About Us |
Contact Us |
LexisNexis Business Solutions
Recent allegations that Novartis bribed doctors in Greece serve as a reminder that the pharmaceutical industry has a high risk of bribery and corruption. We look at the reasons behind the risk, and how companies can enhance compliance risk mitigation.
In December 2016, Greek authorities launched a bribery probe into Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis. In the midst of the on-going investigation, Greece’s justice minister claimed that Novartis may have bribed “thousands” of doctors and civil servants to promote its products. And this isn’t the first time; Novartis has been the subject of five bribery and corruption enquiries the past two years.
Moreover, Novartis is just one of many Big Pharma companies to have faced bribery and corruption allegations in recent years. In 2012, Pfizer paid $60 million to settle charges in the U.S. that its overseas subsidiaries had bribed healthcare officials in order to gain regulatory approval for the company’s drugs and boost sales in 12 countries. In 2015, Bristol-Myers Squibb agreed to pay more than $14 million to settle charges of bribing state-owned hospitals in China in exchange for prescription sales. And 2016 saw the largest U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) fine ever for a pharmaceutical company—and the fourth largest settlement across all industries—when Teva Pharmaceutical entered a deferred prosecution agreement for $519 million with the U.S. DOJ and SEC for FCPA offenses in Ukraine, Mexico and Russia.
No industry is immune to bribery and corruption risk, but the pharmaceutical industry is particularly exposed for several reasons.
There are signs that companies are increasingly recognizing the importance of improving their compliance procedures in high-risk regions of the world. Following the settlement of bribery allegations in China, Bristol-Myers Squibb announced that it had changed its policies in the country. Glaxo Smith Kline has also tried to reduce the potential for bribery in China by cutting the link between sales and pay for its representatives, stopping paying speaking fees to doctors, and investigating its employees’ expenses more carefully. Recently, Novartis chief compliance and ethics officer Shannon Klinger said in an interview that the company plans to “shift from policing to coaching, with a compliance unit focused on helping local units make the right decisions.”
But policy changes alone cannot fully mitigate compliance risk. When a company deems a third party to have a low risk of bribery and corruption, a basic due diligence search may suffice. Even then, however, relying on a traditional internet search engine may fall short. In addition to finding it difficult to verify open source data, other critical information may be hidden by paywalls or obscured due to legislation like the European Union’s ‘right to be forgotten’ law. When a company has operations or relies on third parties in other countries, the need for enhanced due diligence—including checking against sanctions, PEPs and other watch lists—climbs. Pharmaceutical firms competing to enter new markets must recognize that effective third-party due diligence is a strategic driver for sustainable business growth. The alternative, as we’ve seen with Novartis and other pharmaceutical companies, is serious compliance failings that lead to reputational damage and costly enforcement actions—certainly bitter pills to swallow when it comes to the bottom line.
Learn how organisations in the pharmaceutical sector can mitigate the risks of corruption more effectively, in our ebook, ”Something Missing? Pharmaceutical & Life Sciences Third-Party Due Diligence.