Industry Analysis for Sustainability
Pharmaceutical/Biotechnology
ABSTRACT
This paper is an analysis
of innovation within the pharmaceutical industry with an emphasis on
sustainable innovation. Out of the industry, Merck will be featured as
a specific company with specific areas of innovation to analyze. Drug discovery
and innovation is a costly endeavor. It requires vast resources to bring a drug
to market. Annually only about 25 novel
New Chemical/Molecular Entities are brought to market.
Sustainability
through green chemistry, renewable fuels and packaging is one of the most
critical ways the industry can innovate.
Utilizing new technologies in biotechnology and computerized testing can
also help innovation grow.
The pharmaceutical
industry needs to become more sustainable.
The easiest method to start with and one with a significant impact is
green chemistry. Green chemistry,
also called sustainable chemistry, is a chemical philosophy encouraging the
design of products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and
generation of hazardous substances and by-products.
Packaging of
product is another aspect where the sustainable movement is growing. From the point of manufacture to the point of
delivery, drugs require extensive packaging. Some of this is necessary to
prevent the spoiling or degradation of the product, and some is necessary for
consumer protection from tampering, but there is still large amounts of waste
plastic, foils, cardboard and plastic generated in this cycle.
Merck and Co. is
poised to take advantage of a number of these opportunities and has the chance
to become an industry leader for these areas of innovation. Today, the new
Merck has about 51,000 employees in 120 countries and 31 factories worldwide.
Merck has recently
completed many acquisitions to enhance its value to shareholders. In November 2009 it merged with Schering
Plough to enhance its pipeline of future drugs and augment its current product
line.
talent management
at Merck has allowed the company to retain the best it creates and attract top
talent in an industry marked by uncertainty.
In the coming
years the pharmaceutical industry will need to adapt to a changing world. Those that can innovate will survive. Merck has shown that they have a strategy to
innovate in many different ways. Through
partnerships, acquisitions and internal research and development Merck has
consistently produced useful and profitable drugs.
Human kind has
needed medicines for survival since the Stone Age. Often natural plants and animals were used to
treat and cure a host of ailments. In
the beginning, this was often fraught with disastrous results. Various cultures refined the use of plants,
herbs and animal parts to treat a varying list of ailments with moderate
success. As medicine evolved to
diagnoses diseases so did the refinement of the herbs and products used to
treat these diseases. As far back as the
Middle Ages, there were herbalists in what is now Iraq selling herbs and plants
to treat specific maladies of the time Hadzovic, 1997).
As medicine
advanced and knowledge of the body and world around us more focused therapies
could be developed to target disease.
This was beneficial as early ‘drugs’ were often highly toxic and counter
productive. In the 1800’s heavy metals
like mercury and arsenic were often used to treat maladies such as Syphilis and
bacterial infection. In the 1700’s blood
letting and bitter almond (cyanide) were used to treat nearly all
problems. As medicine evolved, so did
the drugs to combat disease.
The modern
pharmaceutical industry came about in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries. Key scientific discoveries of
products like penicillin and insulin led the way to commercial success for drug
companies. Penicillin was on of the
first drugs to be mass-produced, marketed and distributed. As more drugs were discovered and more money
was to be made, a need arose to differentiate between the ‘snake oil’ products
and real drugs and legislation began to be drafted to regulate the industry and
drug development (Moynihan and Cassels, 2005).
In 1964, the World Medical Association
issued its Declaration of Helsinki, which set standards for clinical research
and demanded that subjects give their informed consent before enrolling in an
experiment. Pharmaceutical companies became required to prove efficacy in
clinical trials before marketing drugs.
The pharmaceutical industry has grown
significantly since its inception with a myriad of drugs that can combat nearly
every ailment medicine can discover. Many
billions of dollars are spent annually on drug development, drug marketing,
drug testing and distribution of these products. Innovation on the industry comes from
research and development within the companies as well as university research
partners. Modern pharmaceutical
companies also include biotechnology as part of their innovative pathway.
How
This Industry Innovates
Drug discovery and
innovation is a costly endeavor. It requires vast resources to bring a drug to
market. Annually only about 25 novel New
Chemical/Molecular Entities are brought to market. To reach this number of 25 there are often
thousands of chemical entities that fail to pass various stages of
development. A typical drug spends years
in development and discovery and clinical testing before it ever reaches the
consumer market. Studies published in 2003 report an average pre-tax cost of
approximately $800 million to bring a new drug (i.e. a drug with a New Chemical
Entity) to market. (DiMassi, 2003)
Teams of chemists, pharmacologists and
biologists then screen thousands of compounds - or chemically or genetically
engineer new ones - to generate "lead compounds." These molecules
have some desirable properties, but researchers usually must modify them to
increase activity or minimize side effects - a process called "lead optimization."
Out of this process come hundreds of potential drugs.
In choosing compounds for further testing
researchers must weigh basic concerns: Is it likely to be more effective than
current therapies? Will it be possible to manufacture? Does it have a
reasonable dose range and delivery system? To find the right molecule
scientists must have plenty of ingenuity and diligence.
Even after a chemical entity is discovered
teams of engineers, biologists, chemists and physicists must spend long hours
figuring out how to mass produce the results achieved by an individual
scientist at his or her lab bench. Often promising experiments are not
replicable on a large scale -the reaction may give off extreme heat, or cause
an explosion, or release a toxic gas. The research may fail because it is not
possible to manufacture the drug safely or to the proper specifications
(Moynihan, 2003).
Once a drug candidate has been identified in
the laboratory, it begins years of testing. It starts with lab and animal
studies to evaluate its safety and demonstrate that it has biological activity
against the disease target. In Vivo testing in animals also takes
place as do pharmacokinetic
and drug metabolism studies. Over 85% of
new chemical entities fail to pass these stages (Adams, 2006).
Key preclinical tests include pharmacokinetics,
the study of how drugs move through living organisms. Scientists examine four
key processes - absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion - to ensure
that the medicine reaches its intended target and passes through the body
properly.
In addition to biological tests, researchers
conduct a number of other preclinical studies. Chemistry tests establish the
compound's purity, stability and shelf life. Manufacturing tests determine what
will be involved in producing the medicine on a large scale. And pharmaceutical
development studies explore dosing, packaging and formulation.
The main goal of preclinical studies is to
rigorously assess safety before human tests begin and this can take anywhere
from 3-6 years. Some preclinical safety tests continue even after the start of
clinical trials in people to determine if there are any long-term adverse
effects researchers should look for. A
clinical study is of critical importance to test the safety and efficacy of any
new drug(Chiaroni, et al, 2008).
After preclinical testing is completed, a
company files an IND with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prior to
beginning any human testing. The application must show results of preclinical
experiments; the chemical structure of the compound; how it is thought to work
in the body; any side effects found in animal studies; and how the compound is
manufactured.
In clinical trials teams of physicians
carry out studies designed to determine if the drug is safe in people and an
effective treatment for the disease in question. Of the 250 compounds that
enter preclinical testing, only five will make it this far.
There are three phases of clinical trials:
Phase I: The medicine is tested in a small group (20-100) of healthy volunteers
- often in a hospital setting - to determine its safety profile, including the
safe dose range. Pharmacokinetic studies examine how a drug is absorbed,
distributed, metabolized and excreted, as well as the duration of its action.
Phase I studies can take from six months to one year to complete.
Phase II: Placebo-controlled trials involving approximately 100 to 500 volunteer
patients who have the disease being studied. The goal of this phase is to
establish the "proof of concept" - i.e., the medicine effectively
treats the disease. Researchers continue to evaluate the drug's safety and look
for side effects, and determine optimal dose strength and schedule (e.g., once
or twice daily). Phase II studies can take from six months from one year to
complete.
Phase III: The medicine is tested in large, randomized, placebo-controlled trials
with much larger numbers of patient volunteers - from 1,000 to 5,000, in
hospitals, clinics and/or physician offices - to generate statistically
significant data. Researchers closely monitor patients at regular intervals to
confirm that the drug is effective and identify side effects (also called
adverse events). Phase III studies can take from one to four years to complete,
depending on the disease, length of the study, and the number of volunteers.
While Phase I-III studies are taking place,
researchers are also conducting a number of crucial parallel studies: toxicity
tests and other long-term safety evaluations; dosage forms; plans for full-scale
production; package design; and preparation of the complex application required
for FDA approval. (adapted from personal knowledge and FDA CFR)
Once all three phases of the clinical trials
are complete, a company analyzes all of the data. If the findings demonstrate
that the experimental medicine is both safe and effective, the company files an
NDA with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
NDAs typically run 100,000 pages or longer,
just one illustration of the extensive testing a medicine must go through in
order to gain FDA approval. They contain all of the information about all of
the studies - including preclinical testing, all clinical trials, dosing
information, manufacturing details and proposed labeling for the new medicine.
In this final stage, the FDA scientists
review all the results from all the studies carried out over the years and
determine if they show that the medicine is safe and effective enough to be
approved.
Depending on the medicine or disease in
question, the FDA sometimes convenes an Advisory Committee meeting. These
independent panels of experts, appointed by the FDA, consider data presented by
company representatives and FDA reviewers. Committees then vote on whether the
FDA should approve an application, and under what conditions. The FDA is not
required to follow the recommendations of the advisory committees, but they
often do.
If the medicine is approved, or
"cleared for marketing," it becomes available for physicians and
patients. It took an average of 16.9 months for the FDA to review each medicine
it approved in 2003. The proportion of rejected applications has remained
constant over the years at about 10% to 15%.
Even after approval, the studies and
observation continue. A much bigger group of patients may begin to use a
medicine upon approval compared with the thousands of patients in clinical
trials and in this larger scale rare side effects may occur, so companies must
continue to monitor the drug carefully. The FDA requires them to continue to
submit periodic reports, including any cases of adverse events (side effects or
complications).
Sometimes, the FDA requires a company to
conduct additional studies. Known as Phase IV or "post-marketing"
studies, they evaluate long-term safety or generate more data about how the
medicine affects a particular group of patients (e.g., children or the
elderly).
Phase IV studies can continue for years; one
study can cost between $20-30 million. Depending on the findings, a company can
use the studies to submit a Supplemental NDA, seeking additional indications
for the medicine.
Once approved, the marketing of the new
drug takes massive resources to release it to the medical community and raise
public awareness of the product and brand.
Cost recovery comes through high volume sales and medical insurance
billing.
The industry has been long criticized for
the high costs of drugs and the heavy marketing of drugs. Given the state of government reforms on
healthcare, the current economic climate and the costs of drug discovery and
development the industry as a whole is in a cycle of consolidation and
reorganization. As a whole the industry
is attempting to cut costs, increase efficiencies and streamline innovation to
deliver useful products, maintain profitability and continue innovation. There is tremendous pressure to achieve
growth and sales, and innovation is part of this process (Rafiq and Saxon,
2000).
Industry Sustainability Status
Sustainability in
the industry is varied, but a growing trend towards more sustainable practices
is underway. Pharmaceuticals are indispensible for a high quality of life. To achieve this quality there is a downside
to the environment. In recent years much
data has been collected showing the wide spread occurrence of active drug ingredients
in the aquatic environment, and in some cases drinking water. There is scientific evidence suggesting these
drugs are having an impact on the aquatic organisms at both the individual and
ecosystem level. Given the demonstrated environmental relevance of
pharmaceuticals, sustainable solutions are gaining importance. Green chemistry
has shown that it is mandatory to examine the environmental relevance of all
phases of a chemical’s life cycle. Sustainable pharmacy aims to take up the
lessons learned from green chemistry. In a broader strategic perspective,
sustainable pharmacy would not only foster the resource-efficient development
of pharmaceuticals, which are optimized for both therapeutic efficacy and
degradability in the environment. It would also provide support for the
sustainable use of the products and give impetus for the implementation of
innovative sanitation concepts in order to reduce emissions.
Packaging of product
is another aspect where the sustainable movement is growing. From the point of manufacture to the point of
delivery, drugs require extensive packaging. Some of this is necessary to
prevent the spoiling or degradation of the product, and some is necessary for
consumer protection from tampering, but there is still large amounts of waste
plastic, foils, cardboard and plastic generated in this cycle. I asked my local pharmacist at the Bridgewater
NJ Target pharmacy how many prescription vials they use in a month. The answer was about 6500 containers. At 1.2 ounces each, these 6500 containers
equate to about 480 pounds of plastic.
If I look at Target alone, it lists on their website over 1500 pharmacy
locations. A rough estimate of 450
pounds per location equates to 675,000 pounds of plastic each month just from a
single nationwide retail pharmacy chain.
This does not include the fuel to manufacture and transport these vials,
the labels, receipts printed and the inevitable disposal of the plastic in
landfills and incinerators. Multiply this by all the bottles of aspirin, cold
medicine and pain relievers used worldwide and the amount of packaging is
staggering (personal research conducted in 2010).
The pharmaceutical
industry has a number is serious concerns that face it as a whole. Sustainability is an emerging trend that all
industries must adopt eventually. The
most pressing issues for the pharmaceutical industry are developing green
chemistry practices for drug discovery and production and end of life product
disposal. The use of green chemistry
will noticeably impact the local workspaces of the scientists as well as the
local area environmental footprint at pharmaceutical facility plants. Many metabolites of pharmacological products
have been found in trace levels in the natural environment. This is from discharge into the environment
from drug disposal, manufacture and even end user waste. Packaging and materials is another issue of
sustainability. Massive amounts of
packaging and material are used for a variety of reasons. Finding innovation
methods to reduce this and streamline the materials is required. Life cycle
analysis of a pharmaceutical compound is intertwined with green chemistry. In addition to green chemistry development, a
plan for pharmaceutical disposal and reclaiming is needed. Manufacturing of pharmaceuticals is a
complicated process. It has many
pre-cursors and by-products that are harmful to the environment. Innovations in manufacturing processes and
by-products are open for sustainable improvement. With the current economic
climate, healthcare reform and rising costs, finding innovative solutions to
rising costs is a major consideration for the industry. Keeping jobs in America is a prime concern
for the American firms. Protection of
intellectual property and safety of the final product are part of the drive for
a strategy to innovate the development process to reduce the overall costs of
drug discovery and marketing and improve the benefits to the stakeholders.
Industry Composition & Companies
The pharmaceutical
industry is comprised of over 40 pharmaceutical firms and biotech
companies. Many are international and
global firms. In total the industry
represents billions of dollars in sales and employees hundreds of thousands of
people worldwide. Some of the largest
members of the industry are as follows: Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Merck,
GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Astra Zeneca, Sanofi-Aventis,
Abbot, Bayer, Hoffman-La Roche, Eli Lilly and for the biotech sector Amgen and
Genentech. In recent months there has
been a number of consolidations and mergers.
Pfizer acquired Wyeth and Merck and Schering Plough merged in 2009 as
well. To battle the issues facing the
industry it is likely other mergers and acquisitions will take place in coming
years. The top three in terms of product
sales and size are Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson and now Merck.
As a whole the
industry generates billions of dollars in annual sales (various corporate
annual reports). According to corporate
annual reports for 2009, Johnson and Johnson topped the list with US revenues
of 61,891 million dollars. Pfizer was
second with 50,009 million dollars. The
recent merger between Schering Plough and Merck place their combined total at
48,560 million dollars. If these trends
continue for 2010 then they will remain the big three pharma firms.
There are even more,
small contract labs, manufacturing partners and outsourcing facilities in this
industry. According to the industry
trade magazine MedAdNews, the entire sub industry and the 50 major firms
comprised over 800 billion in sales for 2009 (www.pharmalive.com)
Innovation Opportunities
The pharmaceutical
industry needs to become more sustainable.
The easiest method to start with and one with a significant impact is
green chemistry. Green chemistry,
also called sustainable chemistry, is a chemical philosophy encouraging the
design of products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and
generation of hazardous substances and by-products. Whereas environmental
chemistry is the chemistry of the natural environment, and of
pollutant chemicals in nature, green chemistry seeks to reduce and prevent pollution at its source.
By utilizing green
chemistry the industry will engender better relations with the
stakeholders. With the threat of
government regulation that could place restrictions on the methods of chemistry
used, it is in the industry’s best interest to be preemptive in its challenge
for sustainable chemistry.
Stakeholders like
the communities, shareholders and employees are pushing the industry towards
adopting more sustainable standards in chemistry. As environmental regulations become tighter,
the path towards green chemistry is inevitable.
Green chemistry
faces many difficulties in achieving inroads into the chemical industry and the
many downstream industries that depend on chemicals. While many research and
development activities are underway in industry and university laboratories,
companies have implemented relatively few green chemistry technologies and
products (Woodhouse, 2003). A combination of reasons explains this situation.
They include a lack of regulatory standards demanding prevention of waste and
pollution, weak customer demand, the failure to internalize the environmental
and health impacts of chemicals, flawed organizational practices for designing
chemicals and inefficient dispersion of innovations across industry (Nissen,
2003; Wilson, 2006).
However, one vital
part of the problem is that companies have not yet developed business
strategies to make green chemistry actions commercially valuable. The Porter
hypothesis suggests that companies can win business advantage from seeking
resource efficiency (Porter and van der Linde, 1995). Companies could market
green chemistry as a means of achieving this efficiency (Iles, 2008).
Another of the
potential drawbacks on green chemistry is the product cycle development
time. In the pharmaceutical industry it
is critical to get your product to market as quickly as possible. Switching to green chemistry may delay the
speed of the development process. Being
second to market in a given product or drug class can mean the difference in
much revenue and mindshare. Curtailing
development time is important to get the product ready, especially for
iterative products on products with intense competition (Schilling, 2008). Another challenging facing these firms is the
product life cycle. It is common to
develop ancillary compounds based upon the first drug. A great example is Claritin and Clarinex. Both ar every similar, in fact Clarinex
breaks down into the same molecule as Claritin once in the body. By developing and marketing drugs of
different delivery mechanisms and structures a pharmaceutical company and
prolong its patent protection (Dubey and Dubey, 2009). This life cycle
extension delays the migration from traditional to green chemistry applications
and undermines momentum to take all R&D green.
Another opportunity
to innovate is with biotechnology. This
is a growing subdivision of pharmaceutical research and development. Modern use
of the term refers to genetic engineering as well as cell- and tissue culture
technologies. Biotechnology really encompasses a wider range and history of
procedures for modifying living organisms according to human purposes, going
back to domestication of animals, cultivation of plants and "improvements"
to these through breeding programs that employ artificial selection and
hybridization. Biotechnology draws on the pure biological sciences (genetics,
microbiology, animal cell culture, molecular biology, biochemistry, embryology,
cell biology) and in many instances is also dependent on knowledge and methods
from outside the sphere of biology (chemical engineering, bioprocess
engineering, information technology, biorobotics).
The use of
biotechnology for innovation allows for faster more streamlined drug development
and targeting of disease. Orphan drugs
are an interesting opportunity for many pharmaceutical firms. These drugs are to treat relatively obscure diseases
that do not have much hope in blockbuster status sales to recuperate the costs
of development. Presently there is some
patent longevity and protection for related research developed as a result of
research on orphan drugs. This may be
sufficient motivation to apply resources towards treating diseases that do not
effect huge populations. The benefit to
the firm is that the technology and discoveries that lead to this novel
therapies may also lead to a blockbuster product. Fostering innovation, even if it does not
lead to blockbuster status is important to a firm for social and human resource
reasons (Mathai, 2008).
The use of
alternative fuels, materials and techniques for manufacturing product and
packaging products are another opportunity for innovation. Current production is based on older
technology and has not yet been optimized for advances in green chemistry and
biotechnology. The use of alternative
packaging has only just begun to appear in products. A prima example is Merck’s Proventil
HFA. The previous incarnation of
Proventil used a propellant that was harmful to the environment and released a
number of by-products into the atmosphere during use and manufacture. The new propellant is free of CFCs. The change from chloroflurocarbons to
hydrofluroalkanes is one such innovation that helped make the product more
sustainable.
In terms of the
drugs themselves, the use of Social Life Cycle Assessment will benefit the
industry. It may be scientifically
impossible to make an active product that is completely harmless as it it
deposited into the waste stream via urine or other disposal. However, using
green chemistry to develop and manufacture and knowing the long term waste
impacts can help improve the firms image amongst the public (Klopffer,
2003). This social LCA shows consumers
that the company is aware of its footprint and takes strides in other areas to
compensate for this – such as alternative fuels or packaging materials.
The use of Life
Cycle Analysis in regards to packaging materials is an opportunity for
innovation for the industry. Use of
recyclable materials that can also be reused or recycled is one of the first
steps. Stakeholders expect packaging free of dangerous byproducts like BPA and
products that can be recycled.
Government regulations require safety in packaging to maintain tamper
resistance and child safe packaging.
Pharmaceutical
manufacturers are unlikely to embrace fully green packaging solutions, but
there are aspects of the packaging life cycle where a philosophy of
sustainability can be introduced to help reduce the environmental footprint, as
well as manufacturing costs. Even biodegradable and renewable materials cannot
offer a quick-fix solution. "They are not intrinsically more
environmentally sustainable than other materials," (Rubenstein, 2009).
"For instance, if there are no composting facilities available where the
consumer can dispose of the packaging after use, then the function
'biodegradability' cannot be used."
According to
Rubenstein, it is important to consider all the aspects of packaging, such as
the supply chain, operations, further manufacturing, product use and disposal.
The package itself can offer environmental performance by, for example, helping
to reduce spoilage and optimizing product use. "Also, aspects such as
compliance should be considered when looking at sustainability because improved
compliance brings safety and health benefits for the consumer," he said.
He explained that
Alean Packaging implements sustainability in its facilities (optimizing
operations), people (education and raising internal awareness), partnerships
(working with suppliers and customers to produce products with minimal
footprint, and optimized social and economic performance) and, ultimately, in
the final product through the total life cycle. Although the company does also
look at material alternatives, Rubenstein stressed that the most important
consideration should be the best material for a given job. "Packaging is
designed to do a job, such as protecting and delivering the product, and one
needs to find the best material for that," said Rubenstein. He added that most
biodegradable materials do not provide the same barrier functions as
traditional materials, such as aluminum foil or fossil-based plastic films.
"It is important to focus
on actual
performance and not on the perception of sustainability alone," he said (Rubenstein,
2009).
Use of alternative
fuels to power manufacturing and research is another opportunity. Each firm has multiple campuses all over the
world each with massive power requirements.
Use of solar, wind and geothermal energy sources can greatly improve the
sustainability of these operations. Adding
solar panels to most pharmaceutical facilities would reduce carbon dioxide emissions
greatly in terms of electricity generation. This push to green power would
enhance the industry view in the eyes of stakeholders.
The production
segment of the industry through a systemic focus on innovation is required.
Like R & D in the late 1980s and Sales and Marketing in the late 1990s,
Production improvement can contribute significant benefit to the Pharmaceutical
Industry in the next decade (Tyson, 2007). Showing corporate responsibility in terms of
sustainability will go far to help the industry improve its public
perception. Many of the trends on CSR
include ‘going green’ and for this reason alone it helps bolster the case for
pharma to move towards green sources of energy (Nussbaum, 2008). In many cases the amount of roof real estate
and power needs, the change over to solar would be paid back in 5 to 7 years
(personal calculations) and provide up 60% of the required power needs
(personal experience with this technology). Adding in government incentives,
power company incentives, it makes a very compelling set of reasons to pursue
green energy.
The main draw back
is capacity. To go green means shutting
off some of the landline utilities. If
you exceed what your wind, geothermal or solar systems can generate you pay a
higher rate for the make up. Many
pharmaceutical plants are a considerable tax base and employer to their
communities and get an amazing break on utilities with conventional sources. The
opportunity cost of the investment in new technologies is such many executives
believe the dollars are better spent in R&D rather than being socially
responsible and sustainable (Nussbaum, 2008).
Talent management is
an opportunity for the industry to capitalize upon. These human resources provide the future
innovative ideas that will be needed to continue sustainable practices into the
future. Development of these resources
and training them to be versed in sustainable practices is critical. For
innovation to take place companies need individuals who can think differently
about the problems facing the company.
The companies that utilize autonomous teams with nearly full
independence from the culture of the company can often break through cultural
obstacles (Schilling, 2008). These teams
can be cultivated to spearhead innovation throughout the organization and bring
fresh ideas back to their functional areas (Bernard, 2009). Managing the talent of the industry is of
key importance. The current economic
climate and rash of mergers is a both a force for and against talent
management. With all of the mergers, and
layoffs there is a larger than average talent pool available to hire. With good selection, any company can hire top
talent to help it drive innovation. The forces
against innovation are the cumulative fear and uncertainty about the lack of
stability in the industry. Broad layoffs
can impact even those with high talent and with jobs scarce many are unable to
focus their energies on their work and continue to innovate. The current industry climate is one of
contraction and this is not conducive to risk and innovative thinking.
Merck & Co.
Today, the new Merck
has about 51,000 employees in 120 countries and 31 factories worldwide.
Products include medications to treat cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer,
allergies, hepatitis, HIV as well as vaccines, animal health products and
consumer health products (www.merck.com).
The history of Merck
& Co., Inc. can be traced back to Darmstadt, Germany, in 1668 when an
apothecarty named Frederic Jacob Merck opened a chemical firm. In 1891, George
Merck began to establish his roots in the United States and set up Merck &
Co., Inc. in New York, U.S.A. Originally started off as a fine chemicals
suppliers, Merck & Co., Inc began its pharmaceutical research in the early
1930's. Through many acquisitions Merck has grown to become the company it is
today.
During the past six
decades, Merck & Co., Inc. has built a global research organization that
ranks among the best worldwide in terms of the caliber of its scientists and
breakthrough medical research. Today, Merck & Co., Inc. has about 70,000
employees in 120 countries and 31 factories worldwide. Our products are sold in
more than 200 countries.
As a legacy Schering
Plough employee, and now a Merck employee I have been a part of this
transformation into an industry leader.
Innovation at Merck
Merck has recently
completed many acquisitions to enhance its value to shareholders. In November 2009 it merged with Schering
Plough to enhance its pipeline of future drugs and augment its current product
line. Previously Merck had been
involved in a long-term joint venture with Schering to develop and Markey its
Vytorin product for cholesterol. This
type of innovation by acquisition seems to be the standard for pharmaceutical
companies and Merck in particular. The pharmaceutical industry is evolving.
Over the past ten years the industry has been attacked by societal,
legislative, structural, competitive and technological changes. Technological
advances, threats of increased regulation, government interference, and
business and public cost containment pressures have caused firms in the
pharmaceutical industry to actively seek new strategic responses and joint
ventures (Loomis, 1994).
Strategic alliances
are defined as a long- term, explicit contractual agreement pertaining to an
exchange or combination of some of a firm’s resources with a competitor
(Burgers et al., 1993). These alliances are inter-organizational agreements
that go beyond a legal contract. They are bilateral relationships characterized
by the commitment of two or more organizations to a common goal (Jorde and
Teece, 1989).
Strategic alliances
are becoming increasingly important in the pharmaceutical industry. Many
pharmaceuticals, such as SmithKline/Beecham, Marion/Merrell,
Bristol-Myers/Squibb, and Schering Plough/Merck, forged strategic alliances
with benefit management companies in an attempt to gain control over
distribution channels and to expand market coverage of products (Pisano, 1997).
Some of these eventually lead to further developments like the merger of Merck
and Schering.
Despite the
increased frequency and major importance of strategic alliances in the
pharmaceutical industry, little is known about the formation of these
alliances, or factors by which these alliances affect business and industrial
practices. An integration of the diverse research streams used to analyze
strategic alliances in the pharmaceutical industry is desirable so that the
results and perspectives can be viewed as complementary rather than
contradictory.
Another way Merck
drives innovation is its human capital.
Its scientists and staff are the driving force to its success. Having top talent is directly correlated with
a high discovery of New Chemical Entities, which are the foundation for new
drugs (Gassman & Reepmeyer, 2005).
Merck manages the staff by challenging them to achieve stretch goals and
building their knowledge base through conferences and scientific conference participation.
Merck also innovates
through applied science. Merck will
focus on a breakthrough product and try to find better ways to deliver the end result
to the consumer in a way that lowers costs and maximizes profits (Mathai,
2008). Merck’s diabetic franchise is an example of how they deliver a product
that leads its class, like Metformin and as it approaches the end of its
patent, release similar yet incrementally better products to take its
place. This incremental innovation is
what gets the firm through the drought of truly novel product discoveries.
Sustainability & Innovation at Merck
With the merger of
Schering Plough and Merck, a wealth of green chemistry resources was
assumed. Schering Plough had been
utilizing green chemistry in some aspects of its operation for some time, and
had already worked out many of the hardships associated with scaling the
process up for manufacture. Schering in
early 2009 was awarded the EPA Energy Star award for having a plant that
demonstrated excellent energy resource management (Schering, 2009). Merck was also a participant in the Green
Chemistry Institute Pharmaceutical Roundtable, a symposium of industry partners
to share ideas on sustainable chemical methods.
Merck has been
active in registering its products, especially in its animal health and
anti-effective product lines. This
voluntary registration helps track the LCA of the constituent products and
allows the end users a more complete picture (de Braal, 2009).
Every few years the
Dow Jones ranks the top 10% of sustainable companies by industry. In the early 200’s Merck was absent from the
list. By taking a more open approaching,
using SLCA and green chemistry Merck has tried to develop a more sustainable
architecture to demonstrate to its stakeholders it commitment to sustainability
(Kingo, 2004).
By contributing to
the global knowledge base of sustainable green chemistry Merck can further the
movement. The internal and external communication of the corporate performance
is a very important benchmark to demonstrate sustainable development. The
communication of the corporate performance comprises the strategic and
operational goals, the corporate performance data on inventory level, the
translation of the inventory data to sustainability core indicators as well as
the performance evaluation in terms of sustainability. This transparency can go
a long way in helping demonstrate a commitment to sustainability (Pflieger et
al, 2005).
After the issues
with Vioxx, Merck had to change its R&D practices. Through joint ventures, licensing and
acquisitions, Merck entered the biotechnology space. Working with licensed compounds and new
software innovations, Merck focused on a new method of drug target
discovery. This system involved the
heavy reliance on computers, and molecules artificially produced (Carr, 2004). This was a departure from the homegrown
approach that had successfully led Merck to be a top firm in its industry. However the old approach proved to have many
flaws as witnessed by the Vioxx product (Nesi, 2008).
Looking to
biotechnology Merck found a way to develop a pipeline of drugs using an
entirely new method while it could repair the problems in its own development
methods that led to the Vioxx concerns (Nessi, 2008).
The current pipeline
at Merck is a mixture between biotech and traditional discovery products. This provides an excellent divestiture of
resources and science in the event the current innovation fails to deliver new
chemical entities (Merck, 2009).
Merck has also
undertaking a number of manufacturing initiatives with new plants for vaccine production
in Pennsylvania and North Carolina. By
building modern plants that are energy efficient and have some portion powered
by alternative resources Merck can work towards the goal of
sustainability. Geographic distribution
is also a key factor as the final product is manufactured at locations close to
regional distribution centers. With the merger
with Schering Plough, Merck has manufacturing along the east coast, west coast
and central south of the US to allow for a shorter distribution of product to
pharmacy shelves.
With modern factories
involving robotics, flexible production and automation, Merck can operate
at lower costs and save time and energy
(Tyson, 2007). These factories of the
future allow for more streamlined operation and energy usage.
One growth
opportunity for Merck comes in the form of packaging. Along with the sustainability concerns for
the pharmaceutical industry an the LCA of the packaging, the buyers i.e.
hospitals are looking to maintain a sustainable business. By being in the forefront of sustainable
packaging, Merck can take advantage of opportunities by marketing and targeting
hospital chains seeking sustainable packaging (Kumar et al, 2008). This trend
towards more recyclable and minimal packaging benefits hospitals as their costs
are reduced for storage, labor to un-package and dispose of the materials and
they can benefit from benefiting from sustainable packaging among their
stakeholders.
Distribution of the
final product is a major cost for any pharmaceutical firm. While safety and anti-theft packaging still
needs to exist, the materials and style can be enhanced upon. By managing cyclical product demands, Merck
can leverage the manufacture of sustainable packaging materials from its
suppliers and make distribution more efficient to it suppliers. One of the most variable costs to a
pharmaceutical firm is the cost of packaging and distribution of the final
goods. Using cyclical purchasing of materials and distribution, Merck could
potentially save money and reduce its environmental impact (Strijbosch et all,
2002).
Merck has long been
considered an innovator through its sheer tenacity at applied science (Nesi,
2008). Human talent is one of the major
assets of Merck that allows it to maintain a competitive and innovative
edge. By forming teams that are both
diverse and cross-functional in design, Merck ensures a high level of cross
functional teamwork and communication.
The diversity of the team intrinsically allows for greater knowledge
span that can lead to innovative ideas (Schilling, 2008). Merck’s scientists are a diverse group and
not all of them are from traditional academic backgrounds. While academic schooling is an important
aspect at Merck, many talented employees have worked their way up through valuable
contributions without the benefit of a formalized education. This diverse work force has benefited the
firm in generating a wide range of ideas and concepts (Gilmartin, 1999).
Merck uses
creativity as a business asset. The key is to turn ideas into useful knowledge
and the useful knowledge into added value. In practice, this means bringing
together the creative thinkers so that they can discuss and elaborate on their
ideas, even if they do not really want to. It also means finding the resources
necessary, when resources are limited, and trying to manage what is often an
unpredictable, unmanageable process. (Kao, 1997). Through an incentive plan
that encourages both meeting operational and stretch goals, Merck has fostered
a climate where employees can think outside the box, at least part of the
time. Merck has leveraged this
opportunity with its merger with Schering.
While Pfizer is undergoing immediate and massive layoffs following its
buyout of Wyeth, Merck has stated it will review the business needs, strategic
needs and individual knowledge base of its employees before setting a course on
layoffs. It is hopeful that a company is
looking at human resources with an eye towards value to the company rather than
geographic location or salary numbers.
This talent
management at Merck has allowed the company to retain the best it creates and
attract top talent in an industry marked by uncertainty.
In the coming years
the pharmaceutical industry will need to adapt to a changing world. Those that can innovate will survive. Merck has shown that they have a strategy to
innovate in many different ways. Through
partnerships, acquisitions and internal research and development Merck has
consistently produced useful and profitable drugs. In the upcoming year the strategic vision of
Merck will become apparent and we shall all see if their strategy allows them
to surpass their peers in the industry.
REFERENCES
Adams C, Brantner V (2006). Estimating
the cost of new drug development: is it really 802 million dollars?. Health Aff
(Millwood) 25 (2): 420–8.
de
Braal, Henriette. (2009, January). Sustainability in green pharmaceutical
production. Green pharma, 38-41.
Bernard,
Scott. (2009, October). Think different. Pharmaceutical Executive,
27-28.
Burgers, W.P., Hill, C.W.L.
and Kim, W.C. (1993), A theory of global strategic alliances: the case of the
global auto industry, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 6, 419-32.
Carr,
David. (2004, June). Merck seeks a cure. Baseline, 39-54.
DiMasi J. (2003) The value of improving
the productivity of the drug development process: faster times and better
decisions. Pharmacoeconomics 20 Suppl 3: 1–10.
DiMasi J, Hansen R, Grabowski H (2003).
The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ
22 (2): 151–85.
Dubey,
Rajesh, & Dubey, Jayashree. (2009). Pharmaceutical product differentiation.
Journal of Medical Marketing, 9(2), 104-118.
Gassmann, O. and Reepmeyer, G. (2005). Organizing pharmaceutical
innovation: from science-based knowled- ge creators to drug-oriented knowledge
brokers, Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(3), 233 - 245.
Gilmartin,
Raymond. (1999, January/February). Diversity and competitive advantage at
merck. Harvard Business Review, 146.
Hadzovic, S. (1997). Pharmacy and the great
contribution of Arab-Islamic science to its development, Medicinski Arhiv 51 (1-2), 47-50.
Iles,
Alastair. (2006). Shifting to green chemistry. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 17, 524-535.
Jorde, T.M. and Teece, D.J. (1989), Competition and cooperation:
striking the right balance, California Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 3, 25-37.
Kao,
John. (1997). The Science of creativity. Management Development Review, 10(6/7),
203-204.
Kingo,
Lise. (2004, March). Sustainability drives pharma's future. Pharmaceutical
Executive, 38-39.
Klopffer,
Walter. (2003). Life-cycle based methods for sustainable product development. International
Journal of LCA, 8(3), 157-159.
Kumar,
Sameer, DeGroot, Rebecca, & Choe, Daewon. (2008). Rx for smart hospital
purchasing decisions. International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management, 38(8), 601-61
Lin,
Binshan, & Darling, John. (1999). Analysis of the formulation of strategic
alliances: a focus on the pharmaceutical industry. Industrial Management
& Data Systems, 99(3), 121-127.
Loomis, C.J. (1994), “The recall action in health care”,
Fortune, July 11, pp. 149-57.
Mathai,
Joseph. (2008). Does Innovation guarantee blockbuster products?. The
Marketing Review, 8(2), 186-206.
Merck.
(Producer). (2009). New Merck pipeline. [Web]. Retrieved from
http://www.merck.com
Moynihan
R. and Cassels, A. (2005). Selling Sickness: How Drug Companies are Turning
Us All Into Patients. Allen & Unwin. New York.
Moynihan
R (2005). Who pays for the pizza? Redefining the relationships between doctors
and drug companies. 2: Disentanglement. BMJ:
British Medical Journal. 326, 7400, 1193–1196.
Nesi,
Tom. (2008). Poison pills. Thomas Dunne Books.
Nussbaum,
Alexander. (2009). Ethical corporate social responsibility (csr) and the
pharmaceutical industry: a happy couple?. Journal of Medical Marketing, 9(1),
67-76.
Pisano, G.P. (1990), “The
R&D boundaries of the firm: an empirical analysis”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 153-76.
Pflieger,
Julia. Fischer, Matthias. Kupfer, Thilio. & Eyerer, Peter. (2005). The
Contribution of life cycle assessment to global sustainability reporting of
organizations. Management of Environmental Quality, 16(2),
167-179
Pringle,
Fred, & Kleiner, Brian. (1997). Practices of excellent companies in the
drug imndustry. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 10(1),
31-34.
Rubenstein, Michael. (2009,
November 1). Sustainability in the packaging supply chain. Retrieved
from http://pharmtech.findpharma.com/alcan
Schilling M. (2008). Strategic Management of Technological
Innovation, 2nd Edition. Columbus, OH. The McGraw-Hill Companies
Strijbosch,
L.W.G., Heuts, R.M.J., & Luijten, M.L.J. (2002). Cyclical packaging
planning at a pharmaceutical company. International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, 22(5), 549-564.
SubbaNarasimha,
P.N., Ahmad, Sohel, & Mallya, Sudhirkumar. (2003). Technological knolwledge
and firm performance of pharmaceutical firms. Journal of Intellectual
Capital, 4(1), 20-33.
Tyson,
Timothy. (2007). Pharmaceutical manufacturing innovation. Journal of
Pharmaceutical Innovation, 2007(2), 37.
Veleva,
Vesela, Hart, Maureen, Greiner, Tim, & Cumbly, Cathy. (2003). Indicators
for measuring environmental sustainability. Benchmarking: An International
Journal, 10(2), 107-119.
No comments:
Post a Comment