Tag Archives: direct

Credible role of CCI and NPPA should allay fear of possible ill effects of FDI in Pharmaceuticals

Posted on by
Reply

On August 3, 2011, ‘The Hindu Business Line’ reported, “Domestic drug-makers worried by side-effects of MNC buyouts.” It opined, “Acquisitions in the pharma industry came in for sharp focus, after several domestic drug-makers sold their operations partially or entirely to overseas companies – raising concerns of, among other things, increase in medicine prices.”

However, on August 4, 2011 the same business daily retorted, “MNC drug-makers allay fears of rise in prices.” It asserted, “Multinational drug-makers have stressed that they are committed to achieving the country’s healthcare goals”.

March 18, 2011 issue of  ‘Export Import News’ wrote, “FDI in pharma sector comes down during current financial year as debate on ‘Take-Overs’ rages on”.

The Union Health Minister Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad is reportedly arguing in favor of putting a cap on the FDI limit for pharmaceuticals in India. This is based on an apprehension that such FDI would have an overall adverse impact on the health care scenario of the country, especially, on pricing and availability of medicines to the common man.

It has also been reported that the Commerce Ministry is in favor of reviewing the situation after taking into consideration of the report to be submitted to them by an international consulting firm. This seems to have been prompted by the request of the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) based on the recent takeovers of Indian companies by the Multi National Pharmaceutical Corporations. It appears that the recommendations of the Ministry of commerce, prepared in consultation with the DoP, will then be forwarded to the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister for a final direction on the much hyped and talked about issue.

Views of the Planning Commission of India:

Meanwhile, most of the daily business papers of India reported that on July 12, 2011, the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission of India Mr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia commented, “I don’t think there is any move anywhere to prevent the expansion of existing 100% foreign owned pharmaceutical companies or to prevent green field investment by foreign companies.”

A reasonable comment:

This comment of Mr. Ahluwalia seems quite reasonable, considering the fact that full control of powers on Mergers and Acquisitions of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) effective June 1, 2011, has already been notified.

CCI to address all possible adverse impact on competition due to M&A:

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) will now carefully scrutinize the possibilities of the market being less competitive due to Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) of companies across the industry in the country. This concern becomes even greater, especially, in the horizontal mergers and acquisitions between the comparable competitors in the same products or geographic markets, as we have been witnessing also in the pharmaceutical sector of India, over a period of time.

However, the country is yet to notice any quantifiable ill effects of such horizontal or vertical M&A. Neither is there any major case pending with the CCI in this regard for the pharmaceutical sector.

Competition related scrutiny is nothing new in the developed markets:

Competition related scrutiny during M&A is nothing new in the developed markets of the world and is already being followed in the USA, the countries within the European Union (EU) and elsewhere.

Key concerns with M&A in pharmaceuticals:

Many believe that M&A even in the oligopolistic nature of pharmaceutical market in any country, if not abused will not do any harm to competition.  Possibly for this reason, it will be rather difficult to cite many examples, the world over, where companies have been stopped from merging by the regulators because of anti-competitive reasons.

Another school of thought, however, believes that large M&A could ultimately lead to oligopolistic nature of the pharmaceutical industry with adverse impact on competition. Thus M&A regulations are very important for this sector.

Moreover, we need to remember that competition no longer depends only on the number of players in any given field. To explain this point many people cite the example of two large global players in the field of brown liquid beverages, Coke and Pepsi, where despite being limited competition, consumers derive immense value added economic benefits due to cut throat competition between these two large players.

It goes without saying, CCI must ensure that in any M&A process, even within the pharmaceutical industry of India, such rivalry does not give way to an absolute monopoly, directly or indirectly.

M&A activity in India:

In India, the consolidation process within the Pharmaceutical Industry started gaining momentum way back in 2006 with the acquisition of Matrix Lab by Mylan. 2008 witnessed one of the biggest mergers in the Pharmaceutical Industry of India, when the third largest drug maker of Japan, Daiichi Sankyo acquired 63.9% stake of Ranbaxy Laboratories of India with US $4.6 billion.

Last year, in May 2010, Chicago based Abbott Laboratories acquired the branded generics business of Piramal Healthcare with US$3.72 billion. This was soon followed by the acquisition of Paras Pharma by Reckit Benkiser.

The ground realities:

In India, if we look at the ground reality, we find that the market competition is extremely fierce with each branded generic/generic drug (constituting over 99% of the Indian Pharmaceutical Market, IPM) having not less than 50 to 80 competitors within the same chemical compound. Moreover, 100% of the IPM is price regulated by the government, 20% under cost based price control and the balance 80% is under stringent price monitoring mechanism.

In an environment like this, the apprehension of threat to ‘public health interest’ due to irresponsible pricing will be rather imaginary. More so, when the medicine prices in India are the cheapest in the world, cheaper than even our next door neighbors like, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

CCI and NPPA will play a critical role:

One of the key concerns of the stakeholders in India is that M&A will allow the companies to come together to fix prices and resort to other anti competitive measures. However, in the pharmaceutical industry of the country this seems to be highly unlikely because of effective presence of the strong price regulator, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), as mentioned above.

Thus even after almost three years of acquisition, the product prices of Ranbaxy have remained stable, some in fact even declined. As per IMS MAT June data, prices of Ranbaxy products grew only by 0.6% in 2009 and actually fell by 1% in 2010. Similarly post acquisition of Piramal Healthcare by Abbott USA and Shantha Biotech by Sanofi of France, average product price increases of these two Indian subsidiaries were reported to be just around 2% and 0%, respectively.

However, even if there is any remote possibility of M&A having adverse effect on competition, it will now be taken care of effectively by the CCI, as it happens in many countries of the world,  Israel being a recent example involving an Indian company.

‘Competition Commission’ does intervene:

In the process of the acquisition of Taro Pharma of Israel by Sun Pharma of India in 2008, being concerned with the possibility of price increases due to less competitive environment in three generic carbamazepine formulations, the Competition Commission in Israel intervened, as happened in many other countries.  As a result, Sun Pharma was directed by the regulator to divest its rights to develop, manufacture and market of all these three formulations to Torrent Pharma or another Commission approved buyer.

There are many such examples, across the world, of Competition Commission playing a key role to negate any possible ill effect of M&A.

Will the new Competition Law delay the M&A process?

Some apprehensions have been expressed that the new competition law could delay the process of a Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) . However, it is worth noting, in case the CCI will require raising any objection after the voluntary notification has been served, they will have to do so within 90 working days, otherwise the M&A process will deem to be solemnized.

Conclusion:

I reckon, in the M&A process, the entire Pharmaceutical Industry in India would continue to act responsibly with demonstrable commitment to help achieving the healthcare objectives of the nation.

Global players will keep on searching for their suitable targets in the emerging markets like India, just as Indian players are searching for the same in the global markets. This is a process of consolidation in any industry and will continue to take place across the world.

Adverse impact of M&A on competition, if any, will now be effectively taken care of by the CCI. In addition, the apprehension for any unreasonable price increases post M&A will be addressed by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA).

Thus, there are enough checks and balances already being in place to avoid any possible adverse impact due to M&A activities in India.In this evolving scenario, it is indeed difficult to understand, why the FDI issue related to M&A in the Pharmaceutical space of India is still catching headlines of both in the national and international media.

Be that as it may, it goes without saying that as we move on, the role of CCI in all M&A activities within the Pharmaceutical Industry of India will be keenly watched by all concerned, mainly to ensure that the vibrant competitive environment is kept alive within this sector.

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.

In the cacophony of FDI in the pharmaceutical sector of India

Posted on by
Reply

It is a widely accepted fact that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the Pharmaceutical industry, just like in any other industry, is important for an emerging economy like India, mainly because of various important benefits that the country would derive out of such investments, like for example:

  • Job creation
  • World class infrastructure development
  • Transfer of modern technology
  • Help creating a talent pool through international training and development
  • Meeting unmet needs of patients through innovative medicines
  • Help imbibing the best practices of the world

Types of FDIs in the Pharmaceutical sector of India:

There are mainly three types of FDIs that we have witnessed so far in India:

  1. Green field investment: Like, setting up new manufacturing facility at Vizag by Eisai of Japan
  2. Brown field investment: Like, acquisition of Ranbaxy by Daiichi Sankyo of Japan, Piramal Healthcare by Abbott USA or Shantha Biotech by Sanofi Aventis of France.
  3. Joint venture: Like, Bayer Healthcare and Cadila Healthcare or Sun Pharma and MSD etc.

Besides these, as mentioned below, there have been some collaborative arrangements, as well, between global and Indian Pharmaceutical companies in the last five years like, GSK with Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL), Pfizer with Biocon etc.

Key drivers for FDI:

Following are the key factors, which attract FDI in the pharmaceutical sector, especially in an emerging market like India:

  1. Domestic market size, prospects for future market growth,
  2. Cheaper operating cost
  3. Cheaper input and English-speaking skilled manpower cost
  4. Regulatory environment
  5. Pricing environment
  6. Robust IT infrastructure
  7. Legal, IPR and financial framework

Relationship between FDI and Intellectual Property (IP) Environment:

Some recent media reports in various parts of the world including India had highlighted that China attracts more investment from foreign drug makers due to more robust Intellectual Property (IP) laws in that country.

US Trade Representatives (USTR) is one such agency which evaluates the adequacy and effectiveness of protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) with US trading partners in various countries of the world through annual release of their ‘Special 301 Report’.

The report of US Trade Representatives (USTR 2011 Special 301) rates IPR regime of both China and India as unsatisfactory, so far as law enforcement, piracy prevention and transparency are concerned. The two main categories in the report are the ‘Priority Watch List’ and the ‘Watch List’. Both India and China fall under ‘Priority Watch List’ of this report.

An apparent contradiction:
The key question, in this context, that is being raised for quite some time now is, whether the decisions of foreign drug makers to invest in the emerging markets, like India and China are predominantly dependent on the IPR scenario in the respective countries.

If it is so, some would obviously like to know whether or not the ‘USTR 2011 Special 301 Report’ contradicts the above hypotheses.

Notwithstanding ‘USTR Special 301 Reports’ and being featured in their ‘Priority Watch List’ year after year, China continues to attract more and more FDI in pharmaceuticals over a long period of time. In any case, the FDI from USA in China was just around 12% of the total FDI that the country attracted in 2008. The same trend continues even today.

However, without going into the details of any report, relative robustness of IPR regime could at best be just one of the several key factors for a research based global pharmaceutical company to decide on FDI in any emerging market of the world.

Relatively speaking:

China is certainly attracting more FDI in the Pharma space than India. According to “The Survey of Foreign Investments in China’s Medicine Industry” of the Government of China, the FDI in the pharmaceutical industry of the country for a three year period commencing from 2006 to 2008 was around US $ 1772 million. The percentage of total investments made by the major countries is as follows:

Country wise pharmaceutical FDI % in China in 2008

 

Rank

Country

%

1.

Hong Kong

39.69

2.

United States

11.95

3.

British Virgin Island

11.64

4.

Bermuda

6.45

5.

Singapore

4.91

(Source: Invest in China 2009, Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China)

Whereas, as per Mr. Jyotiraditya Scindia, Minister of State, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, from the year 2006-07 up to September 2009, India attracted FDI of US $ 817.39 million, as follows:

FDI ( US$ million)

Sector

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10 (upto Sept.09)

Cumulative

DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS

214.84

334.09

181.61

86.85

817.39

These figures would change significantly if FDI through M&A is taken into consideration.

In any case, this trend should not necessarily be exclusively correlated to the relative robustness of the IPR regime in India and China, notwithstanding the fact that 5.5% of all global pharmaceutical patent applications named one inventor or more located in India as against 8.4% located in China (Based on WIPO PCT applications)

Impact of FDI on the Indian Pharmaceutical Sector:

Some important FDI in India from 2006 to 2011

Year

Indian Companies

Multinational Companies

Value ($Mn)

 Type
2006
Matrix Labs Mylan

736

 Acquisition
Dabur Pharma Fresenius Kabi

219

 Acquisition
Ranbaxy Labs Daiichi Sankyo

4,600

 Acquisition
Shantha Biotech Sanofi-aventis

783

 Acquisition
2009
Orchid Chemicals Hospira

400

 Business Buyout
Aurobindo Pharma Pfizer

Not disclosed

 Generic Development and Supply
Dr Reddy’s  Labs GlaxoSmithKline

Not disclosed

 Generic Development and Supply
2010
Piramal Healthcare Abbott

3,720

 Business Buyout
Paras Pharma Reckitt Benkiser

726

 Acquisition
Claris Lifesciences Pfizer

Not disclosed

 Generic Development and Supply
Biocon Pfizer

350

 Insulin Marketing Deal
2011
Cadila Healthcare Bayer

Not disclosed

 Marketing Joint Venture
Sun Pharma Merck & Co.

Not disclosed

 Marketing, Manufacturing Joint Venture

There is no published data, as yet, to justify that the inflow of FDI in the pharmaceutical sector of India, including acquisition of large domestic pharmaceutical players like, Ranbaxy, Piramal Healthcare etc., had any adverse impact whatsoever on the country.

However, the reality is that such apprehension, especially the acquisition of some ‘Pharma Crown Jewels’ of India by the Multinational Companies (MNCs), though not fact-based, are apparently getting reverberated as a ‘sinister and sordid design’ even in the corridors of power ranging from the Ministry of Commerce, Cabinet Committee of Economic Affairs (CCEA), Planning Commission of India to Joint Parliamentary committee for Commerce.

It appears that the government is adopting a ‘wait and watch’ policy in this area for now, presumably because of the fact that the newly formed ‘Competition Commission of India (CCI)’ from now onwards will keep a careful vigil on such mega acquisitions.

Poor healthcare coverage could be a key barrier:

As indicated above, relative size and growth of the domestic pharmaceutical market together with healthcare coverage and delivery mechanism of a country could well be the most critical factor to influence foreign investment decision of the global pharmaceutical companies.

In global ranking, China is currently the seventh (India: 14) largest pharmaceutical market and is expected to be the fifth (India: 10) largest market by 2015 and the third largest by 2020. Chinese pharmaceutical market is expected to grow by over 15% per annum in the next five years, which is higher than India, even without considering the current base of both the countries.
Even in Health Insurance space, “India ranks 136th on penetration levels and lags behind China (106), Thailand (87), Russia (86), Brazil (85), Japan (61) and the US (9),” reported ‘Indo-Asian News Service (IANS)’ on July 21, 2009, in a paper titled, “India’s insurance penetration lower than world average”, jointly prepared by Crisil and Assocham.

Moreover, ‘out of pocket’ healthcare expenditure in India is one of the highest in the world at around 80% against 61% in China.

Country Attractiveness Index (CAI):

‘A.T. Kearney’ developed a CAI for clinical trials, for the use of, especially, the pharmaceutical industry executives to make more informed decision on offshore clinical trials. As per this study, the CAI of China is 6.10 against 5.58 of India. This could mainly be due to prevailing lackadaisical regulatory environment in India.
Other reasons to influence FDI:
I would reckon, all foreign direct investments (FDI) by the global pharmaceutical companies are driven by a combination of key business factors, as mentioned above, IPR ecosystem in the country is just one of them. This is vindicated by a recent report, which is as follows:

“Novartis has signed an agreement to build a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in St. Petersburg, Russia. The plant is part of a $500 million Novartis investment in infrastructure, health care initiatives, and R&D in Russia over the next five years”.

The reason behind this investment was reported as follows:
“The announcement follows a pledge late last year by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of some $4 billion in federal funding for pharmaceutical industry development over the next 10 years. The government has set a goal for local industry to produce 90% of Russia’s “essential medicines”—about half of the country’s total pharmaceutical sales—by 2020.”
Other recent examples of FDI made by the global majors in other countries, which will support my above statement, are as follows:

1. Novo Nordisk: US $100 million in Russia 2. Sanofi-Aventis: a plant in Saudi Arabia. 3. Eisai: relocated global Aricept manufacturing facility to India for worldwide export.

Conclusion:

‘The Journal of International Business Studies’ (1999) 30, 1–24 based on the results from an econometric analysis of 136 laboratory investments reconfirms that relative market size, growth and the  strength of science base of a country would ultimately influence FDI in pharmaceutical research and development in an emerging market. The study also reiterated that these factors hold good for even Japanese, European and U.S. pharmaceutical companies.

Thus, to attract more FDI in the pharmaceutical sector and effectively compete with China, India should primarily focus in creating a vibrant and large domestic pharmaceutical product and services market reflecting sustainable high inclusive growth. A comprehensive ecosystem to provide healthcare to all, efficient regulatory mechanism, effective well balanced IP environment and a robust legal and financial framework will further hasten the process.

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.

Limiting FDI in Pharma is a protectionist cry: Does not benefit the common man.

Posted on by
Reply

“Protectionism is harmful” very aptly commented by Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, the Finance Minister of India, just the other day. This was in context of “recent US moves to hike visa fees and clamp down on outsourcing”.
While almost at the same time, both Indian and the foreign media reports indicate that being concerned by the recent acquisitions of the home grown relatively large pharmaceutical and biotech companies, the Department of Pharmaceuticals (DoP) and the Department of Industrial Policy and promotion (DIPP) of the Government of India are mulling a proposal to do away with the current practice of allowing 100% Foreign Direct Investments (FDI), as applicable to the pharmaceutical industry in India.

Even the Health Minister of India has been expressing this concern since ‘Abbott – Piramal deal’ was inked last year. He expressed the same apprehension, as he read out from his written speech, in an industry function in Mumbai held on January 7, 2011.

Thus the moot question is, will limiting FDI in pharmaceuticals be not considered by the world as a protective measure, just as ‘hiking visa fees and clamping down outsourcing’ from India by other countries?
Is it a mere speculation?
I would reckon so, as at this stage India cannot afford to take any retrograde anti-reformist measure in its endeavor to further accelerate the economic progress of the nation. The Finance Minister of India has also expressed so publicly, in the same context, quite recently.
Still the speculation is quite rife that a new cap of 49% FDI for pharmaceuticals would be able to keep the multinational companies (MNCs) away from having controlling stakes in the Indian companies, which will not jeopardize access to quality medicines at an affordable price to a vast majority of the population.
The key apprehensions:
The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of the Ministry of Commerce and Industries in its ‘Discussion Paper’ dated August 24, 2010, which was primarily on Compulsory Licensing (CL), also expressed some of the following key apprehensions towards foreign acquisitions of the Indian pharmaceutical companies by the MNCs:
1. Such takeovers could lead to an ‘oligopolistic market’ where a few companies will decide the prices of essential medicines, adversely impacting the ‘Public Health Interest (PHI)’.
2. If large Indian companies having the wherewithal to replicate any patented molecule are taken over by the MNCs, the ‘oligopolistic’ situation thus created and being strengthened by the exclusivity of products through product patent rights, will severely limit the power of the government to face the challenge of PHI by granting CLs.
3. In such a situation MNCs could well decide to sell only the high priced patented and branded generic drugs rather than the cheaper essential drugs, pushing up the drug prices and causing inconvenience to patients.
Addressing the key apprehensions:
Let me now try to address these apprehensions impartially and with as much data as possible.
1. Can Indian Pharmaceutical Market (IPM) be ever oligopolistic? Dictionary defines ‘Oligopolistic market’ as ‘a market condition in which sellers are so few that the actions of any one of them will materially affect price and have a measurable impact on competitors’.
IPM has over 23,000 players and around 60,000 brands (source: IMS 2010). Even after, all the recent acquisition, the top ranked pharmaceutical company of India – Abbott, enjoys a market share of just 6.1% (source: AIOCD/AWACS , November 2010). Even the Top 10 groups of companies (each belonging to the same promoter group though different and not the individual companies) contribute just around 40% of the IPM.
Thus, IPM is highly fragmented. No company or group of companies enjoys any clear market domination. In a scenario like this, the apprehension of an ‘oligopolistic market’ being created through acquisitions by the MNCs is indeed unfounded.
2. The idea of creating a legal barrier in terms of limiting the FDIs to prevent the domestic pharma players from selling their respective companies at a price, which they would consider lucrative, just from the CL point of you, as mentioned in the ‘discussion paper’ of DIPP, sounds bizarre.
3. The market competition is also extremely fierce in India with each branded generic/generic drug (constituting over 99% of the IPM) having not less than 50 to 60 competitors within the same chemical compound. Moreover, 100% of the IPM is price regulated by the government, 20% under cost based price control and the balance 80% is under stringent price monitoring mechanism. In an environment like this, the very thought of any threat to ‘public health interest’ due irresponsible pricing, may be taken as an insult to the government’s own price regulators, who have contributed in making the medicine prices in India cheapest in the world, cheaper than even our next door neighbors like, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Hard facts tell us a different story:
The apprehension that acquisition of Indian drug companies by MNCs will hurt the consumer interest is not based on hard facts. MNCs constitute 19% of the total share of the Indian pharmaceutical market in value terms. Of the 455 companies listed in IMS ORG, 38 are foreign owned (only 8.4%). The fragmented nature of the industry ensures high level of competition that has led to the lowest prices of essential medicines in India.

Ranbaxy was the first major Indian drug company to be acquired by the Japanese MNC Daiichi Sankyo in June 2008. Two years later, the prices of medicines of Ranbaxy have remained stable, some in fact even declined. As per IMS MAT June data, prices of Ranbaxy products grew only by 0.6% in 2009 and actually fell by 1% in 2010.
Access to world class science and technology:
Even the acquisition of Shantha Biotechnique by Sanofi-aventis has enabled the domestic bio-tech company to get world class R&D support and international exposure in partnership with the one of the world’s largest vaccines development company – Sanofi-Pasteur. It is worth noting that none of the prices of locally produced vaccines by Shantha Biotechnique has gone up after this acquisition.
Data also shows that the number of products under price control is now much higher for MNCs in general than the domestic drug companies.
Other positive fall outs of acquisitions/collaborations:
All these acquisitions were absolutely voluntary in every way and brought in for the country large amount of foreign investments as can be seen in the Piramal Healthcare buyout amounting to US $3.72 billion and earlier the Ranbaxy buyout of US $4.2 billion. Such acquisitions also help in shifting investment and R&D focus of the MNCs into India, which offers good science and technology base with a significant cost arbitrage.
Conclusion:
In my opinion, through partnering with MNCs, local drug companies have begun to gain access to international expertise, resources and good manufacturing practices. A number of local companies have already entered into alliances with MNCs to leverage these opportunities.
Thus limiting FDI in the pharmaceutical industry at this stage, when the government in fact is debating to open up the retail and the insurance sectors to foreign investments will indeed be a retrograde step for the country.

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.

‘Prescription-brand’ loyalty and engaged field force – exploring the direct relationship.

Posted on by
Reply
Well known English writer and one of the most prominent members of the famous ‘Huxley family’, Aldous Huxley once said in the context of nature, “Everything has a cause and the same cause usually produces same effect. The law of cause and effect is fixed.”
‘Cause and effect’ relationship between ‘employee satisfaction’ and ‘customer satisfaction’:Following such ‘cause and effect’ relationship, there are many studies, which establish a direct correlation between ‘customers satisfaction’ and ‘satisfied employees’. Within the pharmaceutical industry, it has now been well established that there is a cause-and-effectrelationship between Doctors’ prescription-brand loyalty and a satisfied or properly engaged sales & marketing staff.

For most organizations, the objective of improving the satisfaction level or increasing the degree of engagement of an employee in the organization is an article of faith. Research studies on this subject indicate that building customer loyalty has a significant impact on profitability of the organization. A study based on 46,000 business-to-business surveys reports that a “totally satisfied” customer contributes 2.6 times more revenue than a “somewhat satisfied” customer.

‘Walking the talk’ is the name of the game:

It is extremely difficult if not impossible to create a critical mass of loyal doctors’ base for a brand or brands without a creating a team of satisfied, engaged or loyal sales & marketing team. The best employees usually prefer to work for companies where managers ‘walk the talk’, set examples and deliver superior values.

Acid test of leadership:

A work environment of such kind helps to create employee satisfaction, loyalty and engagement, which ultimately gets translated into building customer loyalty. Ensuring employee loyalty and creating employee satisfaction is, therefore, considered widely as the acid test of leadership.

Creating a positive psyche within employees is important, usual skill training is just not enough:

To create employee loyalty the organization will need to understand the mind of its employee and always try to have a positive influence on their psyche. Usual skill training will not help to achieve it.
Just as sowing a seed is no guarantee that it will grow into a plant, a highly skilled sales person is no guarantee that it will contribute to the growth of the organization. Just as one will need to create an environment for the seed grow into a plant, the organization will need to create an environment for employee satisfaction to enable them contributing towards the growth of the organization.

In HR invest resources where the mouth is:

It is very important for the managers to devote more resources both in terms of money and time to play the role of a mentor to each one of his or her direct reports to improve their satisfaction level with the organization. These satisfied employees will in turn help create a core group of prescription brand loyal doctors for the organization.

‘Charity begins at home’:

However, ironically most of these managers do not realize that attempts at their end towards this objective, many a times, are just cosmetic in nature. As the saying goes, “charity begins at home”…real enhancement in the level of customer services, indeed starts from extending superior services, support and satisfaction level to the sales force, the bedrock for generation of prescription demands for the prescription brands.

Facing the ‘moments of truths’ of every day positively:

Pursuit of an organization in providing great services to the patients through doctors ultimately depends on the people who provide those services…the sales force. It can only happen through one’s willingness to go beyond what is required of people who serve on the front lines.

Excellence in organizational performance takes place through efforts of frontline employees who make up their minds to face the “moments of truth” of every day, as positively as they possibly can. Such enthusiasm, loyalty, or devotion none will be able to impose on any one. These ordinary people are transformed into ‘brave hearts’ and highly satisfied top performers only through well articulated “shared values”, which take their deep roots within the organizational environment. In a situation like this one can easily make out the visible passion and pride of the frontline staff, emanating from deep within, of each one of them.

Some research findings:

Following are some examples from various research findings, which reinforce the hypotheses that there is a ‘cause and effect’ relationship between ‘customers satisfaction’ and ‘satisfied employees’:

• “For every one percent increase in internal service climate there is a two percent increase in
revenue”.

• “In cardiac care units where nurses’ moods were depressed, patient death rates were four times
higher than in comparable units”.

• Emotional commitment of the sales force and sense of identity with the company are key factors in
providing excellent service to the doctors.

• The reason of poor prescription demand of a company’s products is related to the degree of its sales
staff turnover.

Conclusion:

Therefore, one tends to believe that “a company’s external customer service is only as strong as the company’s internal leadership and the culture of commitment that this leadership creates”.

To transform one’s organization from “Good to Great” it is of utmost importance to build a team of loyal and satisfied ‘internal customers’ by creating a commensurate organizational culture, work environment, ethics and values. Various training & development programs or seminars, aiming only at employee ‘skill development’, are just not enough.

By Tapan 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.