BANNER for press releasePRESS RELEASE

The corporate reputation of the pharmaceutical industry in 2015—the patient perspective (5th edition)

Report published by PatientView

London, March 10th, 2016. This report is based on the findings of a PatientView November 2015-January 2016 survey exploring the views of 1,075 patient groups from 72 countries, and focusing on differing medical specialties. The report provides feedback on the corporate reputation of the pharma industry during 2015, as well as the performance of 48 pharma companies for six key indicators that influence corporate reputation. Results are compared with those of the previous four years.

For the purposes of this report, the phrase ‘corporate reputation’ is defined as the extent to which pharma companies are meeting the expectations of patients and patient groups.

The six indicators of corporate reputation:

  1. Patient-centricity.
  2. Patient information.
  3. Patient safety.
  4. Useful products.
  5. Transparency; and
  6. Integrity

The 48 companies analysed:

AbbVie I Actavis I Allergan I Almirall I Amgen I Astellas Pharma I AstraZeneca I Baxalta I Bayer I Biogen Idec I Boehringer Ingelheim I Bristol-Myers Squibb I Celgene I Chiesi Farmaceutici I Eisai I Eli Lilly (Lilly) I Ferring I Gedeon Richter I Gilead Sciences I Grifols I Grünenthal I GSK I Hospira I Ipsen I Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson I LEO Pharma I Lundbeck I Mallinckrodt I Menarini I Merck & Co I Merck KGaA I Mylan I Novartis I Novo Nordisk I Octapharma I Otsuka I Pfizer I Roche I Sandoz I Sanofi I Servier I Shire I Stada Arzneimittel I Takeda I Teva I UCB I Valeant I ViiV Healthcare


2015 was a watershed year for pharma’s investment in relationships with patient groups and patient-centric activities. Many of the major pharma companies announced new strategies to expand their patient centricity (some are outlined in this latest report). The step-up in interest among patient groups can be seen in the fact that …

The pharma industry’s corporate reputation stands, in 2015, at its best ever since these PatientView surveys began in 2011. 44.7% of the 1,075 respondent patient SLIDE 1groups stated that pharma had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation in 2015, compared with 34% in 2012 (when the industry’s corporate reputation reached its lowest ebb). 28% of 2015’s respondent patient groups believed the industry’s corporate reputation to have improved during the year.

The main reason given by patient groups for the positive feedback in 2015 was pharma’s ability to produce high-quality products of value to patients. As many as 72% of the 1,075 patient groups responding to the 2015 ‘Corporate Reputation of Pharma’ survey stated that the pharma industry as a whole was “Excellent” or “Good” during the year at producing high-quality products. This finding is the highest percentage that PatientView has ever recorded for this particular question throughout the five years in which the ‘Corporate Reputation’ survey has been conducted.

However, patient groups retain reservations about pharma—in particular, about the industry’s pricing practices

Only 15% of the patient groups responding to the 2015 survey stated that pharma was “Excellent” or “Good” at having fair pricing policies (and at not making excessive profits). As many as 45% of 2015’s respondent patient groups said that pharma was poor at this activity.

The patient groups most aggrieved about pharma’s pricing are those specialising in hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, and rare diseases. In country terms, the most unhappy are patient groups in Australasia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, and the USA.



Out of the 48 companies assessed for their corporate reputation by patient groups in 2015:

ViiV Healthcare is, once again, OVERALL number 1.

with AbbVie a close 2nd, same position as in 2014.

Lundbeck 3rd, up two places from 2014.

Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson 4th, up four places from 2014.

Novo Nordisk 5th, down three places from 2014.

Gilead 6th, up eight places from 2014.

Looking at the average scores attained by the companies across the six indicators of corporate reputation, pharma companies clearly fall into three tiers—the top tier, the middle, and the lower—in terms of their corporate standing with patient groups.

See table below for the rankings and average scores of the 48 companies

Patient groups’ comments indicate that a number of factors influence their opinions on the corporate standing of pharma companies, including …

Significant product launches: One vital pre-requisite for a pharma company wishing to gain and hold a good corporate reputation is for it to have treatments which provide genuine, measurable, and positive impact on a medical condition. Patient groups also closely track any progress in companies’ R&D pipelines.

Patent expiries: Just how a company manages its relationship with patient groups post-patent expiry will decide whether these organisations believe the company to be patient centric or not.

Mergers & acquisitions: Patient groups do not, on the whole, like pharma M&As. Patient groups will publicly condemn any deal that they think occurs for no other reason than to reduce tax bills and overheads.

Drug pricing and market access: This is one of the most sensitive topics for patient groups. Patient groups are calling, in particular, for greater transparency in the drug-pricing process.

Unacceptable corporate behaviour: Patient groups will mark pharma companies significantly down for corporate reputation if they learn of any of the following about a company … bribery or corruption; lack of transparency (mostly on pricing arrangements); pay-for-delay schemes; mismanagement of confidential patient data; or failure to publicise adverse reactions.

Imaginative patient-partnership schemes: 2015 saw these begin to appear in abundance [as the report outlines].

Rankings and average scores of the 48 companies for their corporate reputation in 2015, as perceived by patient groups-How the results are calculated:

* Rankings: Each company is assessed only by the patient groups that are familiar with them. Among these, the perceSLIDE 3ntage of patient groups stating that the company is “best” at each of the six indicators of corporate reputation is calculated. (Patient groups are allowed a maximum choice of 3 companies among the 48 to elect as “best”.) Based on that percentage score, each company is ranked for each of the six indicators. The final ranking is calculated by totaling each company’s ranking for each indicator. Thus, the best overall score possible any one company can get is 6, and that happens when the company is ranked first for each of the six indicators.

* Average score: To obtain the average score, the percentage scores attained by the companies among patient groups familiar with them (ie the percentage of patient groups voting the company “best”) across the six indicators is added and averaged.

[Statistical note: the ‘final rankings’ are calculated separately from the ‘average scores’, which is why the order in which the two appear in the chart to the right does not always seem to tally.]


PatientView is a UK-based research organisation that consults closely with patient groups, and publicises the work of the patient-advocacy movement.

  • For further information contact: Alexandra Wyke, CEO, PatientView
  • Mobile: 00-44-(0)7960-855-019
  • Email: