“The reputation of the pharmaceutical industry is average,” says Kasper Ulf Nielsen, executive partner at the Reputation Institute, a leading global research and advisory firm focusing on corporate reputation. “But if you only read the news or speak to industry experts, you will think the industry’s reputation is at the level of tobacco companies or arms dealers when this is simply not true. Looking right across the world, pharma’s reputations is somewhere in the middle of the pack, well above financial services and energy, even telecoms.”
What’s more, the general trend is upwards, says Nielsen. “The overall picture is of an average reputation has been flat for the past few years but is now improving. The problem for pharma is that its global reputation is polarised.”
The Reputation Institute’s ReptTrak study for 2016 questioned 23,000 members of the general public in 15 countries across the world. While its overall reputation was ‘average’ the data showed that only 14 percent of respondents rated it that way – over one-third rated the industry’s reputation as ‘excellent’ and another one-third had the opposite view, rating it ‘poor’ or ‘weak’.
Geographically, pharma’s reputation was also variable. “It has pockets of strength, for example in the UK, the US, Australia, Germany and Brazil, while there is a band of countries including France, Spain, Italy and Canada where the perception is less favourable but still average. Then there are countries like China, where we saw a massive decline last year due to the GSK scandal and every company took a hit, dropping about ten points, but this has rebounded and returned to an average level,” says Nielsen.
Other trends included a lower than average reputation among younger people – a potential risk for the future, warns Nielsen – and a higher than average reputation among high income groups. The study methodology for the industry as a whole is based on individual ratings for the 14 largest companies, and only polls those that are somewhat or very familiar with those companies.
“The companies that have been able to build a stronger reputation are those who have communicated to the public on these issues,” he says. “What people want is information on who these companies are – who are the people behind the medicines? Only then are you able to tell your story and create a strong emotional connection.
“This is a source of real frustration for many pharma companies because they point to their access to medicines programme and the millions of dollars they donate to charities and they see a mismatch between the public’s perception of them as good corporate citizens. Companies may be engaging in the developing world but this isn’t what matters to people; they are looking for something much more tangible and closer to home, putting a face to the company, focusing the impact they have in local areas, creating jobs and being active in local communities. The industry still has some way to go. The companies that do well are those that are telling that story.”
