Simultaneously, it also enables physicians not only to accurately diagnose a disease, but also to keep a careful vigil on the progress of the treatment.

To illustrate the point with an example – say about Apple. The company began making inroads into the healthcare space with health apps and fitness-tracking via iPhone and Apple Watch. Interestingly, riding on partnership and acquisition initiatives, it is now carving a niche for itself to provide complete health records of the users by capturing relevant disease-specific clinical data.

Apple Watch Series 4, for example, has ECG feature and the ability to detect irregular heart-rhythm, which is US-FDA approved. Reports indicate the company is also in the process of developing a non-invasive glucose monitoring tool, besides many others. Curiously, the company has already given a signal to extend the usage of iPhone to a reliable diagnostic tool for many disease conditions. Most important to note is, this concept is fast gaining popularity.

Calls for of a holistic approach in the disease-treatment process-flow: 

As this trend keeps going north, many pharma companies are realizing the underlying opportunity to adopt a holistic strategic business approach to move into the new frontier. This would encompass the entire disease-treatment-process-flow with digital technology, across the organization. Before other non-pharma companies firmly position themselves on the saddle while entering into this area, pharma needs to move fast. This calls for an urgent action to collaborate with tech companies in all the critical touchpoints of this flow, including diagnosis. That this realization gas dawned in pharma is evident from a number of related developments. Let me quote just a couple of examples, as follows:

  • Onduo, a US$500-million diabetes-focused joint venture between Sanofi and Verily Life Sciences, an Alphabet company was founded in September 2016. Onduo recently launched its first product – an app plus, a continuous glucose-monitoring device plus an insulin pump that are all linked together. The Onduo app has a built-in coach (i.e., an electronic assistant) to help patients better manage their diabetes and accomplish their health goals.
  • GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Verily (formerly Google Life Sciences) have formed a joint venture to develop and commercialize bioelectronic medicine – miniaturized nerve implants that modulate electrical impulses to treat certain diseases.

Lack of digital leadership talent within the pharma industry?

It is interesting to note that both the Pfizer and Merck CDOs were recruited from non-pharma companies – Pfizer’s from Quest Diagnostics and Merck’s from Nike.  Earlier, in mid 2017, former Walmart CIO was named the Chief Digital and Technology Officer of GlaxoSmithKline. This trend probably brings to the fore, the lack of top digital leadership talent within the pharma industry.

Conclusion:

Increasingly pharma companies are realizing that enormous efforts and money spent in just marketing a drug, is producing a lesser and lesser yield, as the new paradigm unfolds. As we move on, patients no longer will want to buy just a medicine from the pharma players. They will want an integrated solution for prevention, cure or management of a disease.

At the same time, strong technology players, such as Apple, Google, IBM’s Watson are on the verge of capturing a sizeable ground, offering a gamut of patient-friendly offerings in the healthcare space. This would eventually make prescription of digital therapy a new reality. These tech companies are now entering through several virtually open doors in the disease-treatment-flow process, as I call it, primarily covering – diagnosis, disease monitoring and preventive care.

To effectively compete and grow in this environment, drug companies have to cover all the touchpoints of this process, not just the selective ones as are generally happening even today.

Creation of a new C-suite position of Chief Digital Officer to address this issue in a holistic away, across the organization, gives a clear signal to this realization. Thus, I reckon, offering a holistic treatment solution, covering all the touchpoints in the disease-treatment-flow process will be a new normal for pharma, not just for excellence in business, but for a long-term survival too.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Trees Die From The Top: Apt For Pharma Leadership Too?

Posted on by
Reply

The Management Guru of all-time – Peter F. Drucker once said: “The spirit of an organization is created from the top… If an organization is great in spirit, it is because the spirit of its top people is great.” As “Trees die from the top”, no one should ever become a strategist unless he or she is willing to have his or her character serve as a model for subordinates – Drucker emphasized.

Decades after this assertion from Drucker, meant for management practitioners, it is discernible even today how irrefutable these axioms are.  In the contemporary times, as well, particularly when reality bites a company hard, being caught on the wrong side of ‘generally acceptable’ ethics, value and compliance standards.

While zeroing in to pharma, soundbites usually generated at that time, especially from the top echelon of the management, seem to hint that employees down the rung are responsible for such misdeeds, besides, of course, the legacy factor.

At this moment of truth, it is also not unusual for them to romancing the utopia, as it were. Senior management comes out with several ideas, which are squeaky clean in terms of optics. Some of them also talk about introducing behavior metric on ethics and values in employee performance appraisal before releasing any performance related pay out. In this article, I shall focus on this leadership issue in view of some latest developments in this area.

The latest developments:  

Let me now come straight to the latest developments in this area, as I see around.

“Novartis links bonuses to ethics in bid to rebuild reputation” – was a headline of Reuters on September 18, 2018. It reported: “Swiss drug maker Novartis has revealed its employees only get a bonus if they meet or exceed expectations for ethical behavior as it seeks to address past shortcomings that have damaged its reputation.”

Some interesting points stand out from this report on the ownership of such alleged malpractices. These reconfirm that the reasons for the same, including the repeated allegations of such nature, are being passed on to others by the top management. For example:

  • To past practices or the legacy factor, even if the current CEO has been a part of that corporate environment, since long.
  • To employees responsible down the line, and a new system is being adopted to address the issue.

In this case, as Reuters reports: “Chief Executive Vas Narasimhan has made strengthening the Swiss drug maker’s ethics culture a priority after costly bribery scandals or legal settlements in South Korea, China and the United States.”

Interestingly, as reported by the media, “the company was also this year embroiled in a political controversy over payments it made to U.S. President Donald Trump’s ex-attorney.”  Previously, even in the clinical trial area, Japanese authorities, reportedly “uncovered serious misconduct during a trial of its leukemia drug, Tasigna.”

As I said above, in response to such incidents, the General Counsel of Novartis, reportedly expressed: “This allows us to look at the behavior metric before any money leaves Novartis and catch potential misconduct before there is any risk to our reputation.” The official further added, “You can expect us to continue focusing on resolving the legacy issues that we read about in the press, ensuring we address any remaining underlying behaviors.”

Such steps not taken for the first time by a pharma company: 

EvenGlaxoSmithKline tried something akin in the past.

“GSK scraps sales rep targets after scandal,” was the headline of December 17, 2013 edition of the Financial Times. It reported: “GlaxoSmithKline is to scrap individual sales targets for its commercial staff as it seeks to repair its image and reform working practices in the wake of allegations in China that its staff paid officials up to $500m in bribes. The move comes amid concerns over aggressive marketing across the pharmaceutical industry and follows a series of damaging regulatory probes leading to a record $ 3bn fine in the US last year.”

However, later on GlaxoSmithKline, reportedly “altered the plan when its sales began to suffer in the world’s largest market.”

Where is the real issue lying?

As“PwC‘s 21st CEO Survey: Preparing for disruption” found, 71 percent of CEOs surveyed said that their organizations face greater pressure to deliver business results in less time.

There isn’t an iota of doubt, I reckon, that pharma CEOs are under constant performance pressure from the investors and other stakeholders to deliver expected financial results. This makes them keep their eyes primarily glued on to the grindstone for churning out expected profits from the business. This also means that they expect management efforts to be generally directed to deliver ‘values’ at the least possible cost.

On the other hand, the same PwC survey findings reiterated that with rising drug costs, the demand for the drug companies to demonstrate the treatment efficacy, is increasing by manifold. Thus, “to remain competitive, Big Pharma will have to do things faster (like drug development) and cheaper for the patient, add more value for the same money, and become more proactive partners with patients and doctors in both wellness and cure” - one of the findings of this study emphasized.

It is quite common for most large to medium sized pharma companies to have in place a well-articulated organizational ‘ethics, compliance and values’, together with requisite checks and balances in the form of rigorous rules, regulations and other guidelines.

Most often these adorn the respective websites too, for public knowledge. The question, therefore, surfaces what could then possibly go wrong in the organization and where exactly does the real issue lie, while effectively managing the organizational growth?

“Non-compliance – A serious challenge to growth”: 

Serious malpractices and their related fallout in pharma business – not just in marketing, but clinical trials, manufacturing, quality assurance and other areas, are not usually due to any lack of requisite processes or expertise. These are generally serious consequences of non-compliance of various organizational norms. At times, with the indirect support of senior management, or senior management keeps their eyes closed on such non-compliances, under demanding obligation for delivering expected financial results and business growth.

Tweaking areas, such as employee performance-incentive norms, as happened in the cases of GSK or Novartis, can’t fetch a long-lasting solution in such a situation, as I see it. Nonetheless, the survey report findings of Deloitte, titled “Non-compliance – A serious challenge to growth,” are interesting to get a sense of the reasons behind the same.

Key reasons for non-compliance: 

The Deloitte report identifies some key contributors to malpractices and non-compliance in the pharma sector, indicating the percentage of survey respondents involved against each, as follows:

  • Lack of an efficient internal control/ compliance system:  61 percent
  • Weak regulatory enforcement / action taken against fraudsters:  55 percent
  • Inadequate utilization of technology tools available to identify red flags:  45 percent
  • Lack of a zero-tolerance approach towards malpractice and regulatory non-compliance:  45 percent
  • Inadequate due diligence on employees/ third party associates:  36 percent
  • Unrealistic targets/goals linked to monetary compensations:  33 percent
  • Senior management override of controls:  24 percent
  • Inadequate oversight by the Board/ Audit Committee:  06 percent

As I mentioned before, most key contributors to malpractice and non-compliance point towards a lack of senior management efficiency in internal controls, systems, and “inadequate utilization of technology tools available to identify red flags.” Curiously, no one mentions about the requirements for any fresh measures or systems to curb such incidents, in the future.

Just tweaking the present system may not help:

Just for changing the optics, tweaking the present system often doesn’t help. Many similar instances in the past, such as GSK’s example, as cited above, would vindicate this point. In the GSK case, at least, it’s the then CEO – Sir Andrew Witty expectedly realized that ‘unrealistic targets/goals linked to monetary compensations’ lead to such corruptions.

But total delinking of the core responsibility of any sales staff, namely ‘generation of top-level numbers both in volume and value’, with performance incentive, could throw some future challenges. Similar reason, presumably prompted GSK altering the plan when its sales began to suffer, at a later date.

Similarly, Novartis is, reportedly introducing a new behavioral metric as qualifying criteria for its employees to earn bonuses or incentives. Intriguingly, despite the existence of rigorous rules, regulations, guidelines and associated punitive provisions for not complying with the company ethics and values for a long-time, malpractices are still being reported today.

Thus, I wonder, how will an additional system of similar nature prevent recurrence of such incidents in the future? Anyway, only the future will tell whether a tweaking of this nature in the present system that did not work in the past, will work in this particular case effectively.

Conclusion:

The reasons for less than adequate internal controls of an organization, I reckon, fall squarely on the senior management, especially for repeat offences. Passing the blame to employees down the line or tweaking their performance appraisal system by introducing a ‘behavioral metric’, is likely to be short term, finger-pointing on the legacy factor notwithstanding.

On the contrary, these may likely to be construed as manifestations of knee-jerk reactions, and not so well-thought-out strategic measures. Neither do such repeated malpractices demonstrate a great spirit of the organization, nor do these evince astute leadership qualities of its top management.

Coming back to where I started from, quoting what the management guru Peter Drucker once said: “The spirit of an organization is created from the top… If an organization is great in spirit, it is because the spirit of its top people is great.” He also reiterated, no one should ever become a strategist unless he or she is willing to have his or her character serve as a model for subordinates This is certainly not the situation for those pharma players mired with alleged malpractices, repeatedly – not just in marketing, but in other operational areas too.

As the good old saying goes: “trees die from the top,” so is also an organization when its senior management lacks a moral compass on ethics, compliance and values. Considering what is being often reported on business malpractices within the drug industry, isn’t the saying equally apt for pharma leadership, as well?

By: Tapan J. Ray   

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Drug Innovation and Pharma M&As: A Recent Perspective

Posted on by
Reply

The 21st CEO Survey 2018 of PwC highlights a curious contradiction. This is based on what the Global Pharma Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) had articulated regarding their business outlook for 2018 and beyond. The report says: Despite highly publicized hand wringing over geopolitical uncertainty, corporate misbehavior, and the job-killing potential of artificial intelligence, the CEOs expressed surprising faith and optimism in the economic and business environment worldwide, at least over the next 12 months.

As the survey highlights, beyond 2018, CEO sentiment turns more cautious. They expressed more confidence in revenue growth prospects over the longer term than the immediate future. In the largest pharma market in the world – the United States (US), acquisitions appeared to be the core part of the 2018 growth playbook for the CEOs. More of them plan to drive growth with new Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) for this year. The US CEOs intent in this area came out to be more than their peers globally.

Thus, in this year we may expect to witness several M&A deals, at least by the pharma majors based in the US. As the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, the success of any strategic M&A process should get clearly reflected in its revenue, profit and cost synergies over a period of time, consistently.

In this article, I shall try to look back, and attempt to fathom the net outcome of M&As in the pharma sector. Its key drivers for the global and Indian pharma players are somewhat different, though. In this piece, I shall focus on the M&A activities of the global companies, and my next article will focus on the Indian players in this area.

2018 – best start to a year of healthcare deal making:

The finding of the 21st CEO Survey 2018 that more global pharma CEOs plan to drive growth with new M&A for this year, has been reiterated in the January 22, 2018 issue of the Financial Times (FT). The article titled “Big Pharma makes strongest start to M&A for a decade” writes: “Healthcare companies have announced almost $30bn of acquisitions since the beginning of the year in the sector’s strongest start for deal making in more than a decade, as Big Pharma scrambles to replace ageing blockbusters by paying top dollar for new medicines.”

Big names involved and the reasons:

On February 18, 2018, an article published by the BSIC wrote, the M&A value in the healthcare sector recorded its strongest start to a year in more than a decade, excluding 2000, with almost USD32bn of global deals announced since the start of January 2018. Of these USD32bn, Sanofi SA and Celgene Corporation performed almost a combined USD26bn value of acquisitions for the American Bioverativ Inc. the cell therapy provider Juno Therapeutics, respectively.

As many would know, the FT also wrote in the above piece that Sanofi is trying to offset declining sales of its top-selling insulin – Lantus, which has lost market share following the introduction of cheaper biosimilar versions. Celgene is preparing for the loss of patent protection on its top cancer medicine, Revlimid, which will face generic competition from 2022 at the latest.

Is new drug innovation a key driver of M&A?

The core intent of M&A is undoubtedly creating greater value for all the stakeholders of the merged entity. Nevertheless, such value creation predominantly involving the following two goals, revolve around new drug innovation activities, as follows:

  • New value creation and risk minimization in R&D initiatives
  • Acquisition of blockbuster or potential blockbuster drugs to improve market share and market access, besides expanding the consumer base.

There could be a few other factors, as well, that may drive a pharma player to go for a similar buying spree, which we shall discuss later in this article.

However, in the international scenario, with gradually drying up of R&D pipeline, and the cost of drug innovation arguably exceeding well over USD 2 billion, many companies try to find easier access to a pipeline of new drug compounds, generally at the later stage of development, through M&A.

Thus, I reckon, one sees relatively higher number of big ticket M&As in the pharmaceutical industry than most other industrial sectors and that too, very often at a hefty price.

At a hefty price?

To give an example, the year 2018 has just begun and the pharma acquirers have agreed to pay an average premium of 81 percent – a number that is well above the 42 percent paid on average in 2017, according to Dealogic. The examples are the 63.78 percent bid premium paid by Sanofi SA on Bioverativ Inc. and the 78.46 percent premium paid by Celgene Corporation to acquire Juno Therapeutics.

A key reason of paying this kind of high premium, obviously indicate an intent of the acquirer to have a significant synergy in drug innovation activities of the merged company.

Do drug innovation activities rise, or decline post M&A?

A paper titled “Research: Innovation Suffers When Drug Companies Merge”, published by the Harvard Business Review (HBR) on August 03, 2016 answers this question. This research involves, pre and post M&A detailed analysis of 65 pharma companies. After detailed scrutiny of the data, the authors wrote: “Our results very clearly show that R&D and patenting within the merged entity decline substantially after a merger, compared to the same activity in both companies beforehand.”

Having also analyzed companies that were developing drugs in similar therapeutic areas, but hadn’t merged, the paper recorded: “We applied a market analysis, the same one used by the European Union in its models, to analyze how the rivals of the merging firms change their innovation activities afterward. On average, patenting and R&D expenditures of non-merging competitors also fell – by more than 20% – within four years after a merger. Therefore, pharmaceutical mergers seem to substantially reduce innovation activities in the relevant market as a whole.”

‘Other critical objectives’ may also drive pharma M&A:

As I had indicated before, besides attaining synergy in innovation activities at an optimum cost through M&A, there may also be other important drivers for a company to initiate this process. One such example is available from Sanofi-Aventis merger in 2004.

Just to recapitulate, Sanofi was formed in 2004 when Sanofi-Synthélabo (created from the 1999 merger of Sanofi and Synthélabo) acquired Aventis (the result of the 1999 merger of Hoechst and Rhône-Poulenc).

A June 2016 case study of the Sanofi-Aventis merger titled ‘Does M&A create value in the pharmaceutical sector?’, and published by HEC Paris – considered a leading academic institution in Europe and worldwide, brings out the ‘other factors’ driving pharma M&A.

The research paper says that Sanofi-Aventis deal ‘is the perfect example of the paramount importance that external factors have on M&A activity, which sometimes are more critical than the amount of value created from a particular deal.’ It further says, ‘facing a changing pharmaceutical industry (heightened competition and consolidation trend), Sanofi-Synthélabo decided to merge with Aventis as a defense strategy.’

This strategy ensured, even if the merger had not ended being a successful one, it would achieve the following two ‘other critical factors’:

  • Manage to save Sanofi-Synthélabo from being acquired and disappearing.
  • Comply with the French government pressure to create a national champion in the pharma industry, to ultimately benefit the French population.

Conclusion:

In the pharma business, M&A has now become a desirable strategic model for shareholder value creation. In the global perspective, one of the most important drivers for this initiative is, greater and less expensive access to new drug innovation or innovative new drugs, beside a few others, as discussed above.

In-depth expert analysis has also shown that “R&D and patenting within the merged entity decline substantially after a merger, compared to the same activity in both companies beforehand.”  Moreover, as other independent researchers have established that inside the merged companies, there’s a great deal of disruption in many areas, including people, besides the global drug market getting less competitive with declining number of players.

Pharma M&As may well be any stock market’s dream and could a boost the merged company’s performance in short to medium term. But the important points to ponder are:  Does it help improve drug innovation or its cost related issues over a reasonably long time-frame? Does it not ultimately invite even more problems of different nature, creating a vicious cycle, as it were, putting the sustainable performance of the company in a jeopardy?

By: Tapan J. Ray  

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Pharma Stakeholder Sentiment: Back to Square One?

Posted on by
Reply

Is it fair to push out the core purpose of an important process, or rather a mission, unfairly? Whether we like it or not, it happened that way, over a period of time.

Way back on December 01, 1950, George W. Merck (President and Chairman Merck & Co., Inc.1925-1957), epitomized the core purpose of the drug innovation process. This is something, which apparently was possible only for him to articulate exactly the way he did.

On that day, while addressing the students and the faculty at the Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, George Merck said: “We try to remember that medicine is for the patient. We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits. The profits follow, and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear. The better we have remembered it, the larger they have been.”

To many of us, it may sound more as an altruistic statement, and not really coming from a businessman who wants to excel in the financial performance of the organization. Interestingly, that was not the case, either. Merck removed any possible ambiguity in his statement by stating categorically: “In doing this, it will be as a business­ man associated with that area of the chemical industry which serves chiefly the worlds of medicine and pharmacy.”

In this article, I shall deliberate on whether or not the core purpose of drug innovation, as articulated by George Merck in 1950 has been pushed out of the mind of the stakeholders for good.

Management Guru – Peter Drucker’s similar observation:

It is worthwhile to recapitulate at this stage that around the same time, the Management Guru – Peter Drucker also made a similar observation, which is relevant even today. He said: “Because the purpose of business is to create a customer, the business enterprise has two – and only two basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results; all the rest are costs. Marketing is the distinguishing, unique function of the business.”

Interestingly, when the word ‘customer’ is replaced with ‘patients’, George W. Merck’s iconic statement fits so well even in the realm of business management, including drugs and pharmaceuticals.

Signs of the core purpose of new drug discovery getting pushed out:

The core purpose of new drug innovation in pharma business, as articulated by a top industry pioneer – ‘Medicine is for the patient and not for the profits’, was pushed out eventually, regardless of its reasons. Today’s core purpose of the same process has seemingly become just the opposite of that – ‘Medicine is only for the patient who can afford it – to maximize profit.’

This change in the core purpose was visible in a large number of instances. For example, when the then Bayer CEO Marijn Dekkers reportedly said: ‘Our cancer drug is for rich westerners, not poor Indians.’  However, his exact wordings were “we did not develop this product for the Indian market, let’s be honest. We developed this product for Western patients who can afford this product, quite honestly.” If so,the question that comes up: why then Bayer fought so hard and spent so much of money, efforts and time to keep selling this specific product in India – exclusively?

In any case, this statement from the highest echelon of one of the top global pharma players is a contentious one, especially against George Merck’s articulation, or even Peter Drucker’s for that matter, on the same. By the way, Dekkers made this commentat the Financial Times Global Pharmaceutical & Biotech Conference in December in December 2013.

A wind of change?

The hope for a wind of change flickered when in an interview, Andrew Witty,the erstwhile global CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), signaled a totally contrasting view of his company. Witty said: “GSK is committed to offering all its new drugs in India at affordable prices.”

Much prior to this, on March 14, 2013 he told a conference on healthcare in London that: “It’s not unrealistic to expect that new innovation ought to be priced at or below, in some cases, the prices that have pre-existed them.” He further expressed: “The pharmaceutical industry should be able to charge less for new drugs in future by passing on efficiencies in research and development to its customers.”

Witty era is also over now. He retired from GSK at the age of around 53 on March 31, 2017. Perhaps his refreshing patient-centric thoughts would also not find any takers within the industry. Nonetheless, in March 2018, the same issue resurfaced in an interesting article, followed by a few other related developments.

Call for socializing drug development?

The issue, which is not just limited to high prices for new patented drugs, is much broader. An interesting article titled, “Developing drugs wasn’t always about profit, and it shouldn’t be now”, was published in Quartz- a news website owned by Atlantic Media, brings to the fore the same key point, yet again. It makes some profound observations, such as socializing drug development. The word ‘socializing’ may not be quite acceptable to many, though. Nevertheless, it raises some critical issues worth pondering over, such as:

  • Faith in the power of money pervades our modern medical system. Pharmaceutical companies aren’t evil (usually). They just choose to make the most profitable drugs, not the drugs of greatest value to society.
  • For example, despite antimicrobial resistance being a global threat, pharma companies have largely abandoned new antibiotic development on the eminently sensible principle that they are money-losers. Promising narrow-spectrum antibiotics – agents that precisely target pathogens and spare “good” bacteria - languish in development limbo because there is no hope that they might churn as much profit as several other drugs.

It’s high time, I reckon, to adequately address the dire need for a reliable supply of the medicines that make a vibrant modern society possible. All stakeholders, including the pharma industry, globally, would require putting their heads together in charting out a clear and time bound pathway for its effective resolution, soon. Otherwise, sheer gravity and the complexity of the situation may prompt the policy makers to move towards ‘socializing drug development,’ much to the dismay of many of us.

Hospitals creating nonprofit generic drug company:

On January 18, 2018, The New York Times (NYT), published an article titled “Fed Up With Drug Companies, Hospitals Decide to Start Their Own,” highlighted a novel initiative to address the prevailing situation, in their own way, without depending on others.

It reported, for many years, several hospital administrations have been expressing frustration when essential drugs like heart medicines have become scarce, or when prices have skyrocketed because investors manipulated the market. Now, about 300 of the country’s largest hospital systems are taking an aggressive step to combat the problem. They plan to go into the drug business themselves, in a move that appears to be the first on this scale.

‘The idea is to directly challenge the host of industry players who have capitalized on certain markets, buying up monopolies of old, off-patent drugs and then sharply raising prices, stoking public outrage’, the article elaborates.

‘Price of medications has soared, so have pharma profits’:

‘Big Pharma is jacking up prices for one reason – because it can,’ says a CNN Article, published on April 04, 2018. The article further emphasizes: “As the price of medications has soared, so have pharmaceutical company profits. Total sales revenue for top brand-name drugs jumped by almost $8.5 billion over the last five years. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that 67% of drug manufacturers boosted their annual profit margins between 2006 and 2015 – with profit margins up to 20% for some companies in certain years.”

It further writes, “Not only have pharmaceutical companies reaped outsized profits from these price hikes, so have their CEOs. According to a USA Today analysis, the median compensation package for biotech and pharmaceutical CEOs in the Standard & Poor’s 500 was 71% higher than the median compensation for S&P 500 executives in all industries in 2015.”

Conclusion:

This is happening the world over. But its degree varies. In those countries where there are drug price regulators, only a small percentage of the total pharma market by value comes under price regulation, the rest of the products enjoy virtually free pricing freedom.

Would this ground situation change on its own any time soon? There is no specific answer to this question, yet. Moreover, there doesn’t seem to be none around in the pharma industry today with the stature and articulated vision like George Merck. He started from the very basic. Drawing the ‘square one’, he clearly defined the core purpose of discovery, manufacturing and marketing of medicines. Today’s pharma industry, by and large, seems to be charting in other newly drawn squares. Maximizing profit is now considered a key objective of achieving the core purpose – and not an outcome of achieving the core purpose of pharma business.

However, there are some very early signs of several stakeholders’ sentiment changing in this regard. Are they moving back to the basic – square one?

From the chronicles of the past several years on this issue, pharma industry does not seem to be on the same page with those stakeholders, just yet. If they do, a humongous health worry of a vast majority of the global population could be effectively addressed, as many believe.

The reverberations of this sentiment, though rather faint, can be felt in many countries, including the United States, and not just in the developing world, such as India.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Organic and Inorganic Growth Strategy For Sustainable Business Excellence

Posted on by
Reply

For an enthusiast, witnessing any organization growing consistently, is indeed exhilarating. This becomes even more interesting at a time when challenges and frequent surprises in the business environment become a new normal. A robust short, medium and long growth strategy turns out to be a necessity for sustaining the business excellence over a long period of time. This is applicable even to the pharma players in India.

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of an organization usually assumes the role of chief architect of this strategy, which needs to be subsequently approved by the Board of Directors of the company concerned, collectively. The Board holds the CEO, who ultimately carries the can, accountable to deliver the deliverables in creating the desired shareholder value.

Two basic types of growth strategies:

Based on the CEO’s own experience, and also considering the expectations of the Board of Directors, together with the investors, the CEO opts for either of these two following types of basic growth strategies, or a mix of these two in varying proportions:

  • Organic growth: Growing the business through company’s own pursued activities, or all growth strategies sans Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) or by any other means not external to the organization.
  • Inorganic growth: Growing the business through M&A or takeovers.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with either of these two types of basic growth strategies, or their mix in varying proportions. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that with the basic ‘Organic’ growth plan, the companies, or rather their CEOs have a greater degree of sustainable control in various critical areas. These often include, retaining senior management focus on the organizational core strength for sustainable excellence, or even maintaining the organizational culture and people management style, without any possible conflict in these areas.

In this article, I shall explore different aspects of these two basic growth strategies for sustainable business excellence. To illustrate the point better, I shall draw upon examples from two large but contrasting pharma companies. Let me begin this discussion with the following question:

When does a company choose predominantly inorganic growth path?

Its answer has been well articulated in an article of the Harvard Business Review (HBR). It says: “High-growth companies become low growth all the time. Many CEOs accept that as an inevitable sign that their businesses have matured, and so they stop looking internally for big growth. Instead, they become serial acquirers of smaller companies or seek a transformative acquisition of another large business, preferably a high-growth one.”

That said, none can deny that the short to medium term growth of a company following M&A is much faster and its market share and size become much larger than any comparable organizations pursuing the ‘Organic Growth’ path. Thus, more often than not, such initiatives create a ‘domino effect’, especially in the pharma industry, across the world.

Inorganic growth and key management challenges:

The short and medium-term boost in organizational performance post M&A, comes with its complexities in meeting similar expectations of the Company Board, shareholders and the investors, over a long period of time. This is besides all other accompanying issues, such as people related and more importantly in setting the future direction of the company. The cumulative impact of all this, propels the CEO to go all out for a similar buying spree. When it doesn’t materialize, as was expected, both the Board and the CEO are caught in a catch 22 situation. As mentioned earlier, I shall illustrate this point, with the following recent example covering some important areas.

The examples:

“Please don’t go, Ian Read. That’s the message Pfizer’s board of directors has made loud and clear to the almost-65-year-old CEO, who could very well retire with a $15.7 million pension package.” This is what appeared in an international media report on March 16, 2018.

Analyzing the current challenges faced by the company, the media report interpreted the indispensability of Ian Read in an interesting way. It reported: “The pharma giant considers Read the most qualified person to steer the company through a host of challenges, from oncology trial disappointments to investor pressure to make a big acquisition.” Investors are also, reportedly, sending clear signals to the CEO about the tough road ahead.

Thus, Ian Read “who turns 65 in May, also must remain CEO through at least next March and not work for a competitor for a minimum of two years after that to be eligible,” reported Bloomberg on March 16, 2018. It is interesting to note at this point that Mr. Read has been the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Pfizer – the world’s largest pharmaceutical company, since 2010.

A different CEO rated as ‘Top Performing’ pharma leader:

Pfizer CEO’s ‘exemplary leadership and vision’, has been captured in the Proxy Statement by the Independent Directors on the Board of the Company. However, Harvard Business Review (HBR) in its 2016 pan-industry ranking of the “best-performing” CEOs in the world, featured Lars Rebien Sorensen – the then outgoing CEO of Novo Nordisk. He topped the list for the second successive year. Sorensen achieved this distinction ‘Mostly, for his role overseeing astonishing returns for shareholders and market capitalization growth.’ All the CEOs were, reportedly, evaluated by HBR on a variety of financial, environmental, social, and governance metrics.

Interestingly, in the 2017 HBR list for the same, when the Novo Nordisk CEO was out of the race, no pharma CEO could achieve this distinction or even a place in the top 10. Pablo Isla of Inditex (Spanish clothing retailer), Martin Sorrell of WPP (PR major in the UK) and Jensen Huang of NVIDIA (American technology company occupied the number 1, 2 and 3 spots, respectively.

Two interesting leadership examples:

I shall not delve into any judgmental interpretations on any aspect of leadership by comparing the Pfizer CEO with his counterpart in Novo Nordisk. Nevertheless, one hard fact cannot be ignored. The accomplishments of Pfizer CEO were evaluated by its own Board and were rated outstanding. Whereas, in case of Novo Nordisk CEO, besides the company’s own Board, his performance evaluation was done by the outside independent experts on the HBR panel.

Was there any difference in their growth strategy?

Possibly yes. There seems to be, at least, one a key difference in the ‘growth strategy’ of these two large pharma players.

  • Novo Nordisk is primarily driven by ‘Organic growth’ with a focused product portfolio on predominantly diabetes disease area, besides hemophilia, growth disorders and obesity. This has been well captured in the company’s statement on February 6, 2017 where it says: “Organic growth enables steady cash returns to shareholders via dividends and share repurchase programs” and is driven by its Insulin portfolio.
  • Whereas, Pfizer, though in earlier days followed an ‘organic’ growth path, subsequently changed to ‘Inorganic Growth’ route. Pfizer’s mega acquisitions, in its quest for faster growth to be the world’s largest pharma player, include Warner Lambert (2000), Pharmacia (2002) and Wyeth (2009). The key purpose of these acquisitions appears to expand into a diversified product portfolio of blockbuster drugs.

Pfizer did contemplate changing course:

In 2010, barely two weeks on the job of CEO, Pfizer Inc., Ian Read indicated breaking up the company into two core businesses. However, after six years of meticulous planning, on September 26, 2016, the company announced: “After an extensive evaluation, the company’s Board of Directors and Executive Leadership Team have determined the company is best positioned to maximize future shareholder value creation in its current structure and will not pursue splitting Pfizer Innovative Health and Pfizer Essential Health into two, separate publicly traded companies at this time.”

Sustained value creation following the same path not easy:

After the decision to operate as one company and consolidate the business pursuing similar ‘Inorganic Growth’ strategy, Pfizer went ahead full throttle to acquire AstraZeneca for USD119 billion. But, on May 19, 2014, AstraZeneca Board rejected it. Again, on April 05, 2017, Reuters reported, “Pfizer Inc. agreed on Tuesday to terminate its $160 billion agreement to acquire Botox maker Allergan Plc, in a major victory to U.S. President Barack Obama’s drive to stop tax-dodging corporate mergers.”

Apparently, the current Pfizer CEO is now expected to finish his unfinished agenda, at least for the short to medium term, as the current blockbuster drugs continue losing the steam.

Conclusion:

It’s a common belief that slowing down of a company’s business performance is a compelling reason for its switch from the ‘Organic’ to ‘Inorganic’ growth strategy. The new CEO of Novo Nordisk – Lars Fruergaard Jorgensen also appears to subscribe to this view. While, reportedly, including negative growth at the low end in constant currencies in its guidance for 2017, Jorgensen apparently, confided that M&A will now be a part of the company’s growth search.

On facing a similar situation, the above HBR article suggested the CEOs to fight the short-term pressures of the business cycle of moving away from the ‘Organic’ growth path. This can be overcome by various means, as good ideas for organic growth can always attract required resources and support.

While choosing an appropriate basic growth strategy for the organization – ‘Organic’ or ‘Inorganic’, the CEO’s focus should be on what is best for sustainable and long-term business performance, without being trapped by the prevailing circumstances. Thus, addressing the internal causative factors, effectively, would likely to be a better idea in resolving the issue of a sustainable business performance. This is regardless of the underlying reasons, such as gradually drying up the new product pipeline while blockbuster drugs are going off patent, or due to several other different reasons.

Nevertheless, in the balance of probability, ‘Organic’ growth strategy appears to be less complex and is fraught with lower business risks and uncertainties. Consequently, it reflects a greater likelihood of sustainable achievements for the CEO, and in tandem, a long-term financial reward for the shareholders, investors, and finally the organization as a whole.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.