The corporate reputation of pharma companies varied significantly in 2013 when assessed by patient groups of different specialties —even between the therapeutic divisions of a single company

Press Release Date: 14-04-2014 Contact: Alexandra Wyke                  email: alexwyke@patient-view.com Tel: 0044-(0)1567-520-965

  • The corporate reputation of 23 pharma companies in 2013 was analysed by patient groups specialising in four different subject areas: cancer, diabetes, HIV/AIDS and neurological conditions. The results were compared with each company’s overall performance worldwide across all specialties (as published in PatientView’s February 2014 ‘The Corporate Reputation of Pharma—the Patient Perspective’). The latter study collected the opinion of 800 patient groups on the corporate reputation of 33 leading pharma companies in 2013. 
  • The number of respondent patient groups for each therapy area were as follows: Cancer = 140; HIV/AIDS = 70; Diabetes = 80; Neurological = 140.
  • Corporate reputation was measured in each of the four specialties by analysing six indicators: Indicator 1: Whether the company has an effective patient-centred strategy. Indicator II: The quality of the information that the company provides to patients. Indicator III: The company’s record on patient safety. Indicator IV: The usefulness to patients of the company’s products. Indicator V: The company’s record of transparency with external stakeholders. Indicator VI: Whether the company acts with integrity.

The corporate reputation of pharma companies, as assessed by patient groups from different specialty areas, varied significantly in 2013—even between the therapeutic divisions of a single company.

Table: Rankings of 23 pharma companies assessed by patient groups from four specialty areas (Results for each specialty were recalculated to determine whether the performance of the pharma company was better, worse, or the same as the company’s overall reputation across all specialties worldwide.) Key to table: key taBLE

Understanding the 2013 results

  •  Although AbbVie ranks 3rd overall in the global ranking of corporate reputation from a patient perspective, its cancer, diabetes and HIV/AIDS divisions underperform for corporate reputation against Abbvie as a whole.
  • Amgen ranks 10th out of 17 for corporate reputation in the field of cancer (from the patient perspective)—better than Amgen’s performance as a whole, in which it comes 22nd out of 33 companies. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that Amgen is ranked 1st by cancer patient groups for having the most effective patient-centred strategy.
  • From the perspective of cancer patient groups, AstraZeneca’s cancer division outperforms the company as whole at corporate reputation—5th out of 17 companies, compared with 17th out of 33 companies for the corporate reputation of the company overall. Similarly, patient groups specialising in neurological conditions rank AstraZeneca 4th out of 14 companies with a neurological remit—better than the company’s overall performance at corporate reputation.
  • Bayer’s diabetes division outperforms the company as a whole for corporate reputation—diabetes patient groups rank Bayer 4th out of 12 companies. However, Bayer’s neurological division underperforms from a patient perspective.
  • The performance of Baxter’s cancer division from a patient perspective is in keeping with that of the company as a whole.
  • Boehringer-Ingelheim’s activities in neurology attract higher praise from patient groups of that specialty than the company as a whole does from all patient groups—Boehringer-Ingelheim ranks 8th out of the 14 companies with neurological products. However, according to HIV/AIDS patient groups, Boehringer-Ingelheim ranks 10th out of 10 companies for corporate reputation in the subject area of HIV/AIDS, underperforming the company as a whole. Boehringer-Ingelheim’s corporate reputation in the fields of cancer and diabetes are on a par with the corporate reputation of the company as a whole.
  • HIV/AIDS patient groups have determined that Bristol-Myers Squibb’s corporate reputation in HIV/AIDS—6th out of 10 companies—is better than that of the company as a whole. However, Bristol-Myers Squibb’s corporate reputation in the fields of cancer and neurological conditions is less than that of the company as a whole.
  • Celgene’s cancer division outperforms the rest of the company in corporate reputation. Cancer patient groups rank Celgene 3rd out of 17 companies.
  • From the patient perspective,
  • Eli Lilly ranks 1st for corporate reputation in the fields of both diabetes and neurological therapy areas. In cancer, though, Eli Lilly underperforms the company as a whole in terms of patent-group assessment of its corporate reputation.
  • Gilead ranks 2nd out of 10 companies for corporate reputation in the field of HIV/AIDS, when assessed by patient groups from that specialty area only.
  • When assessed solely by patient groups specialising in neurological conditions,
  • GSK ranks 3rd out of 14 companies in corporate reputation. However, GSK’s corporate reputation in the field of diabetes is less than that of the company as a whole.
  • Janssen (as an overall company) is ranked 5th in corporate reputation by patient groups from all specialty area worldwide. However, according to patient groups from the specific therapy areas of cancer, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, and neurological conditions, the company’s corporate reputation slightly underperforms Janssen overall.
  • According to patient groups specialising in neurological conditions, Lundbeck ranks 6th out of 14 companies—outperforming the corporate reputation of the company overall when assessed by all patient groups that claim familiarity with Lundbeck.
  • According to diabetes patient groups, Merck & Co of the USA ranks 6th out of 12 companies, outperforming the overall company’s performance in corporate reputation. The cancer and HIV/AIDS divisions of Merck & Co, however, underperform the company as a whole in corporate reputation.
  • According to patient groups specialising in neurological conditions, Merck Group of Germany ranks 11th out of 14 companies—a better result for corporate reputation than that achieved by the company as a whole. Notably, patient groups specialising in neurological conditions rank Merck Group 3rd out of 14 companies for providing high-quality information to patients.
  • Cancer patient groups rank Novartis 2nd out of 17 companies for corporate reputation in the field of cancer—better than the company’s overall performance. Novartis underperforms at corporate reputation in the fields of diabetes and HIV/AIDS. Patient groups specialising in neurological conditions rate Novartis’ corporate reputation on a par with that of the company overall.
  • Diabetes patient groups rank Novo Nordisk 2nd out of 12 companies for corporate reputation in the field of diabetes—better than the overall company’s performance at corporate reputation when assessed by patient groups of all specialties. (The global study included all patient groups that claim familiarity with Novo Nordisk, not just those specialising in diabetes.)
  • Pfizer is ranked 4th overall by patient groups from all specialty areas worldwide. However, patient groups from the specific therapy areas of cancer, diabetes, and neurological conditions see the company as slightly underperforming in corporate reputation compared with Pfizer overall.
  • According to cancer patient groups, Roche ranks 1st out of 17 companies for corporate reputation in the field of cancer. However, Roche underperforms for corporate reputation in the fields of HIV/AIDS and neurological conditions when compared with the company overall.
  • According to diabetes patient groups, Sanofi ranks 3rd out of 12 companies for corporate reputation in the field of diabetes—outperforming the corporate reputation of the company overall. In cancer and neurological conditions, however, Sanofi underperforms the company overall in corporate reputation.
  • Takeda is ranked 12th out 17 companies by cancer patient groups for corporate reputation—better than the performance of the overall company in corporate reputation.
  • ViiV is ranked 1st out of 33 companies for corporate reputation by all patent groups in the global survey. However, when only the views of HIV/AIDS patient groups are considered, the company ranks 3rd out of the 10 companies that have an HIV/AIDS portfolio of products. (It should be noted that only those HIV/AIDS patient groups which claimed familiarity with ViiV itself were included in this analysis, not those patient groups which claimed familiarity with ViiV’s partner companies—GSK, Pfizer and Shionogi.)
  • ViiV and its partners (described here as ‘ViiV Plus’) are ranked 1st for corporate reputation in the field of HIV/AIDS by HIV/AIDS patient groups. (Included in this analysis are HIV/AIDS patient groups claiming familiarity with ViiV itself, GSK, Pfizer and Shionogi.)

The above information can be found in full detail in five PatientView reports:

  • The Corporate Reputation of Pharma—the Patient Perspective, February 2014
  • The Corporate Reputation of Pharma—the Patient Perspective (Cancer), March 2014
  • The Corporate Reputation of Pharma—the Patient Perspective (Diabetes), March 2014
  • The Corporate Reputation of Pharma—the Patient Perspective (HIV/AIDS), March 2014
  • The Corporate Reputation of Pharma—the Patient Perspective (Neurological), April 2014

Copies of these reports can be purchased from PatientView

For more information, please email: report@patient-view.com

End of press release