1. The
visibility
of
CEOs
within
pharmaceutics
The
impact
on
corporate
reputation
and
the
effect
on
patients
Y.J.
Oswald
October,
2015
Executive
International
Master
of
Science
in
Corporate
Communication
Erasmus
University
Rotterdam
Dr.
G.A.J.M.
Berens
1

2. The
copyright
of
the
Master
thesis
rests
with
the
author.
The
author
is
responsible
for
its
contents.
RSM
is
only
responsible
for
the
educational
coaching
and
cannot
be
held
liable
for
the
content.
2

3. Management
Summary
Does
the
visibility
of
a
CEO
within
the
pharmaceutical
industry
impact
the
reputation
of
his
or
her
company
and
does
it
affect
patients?
Do
powerful
CEOs
have
the
ability,
by
using
their
visibility,
to
increase
the
reputation
of
their
company?
There
are
many
examples
of
CEOs
whose
visibility
were
important
and
inNluenced
the
reputation
of
their
companies
in
a
positive
way,
for
instance
Richard
Bransons
(Virgin),
Steve
Jobs
(Apple),
Bill
Gates
(Microsoft),
and
Anita
Roddick
(Body
Shop).
Do
we
recognize
visible
leaders
in
the
pharmaceutical
industry,
and
are
these
CEOs
able
to
inNluence
the
reputation
of
their
companies?
During
the
past
decades
pharmaceutical
industry’s
most
important
stakeholder
groups
were
investors,
prescribers,
insurance
companies
and
media
(e.g.
Kessel,
2014).
However,
research
(e.g.
Grogan,
2014)
found
out
there
is
a
growing
importance
of
the
patient.
But,
are
patients
aware
of,
and
interested
in
the
company
and
the
CEO
behind
their
medication?
In
the
last
decades
the
pharmaceutical
industry
saw
an
increase
in
corporate
misconducts
(Mattera,
2012),
with
negative
impact
on
the
reputation
of
pharmaceutical
companies
(PWC,
2015).
A
survey
in
2012
by
Baum,
about
the
reputation
of
29
global
pharmaceutical
companies,
found
a
decline
of
19%
in
corporate
reputation.
A
company’s
reputation
is
among
its
most
valuable
assets:
The
percentage
of
a
company’s
value
attributed
to
tangible
assets
decreased
from
90%
to
25%,
whereas
the
intangible
asset
of
a
company
(including
reputation)
represents
40%
to
60%
of
a
corporation’s
market
capitalization
(Brigham
and
Linssen,
2010;
Gaines-­‐Ross,
2008).
Important
reputation
drivers
of
pharmaceutical
companies
are
being
a
responsible,
reliable,
ethical,
transparent
company,
offering
high
quality
products,
and
being
a
good
corporate
citizen.
(Reputation
Institute
2015).
An
important
driver
of
corporate
reputation
is
the
reputation
of
its
CEO
(e.g.
Shandwick,
2011;
Murray
and
White,
2005).
A
company
is
a
reNlection
of
its
CEO
(Hambrick
and
Mason,
1984).
A
CEO
is
the
personiNication,
the
embodiment
of
a
company
and
responsible
for
its
successes
(Ranft
et
al,
2006).
About
45%
of
the
corporate
reputation
and
market
value
is
estimated
to
be
an
attribution
of
its
CEO’s
reputation
(Weber
Shandwick,
2015a).
The
way
CEOs
behave
inNluences
the
opinion
of
stakeholders
about
pharmaceutical
companies
(Global
Economic
Crime
Survey,
2014).
An
important
way
to
improve
the
industry’s
reputation
is
the
increase
of
engagement
between
the
pharmaceutical
sector
and
patients
(Dewulf
2015),
it
gives
possibilities
to
a
better
understanding
of
patients’
needs
and
wants
(e.g.
Abelson
et
al,
2003)
and
it
realizes
trust
and
conNidence
in
the
health
system
(Wiseman
et
al,
2003).
With
an
increase
of
patients
empowering
and
engaging
in
health
care
issues
on
the
Internet,
pharmaceutical
companies,
represented
by
its
CEO,
should
use
the
opportunity
to
become
part
of
the
conversation
by
explaining
what
their
companies
stand
for
(Weber
Shandwick,
2015b;
2013,).
Online
presence,
the
use
of
social
media
is
the
platform
to
connect
and
build
engagement
between
a
pharmaceutical
company
and
its
patients
(Dewulf,
2015).
To
be
able
to
discover
if
a
visible
CEO
within
the
pharmaceutical
industry
in
the
Netherlands
increases
the
reputation
of
his/her
company,
and
to
Nind
out
whether
his
or
her
visibility
is
relevant
for
a
target
group
of
growing
importance,
the
patient,
it
was
necessary
to
identify
a
visible
CEO.
I
found
one
visible
CEO
within
pharmaceutics:
Marcel
Joachimsthal,
CEO
of
GlaxoSmithKline
Netherlands
(GSK).
GSK
is
expert
in
the
area
of
pulmonology.
To
investigate
his
visibility,
the
visibility
of
his
company
and
products,
and
the
effect
of
his
visibility
related
to
the
reputation
of
his
company,
I
got
the
chance
to
compose
and
expand
an
online
survey
(July
2015)
among
900
lung
patients,
members
of
the
patient
advocacy
group
(PAG):
‘Longfonds’,
(response
rate
51%,
n=464)
(appendix
c).
The
results
of
the
survey
suggest
a
visible
CEO
of
a
3

4. pharmaceutical
company
specialized
in
pulmonology
in
The
Netherlands,
is
not
visible
among
his
lung
patients.
Not
even
for
respondents,
who
could
be
deNined
as
involved
in,
and
having
knowledge
of
their
lung
disease
and
treatment.
Almost
all
respondents
(99.8%/463)
were
not
able
to
mention
the
name
of
the
CEO
of
the
company
of
their
medication,
nor
were
able
to
answer
the
question
whether
a
CEO
could
have
inNluenced
their
image
of
the
pharmaceutical
company
of
their
medication.
2%
of
the
respondents
(11)
answered
they
knew
the
man
presented
on
the
picture
(Joachimsthal)
in
the
questionnaire.
50%
of
the
respondents
(234)
would
like
to
receive
information
from
the
pharmaceutical
company,
of
which:
78%
about
medication,
19%
about
the
pharmaceutical
company
and
5%
about
the
CEO.
This
moment
Dutch
lung
patients
do
not
see
the
relevance
of
a
(visible)
CEO
nor
the
(personal)
advantages
a
visible
CEO
of
the
company
of
their
medication
could
offer.
An
important
reason
for
CEOs
invisibility
in
The
Netherlands
is
related
to
the
legislation
and
regulation
of
the
pharmaceutical
industry.
Industry’s
unawareness
about
the
attribution
a
CEOs
reputation
could
deliver
to
(the
value
of)
a
company’s
reputation
could
also
be
a
reason
of
CEOs
invisibility.
One
of
the
implications
of
this
study
is
the
development
of
communication
activities
initiated
by
Nefarma
(Association
for
Dutch
branches
of
innovative
pharmaceutical
companies),
to
increase
awareness
within
the
pharmaceutical
industry
in
The
Netherlands
about
the
importance
of
reputation,
corporate
reputation
and
CEO’s
reputation
in
relation
to
company’s
reputation,
resulting
in
positive
effects
towards
their
stakeholder
groups.
Another
implication
is
related
to
the
strict
regulation
of
the
industry
with
regard
to
the
direct
communication
between
the
industry
and
its
patients,
deNined
by
the
CGR
(Code
of
conduct
for
pharmaceutical
advertising).
With
an
increase
of
patients
searching
health
information
online,
the
distance
between
a
pharmaceutical
company
and
its
patient
is
decreasing.
More
patient
health
engagement
will
result
in
a
growing
demand
and
supply
of
health
information,
resulting
in
(more)
direct
communication
between
company
and
patient,
which
causes
a
blurred
boundary
between
industry
and
patient,
between
information
(permissiveness)
and
advertising
(prohibition).
Clarity
throughout
the
industry
is
needed,
both
CGR
(revising
regulation)
as
well
as
Nefarma
(information
and
communication)
have
to
take
their
responsibilities.
4

5. Table
of
Contents
Introduction
4
Theoretical
framework
5
-­‐
Corporate
Reputation
5
-­‐
The
pharmaceutical
industry
and
its
reputation
6
-­‐
Patient
empowerment
and
engagement
in
healthcare
8
-­‐
The
importance
of
Chief
Executive
OfNicer
for
corporate
reputation
8
-­‐
The
inNluence
of
Chief
Executive
OfNicer
for
corporate
reputation
10
-­‐
The
role
of
CEO
in
pharma
13
-­‐
Conclusion
theoretical
framework
15
Research
16
-­‐
Methodology
16
-­‐
Validity
20
-­‐
Conclusion
research
21
Discussion
22
Theoretical
implications
24
Implications
for
practice
25
Acknowledgment
26
Literature
27
Appendix
33
a.
Pharmaceutical
market
b.
The
visibility
of
Marcel
Joachimsthal
c.
Survey
5

6. 1.
Introduction
The
pharmaceutical
industry
is
one
of
the
most
innovative
and
relevant
industries
in
the
world,
by
its
development,
production
and
delivery
of
medicines,
to
prevent
and
treat
al
kind
of
diseases
with
the
aim
of
saving
of
human
lives
(Appendix
a).
The
estimated
worldwide
sales
in
2020
will
amount
to
almost
one
trillion
dollars
in
2020
(EvaluatePharma,
2015;
Appendix
a).
But,
although
the
pharmaceutical
industry
once
belonged
to
the
most
admired
industries,
the
reputation
of
the
pharmaceutical
industry
is
under
pressure,
due
to
many
malpractices
mainly
caused
by
the
big
Nive
(Novartis,
PNizer,
Roche,
SanoNi
and
GlaxoSmithKline
(GSK)).
GSK
paid
$492
million
in
2014
to
settle
charges
relating
to
bribery
in
Chine:
British
executive,
Mark
Reilly,
and
four
Chinese
employees
were
sentenced
to
prison.
GSK
was
found
guilty
for
the
use
of
payments
to
doctors
and
hospitals
(CBC,
2014).
GSK
paid
$3
billion
(the
largest
payment
ever
by
a
pharmaceutical
company)
in
2011,
to
settle
federal
investigations
(the
largest
healthcare
fraud
settlement
in
U.S.
history):
GSK
targeted
drugs
for
uses
they
were
not
approved
for,
unlawful
promoted
its
drugs,
misleading
medical
journal
articles
and
providing
doctors
with
special
treatments,
and
failed
to
give
the
FSA
safety
data.
(Reuters,
2012,
Mattera,
2012).
Novartis
paid
$422
million
in
2010
to
settle
charges
related
to
illegally
marketed
medication
(Mattera,
2012).
AstraZeneca
paid
520
million
to
settle
charges
relating
to
the
marketing
of
its
drug
in
2010.
(Mattera,
2012).
PNizer
paid
$2.3
billion
in
2002
to
settle
charges
related
to
illegal
promotion
of
its
drug,
prior
to
its
being
taken
off
the
market
because
of
unsafety
(Mattera,
2012).
The
main
driver
of
these
scandalous
corporate
misconducts
was
the
need
to
increase
proNit,
to
maximize
sales
(Mattera,
2012).
Bribery
and
corruption
have
severe
impact
on
the
reputation
of
pharmaceutical
companies,
according
to
40%
of
pharmaceutical
executives
(PWC,
2015).
The
reputation
of
a
company
is
of
growing
importance
and
more
important
than
ever
before
(e.g.
Brigham,
Linssen,
2010;
Gaines-­‐
Ross,
2008).
People
are
aware
of
the
performance
of
a
company,
and
there
is
a
growing
consciousness
about
the
behavior
of
a
company
(Weber
Shandwick,
2015).
The
question
that
arose
during
the
masterclasses
about
corporate
reputation
at
Erasmus
University
was
whether
powerful
CEOs
have
the
ability
to
make
the
difference,
do
CEOs
have
the
possibility,
by
using
their
visibility,
to
increase
the
reputation
of
their
company?
There
are
many
examples
of
CEOs
whose
visibility
were
important
and
inNluenced
the
reputation
of
their
companies.
Without
Richard
Branson’s
charismatic
performance,
innovative
ideas,
skills
and
visiblity
the
corporate
reputation
of
Virgin
would
not
have
been
as
high
as
it
is
(De
Vries,
1996),
belonging
to
the
top
companies
worldwide
(e.g.
again
Virgin
airlines
is
ranked
number
one
in
overall
performance
in
the
US
(Forbes).
Steve
Jobs,
the
creative
genious
with
innovative
technical
skills
made
Apple
the
most
succesfull
and
strongest
company
in
the
world.
Bill
Gates
(Microsoft)
Michael
Duke
(Wal-­‐Mart),
Jeff
Bezos
(Amazon),
and
Anita
Roddick
(Body
Shop)
are
more
examples
of
visible
CEOs
with
positive
effect
on
the
reputation
of
their
companies.
Do
we
recognize
powerful
leaders
in
the
pharmaceutical
industry?
Are
these
CEOs
able
to
inNluence
the
reputation
of
their
companies,
and
the
pharmaceutical
industry,
facing
an
increase
in
malpractice
and
unethical
behaviour
(Reuters,
2012;
Mattera,
2012).
During
the
past
decades
pharmaceutical
industry’s
most
important
stakeholder
groups
were
investors,
prescribers,
insurance
companies
and
media
(e.g.
Kessel,
2014).
However,
research
(e.g.
Grogan,
2014)
found
out
there
is
a
growing
importance
of
the
Ninal
consumer.
Patients
are
more
than
ever
aware
of
aspects
of
their
disease
and
treatment
cq
medication.
They
are
getting
information
from
the
Internet,
fellow
patients,
patient
advocacy
groups,
physicians,
pharmacies
and
pharmaceutical
companies.
But,
are
patients
aware
of,
and
interested
in
the
company
and
its
CEOs
behind
their
medication?
Do
patients
need
more
information
about
the
company
and
its
CEO?
And
if
so,
what
could
be
the
best
way
to
communicate,
taking
regulations
and
restrictions
into
consideration.
And
what
about
the
qualiNications,
competences
of
a
‘visible’
CEO?
Before
getting
answers
to
these
questions,
it
is
necessary
to
get
insight
into
the
pharmaceutical
market,
its
developments,
reputation
and
stakeholder
groups.
6

7. 2.
Theoretical
framework
Corporate
Reputation
Corporate
reputation
is
based
on
an
attitude
of
an
organization
by
its
constituencies
(analysts,
investors,
customers,
partners
and
employees)
formed
by
their
experience
of
its
brands
and
images.
An
attitude
is
a
learned
capacity,
to
behave
(positively
or
negatively)
to
a
certain
item
based
on
evaluations
of
former
experiences.
(Bagozzi
et
al,
2002;
Eagly
and
Chaiken,
1993;
Schiffman
and
Kanuk,
1997).
‘Attitude
is
considered
to
be
highly
correlated
with
one’s
intentions,
which
in
turn
is
a
reasonable
predictor
of
behavior’
(Ajzen
and
Fishbein,
1980,
p
264).
A
positively
perceived
corporate
reputation
increases
the
company’s
attraction
and
its
success.
301
Business
leaders
from
29
countries
in
28
industries,
who
participated
in
the
‘2014
Reputation
Leaders
Study’
(Reputation
Institute
2014),
mentioned
following
tangible
beneNits
derived
from
a
good
reputation:
-­‐
Competitive
differentiation
(60%),
-­‐
Top
talent
acquisition
(49%),
-­‐
Ability
to
collaborate/partner
with
key
opinion
leaders
or
policy
makers
(43%),
-­‐
Improve
crisis
management
and
post
crisis
recovery
(37%),
-­‐
Reduce
risk
of
increased
regulations
(28%),
-­‐
Support
entry
into
new
markets
(24%),
-­‐
Ability
to
charge
premium
prices
(18%)
Corporate
reputations
evolve
from
the
images
stakeholders
have
about
company’s
key
dimensions
of
performance:
Products
&
services
(quality,
innovation,
satisfaction,
industry),
Leadership
(CEO/team),
Governance
(vision,
ethics
credibility),
Responsibility
(environment,
society,
governance),
Financial
performance
(responsibility,
usage
of
corporate
assets,
soundness),
Employees
(workspace,
treatment,
development,
diversity),
Communication
(transparency,
engagement
(Van
Riel
2015;
Weber
Shandwick,
2015;
Van
Riel
and
Fombrun,
2007).
Corporate
reputation
concerns
to
the
beliefs
of
stakeholders
about
the
possibility
that
a
Nirm
will
bring
value
on
the
key
dimensions
of
performance
(Rindova
and
Fombrun,
1999),
most
important
are
related
to
product
quality
and
Ninancial
performance
(Fombrun
and
Shanley,
1990;
Shapiro,
1983).
These
expectations
are
acquired
mainly
from
a
Nirm’s
past
actions
(Weigelt
and
Camerer,
1988),
resource
developments
(Dierickx
and
Cool,
1989)
and
performance
(Fombrun
and
Shanley,
1990).
The
success
of
a
company
depends
on
the
support,
which
depends
on
trust
of
its
stakeholders.
The
degree
of
trust,
admiration,
esteem
and
feeling
of
stakeholders
towards
a
company
depends
on
whether
a
company
kept
(and
realized)
its
promises
towards
these
stakeholders.
The
higher
the
degree
of
trust,
admiration
feeling
and
esteem
the
higher
a
company’s
reputation.
Based
on
research
by
Harrison,
a
person’s
past
experience
with
a
certain
company
can
account
for
about
2/3
of
their
perception
of
that
company
(Harrison,
2014).
According
to
Brigham
and
Linssen
(2010),
the
percentage
of
a
company’s
value
attributed
to
tangible
assets
has
decreased
from
90%
to
25%.
Other
estimates
(Brigham,
Linssen,
2010,
and
Gaines-­‐Ross,
2008)
suggest
that
it
is
the
intangible
asset
of
a
company
(including
reputation)
nowadays
represents
40–60%
of
a
corporation’s
market
capitalization.
Conclusion:
a
company’s
reputation
is
among
its
most
valuable
assets.
Research
done
by
the
Reputation
Institute
(2014)
shows
one
of
the
drivers
of
reputation
is
leadership.
65%
of
business
leaders
said
reputation
management
is
top
priority
for
CEOs.
Thus
building
and
managing
a
(successful)
reputation
depends
largely
on
the
characteristics
and
visibility
of
a
Nirm’s
CEO.
7

8. The
pharmaceutical
industry
and
its
reputation
There
are
a
lot
of
critical
remarks
against
the
pharmaceutical
industry:
The
industry
is
accused
for
medicalization
(‘the
making’)
of
a
disease
and
the
realization
of
excessive
proNits
(in
high
proNitability
markets)
as
a
result
of
overcharging:
the
industry
is
proNiting
from
illness.
To
inNluence
(to
bribe)
the
prescriber
the
industry
developed
dubious
marketing
practices
(withholding
negative
data
about
marketed
products,
gifts
and
hospitalities
(travel
and
accommodation
expenses),
industry-­‐sponsored
publications
etc.).
Pharmaceutical
companies
publish
successful
trial
data
and
withhold
negative
data
from
publication,
and
improve
study
designs
in
a
way
to
increase
favorable
outcomes
that
could
affect
clinical
decision-­‐making
by
regulators
(Kessel,
2014;
Badcott,
2012).
Many
pharmaceutical
companies
were
found
guilty
of
illegal
activities
and/or
other
forms
of
malpractice,
and
were
condemned
(e.g.
J&J,
GSK,
Eli
Lily,
PNizer,
and
Abbot).
Finegold
and
Moser
pointed
out
pharmaceutical
companies
realize
the
growing
importance
of
being
ethic,
and
therefore
many
of
the
Nirms
include
ethics
in
their
vision
and
mission
statements.
The
industry
has
the
responsibility
to
act
ethically,
because
of
the
death
and
life
impact
of
pharmaceuticals.
But
the
behavior
of
the
industry,
the
way
it
produces
and
markets
the
products,
is
conNlicting
in
what
it
communicates.
The
unethical
behavior
of
the
industry
will
therefore
come
under
greater
ethical
scrutiny.
Analysts
and
the
media
criticize
the
disconnection
between
the
announcements
of
‘high
ethical
standards’
and
the
reality
of
pharma’s
conduct.
The
fraudulent
practices
of
the
pharmaceutical
industry
cost
billions
of
dollars
each
year,
these
malpractices
are
more
difNicult
to
identify
because
of
a
more
global
environment
(Finegold
and
Moser,
2006).
And
although
building
trust
and
transparency
are
crucial
in
the
new
policy
on
CSR
in
the
pharmaceutical
industry
(Valverde,
2012;
Reputation
Institute
2015),
the
reputation
of
the
pharmaceutical
industry
came
under
attack
concerning
this
lack
of
transparency.
A
survey
in
2012
by
Baum,
about
the
reputation
of
29
global
pharmaceutical
companies,
among
600
patient
groups
(80%
from
Europe,
20%
US),
found
a
decline
of
19%
in
the
perception
of
the
reputation
of
pharmaceutical
companies.
Reasons
behind
this
decline
were:
-­‐
Perceived
lack
of
transparency,
especially
in
reporting
the
disappointing
results
of
clinical
trials.
-­‐
Failing
to
assist
patients
in
countries
with
a
difNicult
economic
environment.
-­‐
Offering
drugs
with
only
short-­‐term
health
beneNits.
-­‐
Not
doing
enough
to
discover
chemical
entities
suitable
for
neglected
patient
groups.
-­‐
Inappropriate
marketing
of
drugs
(including
those
for
off-­‐label
indications).
-­‐
Drug
prices
that,
in
some
cases,
are
still
unaffordable
to
many
patients
or
their
payers.
(Baum,
2013)
Familiarity
with
pharma
companies
remains
low
compared
to
other
global
companies
(RepTrak®
100).
Global
reputation
research
found
out
about
50%
of
the
public
is
unsure
about
what
pharmaceutical
companies
are
doing
on
all
seven
dimensions
(Reputation
Institute,
2015).
The
public
is
aware
of
company’s
wrongdoing,
the
opinions
of
pharmaceutical
companies
are
often
affected
by
what
CEOs
and
other
executives
say
and
do.
(Global
Economic
Crime
Survey,
2014).
The
outcomes
of
the
reputation
study
in
2015,
about
the
pharma’s
industry
reputation
with
consumers
(n=
20.789)
in
15
countries
found
that
the
global
pharma’s
reputation
is
mixed:
34%
of
respondents
perceive
the
industry
as
having
an
excellent
reputation.
23%
perceive
the
industry’s
reputation
as
weak/poor
(Reputation
Institute,
2015).
8

9. Although
the
reputation
of
the
pharmaceutical
industry
is
damaged
by
malpractices,
its
global
reputation
score
(RepTrak®)
remained
average
65.9
over
years*.
Possible
reason
for
maintaining
an
average
reputation
score
is
due
to
the
fact
that
even
when
observers
were
confronted
with
negative
information,
they
resist
changing
their
reputational
assessments
(Wartick,
1992).
The
reputation
drivers
of
pharmaceutical
companies
are:
-­‐
Being
a
responsible
company
that
behaves
ethical,
is
open
and
transparent
in
its
business
dealings.
-­‐
Offering
high-­‐quality
excellent
products
and
reliable
services.
-­‐
Being
a
good
corporate
citizen
that
supports
good
causes
and
protects
the
environment
(Reputation
Institute
2015).
The
key
personality
drivers
of
pharmaceutical
companies
are:
-­‐
Honest,
sincere,
trustworthy,
social
responsible.
-­‐
Reliable,
secure,
hardworking.
-­‐
Concerned,
reassuring,
supportive,
agreeable.
-­‐
Friendly,
pleasant,
open,
straight
forward.
-­‐
Imaginative,
up-­‐to-­‐date,
exciting,
innovative.
-­‐
Technical,
corporate.
-­‐
Ambitious,
achievement
oriented,
leading.
-­‐
Prestigious,
exclusive,
reNined.
(Reputation
Institute,
2015).
The
reputation
of
the
world’s
most
reputable
pharmaceutical
companies
are
ranked
‘Average
(60-­‐69)’
(Reputation
Institute,
2015).
The
reputations
maintain
stable
for
most
pharmaceutical
companies.
Lilly,
GSK
and
BMS
improved
their
reputations,
Novo
Nordisk
and
Novartis
faced
signiNicant
declines.
There
is
no
direct
relation
between
market
share
and
reputation
score
(Novartis
is
market
leader
with
the
lowest
reputation
score).
Company Reputation
2015 Company Reputation
2014 MS
2014
Bayer 68.4
(-­‐0.8) Bayer 69.2 2.2%
Roche 67.6
(-­‐0.1) Roche 67.5 5.4%
Abbot 66.9
(
0.0) Abbott 66.9 <
top
20
Eli
Lilly 66.5
(+1.4) Novartis 66.1 6.2%
GSK 65.5
(+1.2) Eli
Lilly 65.0
2.2%
BMS 65.5
(+0.9) GSK 64.3
4.1%
Novo
Nordisk 65.1
(-­‐1.8) BMS 64.6 1.6%
AstraZeneca 65.0
(+0.1) Novo
Nordisk 66.9
2.1%
PNizer 65.0
(
0.0) AstraZeneca 64.9
3.5%
SanoNi 64.9
(+0.2) PNizer 65.0
6.0%
Merck
&
Co 64.1
(+0.7) SanoNi 64.8
5.1%
Novartis 63.6
(-­‐2.4) Merck
&
Co 64.8
4.9%
9

10. Patient
empowerment
and
engagement
in
healthcare
The
pharmaceutical
industry
realizes
a
growing
importance
of
the
Ninal
users
of
their
products:
the
patient.
85%
of
pharmaceutical
executives
agreed
that
patient-­‐centricity
is
the
best
route
to
future
proNitability
(Grogan,
2014).
The
relation
between
the
pharmaceutical
industry
(the
producer)
and
its
patients
(the
users)
is
indirect.
Direct
communication
towards
the
patient
takes
place
by
prescriber
(medical
practitioner)
and
supplier
(the
pharmacist).
It
is
forbidden
for
pharmaceutical
companies
having
direct
communication
with
their
Ninal
users,
due
to
regulations
(with
the
exception
of
US
and
New
Zealand).
To
ensure
compliance
with
the
restriction
of
direct-­‐to-­‐patient
promotion
(e.g.
CGR),
pharma
simpliNied
the
message
of
‘do
not
promote
to
patients’
into
‘do
not
talk
to
patients’.
Engagement
with
patients
is
allowed
as
long
as
there
is
no
intervention
(with
the
aim
to
inNluence
a
decision).
This
non-­‐promotional
patient
engagement,
with
the
purpose
of
learning
about
and
from
the
patient
is
possible
in
most/all
countries,
due
to
the
fact
most
countries
do
not
have
any
speciNic
regulation
or
compliance
framework.
Direct
engagement
with
patients,
with
the
aim
of
gaining
a
deeper
understanding
of
their
experience,
needs
and
expectations,
is
essential
for
the
development
of
better
solutions
(e.g.
medicines).
Patient
involvement
in
healthcare
decision-­‐making
helps
in
legitimating
decisions
(Abelson
et
al,
2003;
South
et
al.,
2005;
Truc
et
al,
2008)
and
in
dealing
with
societal
and
economic
developments,
such
as
increasing
demand
for
healthcare
and
higher
patient
expectations
in
relation
to
budgetary
constraints
(Leys
et
al,
2007).
Moreover
it
should
lead
to
more
trust
and
conNidence
in
the
health
system
(Wiseman
et
al.,
2003)
and
engage
communities
and
patients
in
health
action
(Becher
et
al,
2008;
South,
2005).
Nowadays,
most
patients
are
no
longer
uninformed
and
passive
recipients
of
healthcare.
The
main
reason
of
their
growing
empowerment
and
engagement
has
been
the
Internet.
Since
2000,
the
web
informed
patients
about
medical
issues,
on
treatment
opinions,
and
increasingly
on
provider
options.
Information
from
patients
to
patients
about
experiences
help
patients
in
making
decisions
about
health
providers
and
therapies
(Dewulf,
2015).
In
2013,
72%
of
the
US
and
European
adults
have
looked
for
health
information
on
line
(PewReserachCenter,
2013).
Well
deNined
(communication)
strategies
with
the
aim
to
engage
patients
and
health
stakeholders
in
dialogues
will
improve
the
reputation
of
a
pharmaceutical
company.
Social
media
has
become
of
growing
importance
due
to
the
fact
it
became
the
Nirst
opportunity
for
the
pharmaceutical
industry
to
engage
with
groups
of
people
(patients).
Social
media
is
a
platform
where
caregivers,
physicians
and
especially
patients
exchange
information.
From
an
issue
management
perspective,
social
media
is
very
important
to
be
able
to
know
what
people
are
saying
and
work
on
how
to
reply.
The
more
you
understand
patients,
the
more
you
learn
about
their
needs,
concerns
the
better
you
are
able
to
develop
solutions
and
programs,
with
the
Ninal
aim
to
build
trust
(Dewulf,
2015).
The
importance
of
the
Chief
Executive
OfHicer
for
corporate
reputation
A
CEO
is
a
person
at
the
top
of
an
organization
whose
personal
reputation
can
have
immediate
and
long
lasting
impact
on
the
organization.
A
CEO
is
often
seen
as
the
personiNication
of
a
company
and
responsible
for
the
successes
as
well
the
failures
of
all
aspects
of
the
organization
(Ranft
et
al,
2006).
Many
Nirms
invest
a
lot
in
the
selection,
compensation,
and
retention
of
CEOs
because
they
believe
that
CEOs
play
strategically
an
important
role
(Harris,
2002;
Roth,
1995).
CEOs
are
selected
based
on
their
reputation
related
to:
‘Education
and
performance’
(Harvard
-­‐
Whitman/Ebay),
‘Experience’
(Global
strategist
-­‐
Holland/McKinsey),
‘Turnaround
specialist’
(Dunlap/Sunbeam)
‘Extraordinaire
salesman’
(Hurd/HP)
(Ranft
et
al,
2006).
10

11. There
is
a
difference
between
a
regular
CEO
and
a
celebrity
CEO.
Celebrity
refers
to
an
individual
‘whose
name
has
attention-­‐getting,
interest-­‐riveting
and
proNit-­‐generating
value’
(Rein,
Kotler
and
Stoller,
1987:15).
Characteristic
for
a
celebrity
is
that
he
or
she
is
a
social
person,
attracting,
and
getting
the
attention
of
a
large
number
of
people
(more
attraction
means
more
value),
and
generating
emotional
responses
from
these
people.
Positive
responses
are
realized
because
of
the
positive
behavior
of
the
celebrity
(Trope
and
Libermann,
2000).
Positive
responses
are
generated
because
the
celebrity
is
able
to
realize
positive
emotional
forces,
is
able
to
fulNill
speciNic
needs
of
his
or
her
audience
(need
for
gossip,
fantasy,
identiNication,
status,
afNiliation,
and
attachment)
(O’Guinn,
2000;
Gamson,
1994;
Adler
and
Adler,
1989).
There
are
many
different
perspectives
in
how
to
become
a
celebrity.
For
example
Gamson
mentioned
two
perspectives,
one:
‘fame
is
deserved
and
earned,
related
to
achievement
and
quality’’,
and:
‘The
publicity
machine
focuses
attention
on
the
worthy
and
the
unworthy
alike,
churning
out
many
admired
commodities,
called
celebrities,
famous
because
they
have
been
made
to
be’
(Gamson,
1994:15-­‐16).
Rindova,
Pollock
and
Hayward
(2006)
focus
on
the
relationships
a
celebrity
has
with
his
or
her
audience.
Frank
and
Cook
deNine
a
celebrity
as
‘people
of
enormous
talent,
energy
and
drive’
(Frank
and
Cook,
1995:8)
who
become
winners
of
contests
of
the
top
positions
in
winner-­‐takes-­‐it-­‐all
markets.
McCracken
(1989)
argues
that
the
attractiveness
of
nowadays
celebrities
derive
from
their
ability
to
symbolize
the
lifestyle
aspirations
of
audiences.
In
summary:
a
celebrity
can
be
created
resulting
in
short
lived
celebrities,
individuals
with
a
real
ability
and
unique
style
becomes
‘stars
or
cultural
icons
(O’Guinn,
2000;
Dyer,
1997;
Gamson,
1994;
McCracken,
1989;
Reeves,
1988).
The
extension
of
one’s
celebrity
status
inNluences
his
or
her
economic
possibilities.
Employing
a
celebrity
CEO
could
be
valuable
for
the
Nirm,
because
the
reputation
of
the
CEO
increases
his
or
her
ability
to
access
resources
(human
capital,
capital
markets,
raw
materials),
exploit
opportunities
that
may
increase
a
Nirm’s
competitive
advantage
and
may
convince
stakeholders
about
Nirm’s
positive
prognoses
and
can
therefore
be
seen
as
an
intangible
asset
of
the
Nirm,
(Ranft
et
al,
2006;
Daily
and
Johnson,
1997;
Fombrun,
1996).
The
key
role
of
the
CEO
and
his
management
team
(TMT)
is
to
develop
work
processes
and
inNluence
organizational
results
(Finkelstein
and
Hambrick,
1996,
Hambrick
and
Mason,
1984).
Celebrity
CEOs
have
speciNic
characteristics
in
which
they
differ
from
regular
CEOs.
These
speciNic
characteristics
are
the
key
components
of
the
reputation
CEOs
perform
when
they
interact
with
stakeholders.
The
most
important
characteristics
of
these
CEOs
are:
They
have
a
clear
vision,
are
globally
focused,
are
decisively,
authentic,
honest,
open,
ethical
and
humble.
And
they
are
terriNic
communicators,
engagers,
motivators
and
inspirers
(Weber
Shandwick,
2015a;
Murray
2014;
Ranft
et
al,
2006).
Apart
from
their
performance,
once
a
CEO
reaches
the
‘celebrity-­‐status’,
they
charge
and
get
a
higher
compensation
package.
Beside
the
increase
of
compensation
arise
an
increase
in
power
and
autonomy.
The
increase
of
power
and
autonomy
allows
these
CEOs
to
change
the
company
in
a
way
they
feel
needed,
and
at
the
same
time
increase
their
reputations
by
fulNilling
expectations
that
the
organization
and
stakeholders
have
about
them.
A
CEO
could
have
the
ability
to
realize
success,
but
in
the
absence
of
success,
he
or
she
could
be
accused
for
failure.
(Ranft
et
al,
2006).
There
is
a
strong
link
between
CEO’s
pay
and
Nirm’s
performance
(Collins,
2003;
Barkema
and
Pennings,
1998;
Gomez-­‐Mejia
et
al,
1987).
Payment
inNluences
the
perception
of
CEOs
about
equity
and
legitimacy,
payment
motivates
their
behavior
Ninally
resulting
in
a
positive
inNluence
of
Nirm’s
performance
(Gomez-­‐Mejia
and
Wiseman,
1997;
Jensen
and
Murphy,
1990;
Finkelstein
and
Hambrick,
1988).
CEOs
will
involve
in
competitive
actions
with
the
hope
to
improve
Nirm’s
performance
with
the
aim
to
increase
their
personal
gain
(e.g.
incentive
pay-­‐outs)
(Vroom,
1964).
Goals,
specially
challenging
ones
that
are
valued
by
the
CEO,
are
the
most
potent
drivers
of
focused
and
persistent
behavior
(Locke
and
Latham,
1990).
Higher
CEO
incentives
result
into
more
competitive
creativity
and
thus
more
long
lasting
effects
on
the
Nirm.
A
study
by
Offstein
and
Gnyawali
(2005)
shows
that
within
pharmaceutical
Nirms
in
the
US,
incentives
short
term
(bonuses)
as
well
as
long
term
(stock
options)
of
a
CEO
are
positively
related
to
the
competitive
aggressiveness
of
the
Nirm.
Research
(by
e.g.
Blinder,
1990;
Jenkins,
1985;
Lawler
and
Hackman,
1971)
concludes
that
incentives
powerfully
inNluence
human
11

12. decisions
and
behavior.
Frank
and
Cook
(1995)
suggested
that
a
‘winner-­‐take-­‐all’
compensation
effect
exists
among
CEOs.
Being
certiNied
as
a
celebrity
CEO
has
positive
effects
on
annual
compensation
despite
any
difference
in
performance
between
celebrity
CEOs
and
regular
CEOs.
Research
also
suggested
a
‘Matthew
effect’
(Merton,
1968)
where
high
status
CEOs
receive
greater
rewards
than
others
for
performing
similar
or
even
identical
tasks
(Rao,
1994).
Management
researchers
identify
CEOs
as
individuals
who
develop
and
strength
the
climate
of
a
Nirm.
This
opinion
is
conNirming
to
scholars
in
organizational
behavior,
socio-­‐cognitive
psychology,
and
social
comparison
to
characterize
Nirms
as
a
reNlection
of
their
CEOs
(Hambrick
and
Mason,
1984).
Based
on
the
principle
of
Scheider
(1987)
where
the
organizational
culture,
climate
and
practices
are
deNined
by
the
people
inside
the
organization,
new
company
members,
also
executives
will
be
attracted,
selected
and
rewarded
according
to
the
character
of
the
Nirm,
reNlected
by
the
CEO.
Song
(1982)
showed
that
a
CEO’s
background
and
earlier
experience
had
implications
for
Nirm’s
strategy
and
the
selection
of
other
executives.
The
essential
role
of
top
management
is
shaping
work
processes
and
inNluencing
organizational
outcomes
(Hambrick
and
Mason,
1984).
After
a
period,
CEOs’
background
effects
-­‐
cognitive
abilities,
skills,
experience,
talent
and
other
human
factors,
(Hambrick,
1994)
-­‐
are
more
reinforced
and
increased
when
CEOs
develop
unique
styles
(Keck
and
Tushman,
1993).
Examples
of
styles:
Preferences
for
strategy
formulation
and
implementation
(Gabarro,
1987),
‘Instincts’
to
save
their
basis
of
power
(Finkelstein
and
Hambrick,
1988),
Interest
in
their
professional
heritage
(Westphal
and
Zajac,
1995).
Even
celebrity
CEOs
are
often
selected,
recruited,
or
promoted
based
on
a
perception
of
Nit
with
functional
priorities,
such
that
a
reinforcing
spiral
will
to
occur
(Michel
and
Hambrick,
1992;
Miles
and
Snow,
1978).
The
inHluence
of
Chief
Executive
OfHicer
for
corporate
reputation
The
behavior
of
the
CEO
both
inNluences
the
management’s
charisma
as
well
a
Nirm’s
performance
(Peterson
et
al,
2003,
Carmeli
et
al,
2011),
and
inNluences
in
the
development
of
a
strong
and
believable
reputation
of
the
company.
(Weber
Shandwick,
2015a).
Research
(e.g.
Shandwick,
2011;
Murray
and
White,
2005)
found
out
CEOs’
reputation
is
an
important
driver
of
corporate
reputation.
A
CEO
inNluences
the
success
of
the
organization
and
became
one
of
its
most
valuable
and
competitive
assets.
CEO
reputation
is
becoming
a
premium
form
of
currency
and
wealth
in
an
environment
where
companies
compete
on
their
reputations.
The
public
is
aware
of
the
way
a
company
operates,
and
the
publics’
opinion
about
Nirms
are
often
inNluenced
by
CEO’s
behavior:
The
way
a
CEO
performs
makes
or
breaks
company’s
reputation
(Weber
Shandwick,
2015a).
CEOs
reputation
greatly
impacts
consumer
images
of
companies:
66%
of
US
consumers
say
that
their
perceptions
of
CEOs
affect
their
opinions
of
corporate
reputations
(Weber
Shandwick,
2012).
The
effect
a
CEO’s
reputation
has
on
a
company
can
be
immediate
and
tangible.
A
CEO
is
often
seen
as
the
embodiment
of
the
company,
responsible
for
both
the
successes
and
the
failures
of
all
parts
of
the
organization.
Global
executives
estimated
that
45%
of
their
company
reputation
and
44%
of
their
company’s
market
value
is
attributed
to
the
reputation
of
their
CEO.
They
also
conNirm
that
positive
CEO
reputation
will
attract
investors,
generates
positive
media
attention,
will
protect
in
crisis,
and
attracts
and
retains
employees
(Weber
Shandwick,
2015a).
Lefebvre
and
Lefebvre
(1992)
demonstrated
that
CEO
characteristics,
such
as
personality,
are
positively
related
to
the
Nirm’s
reputation.
The
CEO
(and
TMT)
reNlects
the
Nirm’s
structure
and
processes
(Hambrick
and
Mason,
1984),
and
integrates
the
diverse
perceptions,
judgments
and
orientations
of
the
TMT
members
into
a
set
of
speciNic
strategic
behaviors
(Hambrick,
2007).
12

13. Attributing
organizational
performance
to
the
CEO
(and
TMT)
is
difNicult
to
do
due
to
the
fact
organizational
performance
is
affected
not
only
by
the
decisions
of
the
CEO
(and
TMT),
but
also
by
risk
factors
operating
at
the
industry
(Holmstrom
(1982).
The
importance
of
the
TMT
is
more
evident
in
companies
with
strong
reputations.
56%
of
executives
in
highly
reputable
companies
believe
a
company’s
overall
reputation
is
greatly
affected
by
the
reputation
of
the
TMT,
compared
to
only
30%
in
companies
with
weak
reputations
(Weber
Shandwick,
2015a).
The
cultivation
of
CEOs
reputation
is
realized
by
managing
the
reputation
via
political
skill
and
impression
management,
and
pushed
by
the
media
(Ranft
et
al,
2006).
Media
plays
an
important
role
by
publicizing
and
interpreting
organizational
performance
information
(Johnson
et
al,
2005;
Pollock
and
Rindova,
2003;
Rao,
Greve,
and
Davis,
2001;
Deephouse,
2000),
and
it
is
acceptable
that
positive
media
coverage
will
improve
corporate
reputation
(Carroll
and
McCombs,
2003;
Wartick,
1992;
Fombrun
&
Shanley,
1990).
Sometimes
media
based
interpretations
about
company’s
reputation
are
related
to
certiNication
contests
in
which
CEOs
and
organizations
are
compared
to
each
other
and
evaluated
in
a
way
that
powerful
performers
are
identiNied
and
recommended
(Rao,1994;
Scott,
1994).
CertiNication
contests
(e.g.
Fortune)
are
useful
measures
of
status,
because
they
combine
a
lot
of
individual
judgments
on
consistent
criteria,
thus
facilitate
consistent
concise
comparisons
(e.g.
Fombrun,
1996,
Rao,
1994).
The
resulting
rankings
are
important
because
of
the
behavioral
impact
and
effect
they
have
on
the
organization
and
its
stakeholders
(e.g.
Elsbach
and
Kamer,
1996).
CEOs
bring
with
them
skills
(see
before)
that
were
relevant
in
their
previously
developed
personal
reputations.
New
hired
CEOs
(and
their
reputations)
by
organizations,
were
broadly
announced
by
media
to
its
stakeholders.
When
positive
publicity
increases,
CEO’s
reputation
and
the
reputation
of
the
organization
both
will
increase.
A
positive
perceived
CEO
attracts
a
large
scale
of
public
and
realizes
positive
emotional
response.
These
emotional
responses,
realized
by
the
media,
are
the
result
of
CEOs
relations
with
the
public,
and
is
based
on
directed
information
about
CEOs
personal
features,
skills,
successes
and
styles.
In
explaining
the
performance
of
an
organization
as
if
it
is
concentrated
on
a
CEO,
the
media
has
the
inclination
to
think
CEOs
should
be
viewed
as
celebrities.
(Ranft
et
al,
2006).
A
negative
effect
could
occur
when
CEOs
do
not
fulNill
the
expectations
of
their
reputations.
This
could
restrict
CEOs
behavior
so
that
they
are
more
concerned
with
caring
for
their
own
reputations
than
for
the
organization,
this
could
lead
to
organizational
inactivity
and
stagnation.
When
the
decision
to
hire
a
celebrity
CEO
has
been
made
by
the
TMT,
they
have
to
justify
themselves,
and
will
be
more
closely
watched
by
the
media.
The
accountability
of
the
board
is
intensiNied,
they
have
to
justify
their
choice
of
the
selected
CEO
and,
at
the
same
time
they
have
to
leave
power
to
the
new
CEO
by
increased
autonomy.
For
that
reason
celebrity
CEOs
and
his
TMT
are
affected
to
exaggeration,
delusion,
and
manipulation
of
information
provided
to
the
public
and
media.
The
increased
scrutiny
by
the
media
and
the
public
intensify
CEO’s
need
to
make
decisions
consistent
with
those
that
built
his
or
her
reputation.
When
the
autonomy
of
a
CEO
increases,
it
restricts
his
or
her
decisions
and
actions
because
of
their
need
maintaining
his
or
her
reputation.
(Ranft
et
al,
2006).
A
survey,
in
2003,
by
Burson-­‐Marsteller
found
that
respondents
believe
that
half
of
a
company’s
reputation
is
attributable
to
the
CEO’s
reputation.
The
CEO
is
the
ultimate
spokesperson
for
the
organization,
the
embodiment
of
the
brand,
and
the
ofNicial
storyteller
who
aligns
company’s
past,
present,
and
future.
As
company’s
reputations
rise
and
fall
today,
CEOs
are
the
‘reputation-­‐protectors’
and
are
expected
to
pass
it
along
to
the
next
generation
of
CEOs
in
a
better
condition
than
before.
When
selecting
CEOs
management
skills
and
reputation
is
becoming
a
factor
in
measuring
CEOs
performance
and
awarding
compensation.
(Gaines-­‐Ross
and
Burson-­‐Marsteller,
2003a).
13

14. The
visibility
of
a
CEO
depends
on
the
willingness
of
the
CEO
to
be
approachable
on
communication
platforms.
It
is
of
growing
importance
for
CEOs
to
have
a
visible
public
proNile
for
a
company
to
be
able
to
generate
public
attention
and
create
engagement.
CEO
visibility
means
having
a
greater
presence
with
a
greater
purpose.
CEOs
are
more
likely
to
be
perceived
as
good
at
engaging
the
public,
comfortable
with
the
news
media,
winners
of
awards
and
recognition
and
social
media
participants.
Engagement
activities,
public
presence,
need
to
be
strategically
planned
and
thoughtfully
managed
(Weber
Shandwick,
2015b).
Important
platforms
to
realize
CEOs
visibility
are:
-­‐
Presentations
at
industry
conferences,
-­‐
Interview
with
media
-­‐
Visible
at
company’s
website
-­‐
Share
news
with
public
-­‐
Active
in
local
community
-­‐
Visible
on
corporate
video
channel
-­‐
Speak
at
leadership
events
-­‐
Hold
leadership
position
outside
company
-­‐
Public
take
position
on
society
issues
-­‐
Participate
in
social
media
-­‐
Publicity
take
positions
on
political
issues
(Weber
Shandwick,
2015b)
Highly
regarded
CEOs,
like
Richard
Branson,
have
a
higher
social
media
participation
rate
than
the
average
CEOs.
Executives
see
online
engagement,
as
an
opportunity
for
their
CEOs
to
increase
the
reputation
of
their
companies
by
sharing
their
companies’
stories.
In
2010,
the
majority
of
CEOs
from
global
largest
companies,
were
not
socially
engaged,
and
they
therefore
missed
the
opportunities
to
join
conversations
with
their
(potential)
customers
(Weber
Shandwick,
2010).
Research
found
out
an
increase
in
the
sociability
of
the
top
CEOs,
in
2015,
many
of
the
world’s
top
CEOs
are
using
social
networks
and
other
online
tools.
A
CEO
is
considered
to
be
social
online
when
he
or
she:
Has
a
public
and
veriNiable
social
network
account,
like
Facebook
or
LinkedIn;
Engages
on
the
company
website
through
messages
(e.g.
letters,
quotes),
pictures
or
video;
Appears
in
a
video
on
the
company
YouTube
channel;
And
are
authors
of
an
external
blog
(Weber
Shandwick,
2015b).
Today
‘CEO
social
engagement’
is
a
must
for
building
reputation.
Business
leaders
are
increasingly
present
on
digital
platforms
to
share
their
company
story,
reach
broader
networks
of
stakeholders
and
join
online
conversations
where
their
company
is
already
being
talked
about.
CEOs
who
don’t
use
online
communications
take
the
risk
of
being
‘left
behind”
(Weber
Shandwick,
2015b).
Research
(2014)
found
that
80%
of
CEOs
from
the
world’s
top
companies
are
social,
either
through
their
company
website
(68%),
company
YouTube
channel
(38%)
or
a
social
network
(28%).
CEO
online
engagement
increased
122%
since
Nirst
research
by
Weber
Shandwick
in
2010,
this
growth
leads
to
the
believe
that
companies
and
their
executives
recognize
the
importance
of
online
engagement.
Communicating
online
is
the
norm
for
today’s
CEOs,
they
need
to
use
online
tools
to
stay
competitive
in
today’s
digitally
dominated
landscape
(Weber
Shandwick,
2015b).
14

15. The
role
of
CEO
in
pharma
The
management
responsibilities
of
CEOs
in
pharmaceutical
organizations
are
interesting
because
in
most
cases
they
lead
scientists
and
technologists
without
having
the
scientiNic
knowledge
or
having
worked
in
such
roles
(Haystead,
2003).
Research
(Harvard
Business
School,
2004)
among
20
CEOs
within
the
US
pharmaceutical
industry,
about
their
background
found
out:
18
of
20
CEOs
held
at
least
one
graduate
degree
(8
of
them
MBA).
Their
early
career
fell
into
four
general
categories:
sales/
marketing,
research/science,
engineering/consulting
and
Ninance.
Donald
Hayden
EVP
and
president
of
BMS
(US):
‘CEOs
are
actually
business
people
who
have
‘scientiNic
knowledge
with
the
desire
to
expand
their
scientiNic
knowledge
base’.
Gerhard
Mayr
EVP
of
Lilly:
“A
formal
degree
in
science
is
not
critical
for
the
executive
track’.
There
is
an
‘either
–
or’
mentality:
Someone
is
either
a
science
expert
or
a
business
man,
but
not
both.
Pharmaceutical
CEOs
spent
on
average
91%
of
their
career
in
the
healthcare
industry,
and
78%
with
their
current
employer.
The
skills
they
learned
and
challenges
they
faced
during
their
international
career
were
identiNied
as
key
experiences
that
ultimately
led
to
their
success
and
prepared
them
for
executive
level.
Jan
van
Heek,
EVP
at
Genzyme,
stated:
‘Experience
in
a
multicultural
environment,
success
in
a
global
environment,
and
experiences
in
different
cultures’,
was
the
reason
he
was
selected
for
his
position.
The
CEOs
declared
that
managing
turnarounds
and
receiving
early
‘stretch’
assignments
were
critical
for
their
success,
because
these
situations
gave
them
an
opportunity
to
demonstrate
leadership
and
be
identiNied
with
success.
Gilmartin,
CEO
of
Merck
described
Nive
speciNic
characteristics
a
senior
executive
must
have:
Character
(and
corresponding
ethics),
Competence
(the
ability
to
get
the
job
done
and
to
delegate),
Ability
to
develop
others
(selecting
people
and
giving
them
opportunities),
Good
communication
skills,
the
ability
to
inspire
conNidence
and
trust.
‘Employees
must
believe
that
you
have
their
best
interest
in
mind
and
that
you
will
do
what
you
say
you
will
do’.
Integrity
in
pharmaceutics
is
important:
Gilmartin:
‘Need
for
all
the
managers
at
Merck
to
act
with
utmost
integrity’,
Bernard
Poussot,
EVP
and
president
of
Wyeth
Pharmaceuticals:
‘We
create
products
that
the
customer
can’t
identify
as
defective
by
just
looking
at
them,
we
therefore
must
maintain
a
level
of
integrity
second
to
none’.
The
role
of
a
CEO
in
a
pharmaceutical
company
differs
from
any
other
industry
because
of
its
unique
combination
of
extensive
government
control
and
high
Nixed
costs
of
development
and
relatively
low
costs
of
production.
The
increase
of
scrutiny,
its
laws
and
regulation
cause
a
greater
impact
on
the
misbehavior,
malpractices,
compared
to
other
industries.
Regulation
is
developed
to
protect
the
public
and
to
ensure
that
production,
trade,
and
use
of
medicines
are
regulated,
and
the
public
has
access
to
correct
information
on
medicines.
In
contrast
to
other
industries,
the
consumer
has
no
way
to
determine
the
product
and
its
quality.
CEOs
within
pharmaceutics
have
the
opportunity
to
Nill
this
gap
by
providing
relevant
information,
joining
conversations,
to
be
able
to
build
and
strengthen
relationships
between
industry
and
patient,
with
the
Ninal
aim
the
increase
of
company’s
reputation.
15

16. The
position
of
CEO’s
related
to
worldwide
rankings
of
Market
share
and
Reputation
2014.
MS
Ranking
MS
Ranking
REP CEO Education CEO
SinceCEO
Since
1 Novartis
4 Joseph
Jimenez BSc
Stanford,
MBA 2010 *
2
PNizer 10 Ian
Reed
(1953) BSc
Chemical
Engineering,
BSc
Accountancy
2006 *
3
Roche
2 Severin
Schwan
(1967) MSc
Economics,
Law,
Research
2008 *
4
SanoNi 11
Oliver
Brandicourt
(1956) MSc
Medicine
and
Biology
2015
5
Merck
&
Co 12 Kenneth
Frazier
(1954) MSc
Law 2011
6 GSK
6 Andrew
Witty
(1964)
BSc
Economics 2008 *
7
AstraZenea
9 Pascal
Soriot
(1959) BSc
Veterinary,
MBA 2012
8
Gilead
Sciences
-­‐ John
Martin
(1951) PhD
uni
Chicago,
MBA 2008
9 Abbvie/Abbot
3 Richard
Gonzalez
(1953) No
degree 2013
10 Amgen
-­‐ Robert
Bradway
(1963) BSc
Biology,
MBA 2012
11 Teva
Pharmaeut
-­‐ Erez
Vigodman
(1959) BSc
Economics,
BSc
Accounting 2014
12 Eli
Lilly
5 John
Lechleiter
(1952) PhD
Organic
Chemistry
2005
13 Bayer
1 Marijn
Dekkers
(1957) PhD
Chemical
Engineering 2010
14 Novo
Nordisk
8 Lars
Rebien
Sorenson MSc
Forestry,
BSc
Int
Economy 2000 *
There
is
no
relation
between
worldwide
rankings
of
market
share
and
reputation:
Novartis
is
market
leader
with
a
reputation
ranking
‘4’.
Bayer
has
the
highest
ranked
reputation
with
a
market
share
position
of
‘14’.
In
2014,
three
out
of
Nive
CEOs
of
the
Big
Five
pharmaceutical
companies
belong
to
the
most
inNluential
people
in
pharma.
(Jimenez:
Novartis;
Reed:
PNizer;
Schwan:
Roche;
Witty:
GSK;
and
L.
Rebien
Sorenson:
Novo
Nordisk)
(Bloomberg
Business
*=One
of
the
25
most
inNluential
pharma
people
2014;
EvaluatePharma,
2015).
The
position
of
CEO’s
related
to
Dutch
ranking
of
Market
share
and
worldwide
Reputation
2014.
MS
Ranking
MS
Ranking
REP CEO Education CEO
Since
1 Novartis
4 Alfred
Bein ? ?
2
PNizer 10 Wiebke
Rieb ? ?
3
Roche
2 Bart
Vanhauwere
MSc
Pharmaceutical
medicine 2010
4
SanoNi 11
Richard
Kemper PhD
Medicine 2014
5
Merck
&
Co 12 Uloff
Muenster
PhD
Medicine,
MBA 2014
6 GSK
6 Marcel
Joachimstal Ir
Mining
and
Ore
technology
2010
7
AstraZenea
9 Hans
Sijbesma PhD
Pharmacology,
PhD
Philosophy,
MSc
Biology
2009
8
Gilead
Sciences
-­‐ Rob
Joosjen Insead
MBA,
BSBA
Finance 2015
9 Abbvie/Abbot
3 Michele
Manto Insead
MBA,
MSc
Politics 2013
10 Amgen/AbbVie
-­‐ Jasper
van
Grunsven MSc
Health
sciences,
MBA 2014
11 Teva
farma
-­‐ Emile
Loof ? 2014
12 Eli
Lilly
5 Michel
Collard BSc
marketing,
MSc
Public
Aff ?
13 Bayer
1 Adri
Koersvelt ? ?
14 Novo
Nordisk
8 Sanne
Groenemeijer Harvard
Business
School 2012
CEOs
within
the
Dutch
pharmaceutical
industry
are
hard
to
Nind
on
the
Internet.
Names
of
CEOs
were
not
given
by
pharmaceutical
companies,
and
they
are
hardly
known
by
Nefarma
(Association
for
Dutch
branches
of
innovative
pharmaceutical
companies).
Industry’s
cautious
attitude
is
due
to
the
fact
pharmaceutical
companies
have
been
attacked
(also
individuals)
by
‘animal
liberation
organizations’,
and
are
following
the
strict
‘safety’
regulations
deNined
by
CGR
(Code
of
conduct
for
pharmaceutical
advertising).
16

17. Conclusion
theoretical
framework
The
pharmaceutical
industry
is
growing,
with
an
expectation
of
an
annual
increase
of
5%
until
2020.
Total
worldwide
prescription
drugs
sales
2014:
$743
billion,
an
increase
of
2.8%
vs
2013.
The
latest
report
forecasts
the
worldwide
prescription
to
almost
1
trillion
in
2020.
There
is
a
conNidence
in
the
industry
motivated
by
an
increase
in
R&D
productivity,
restructuring
with
an
emphasis
on
Ninancial
efNiciency
and
efNicacy
and
introductions
(and
approvals)
of
breakthrough
drugs.
Disadvantages
for
the
industry
are
global
pricing
and
market
access.
There
is
a
growing
reluctance
of
governments
and
private
healthcare
providers
to
fund
expensive
drug
treatments
(EvaluatePharma,
2015,
Appendix
a).
Although
the
reputation
of
the
pharmaceutical
industry
has
come
under
Nire
because
of
a
lot
of
criticisms
about
its
illegal
and
unethical
practices,
fraud,
bribery
and
corruption
(PWC,
2014),
it
did
not
damage
the
reputation
of
the
industry:
it
remains
average
over
years
(Reputation
Institute,
2015).
Building
trust
and
transparency
are
necessary
in
the
new
policy
on
CSR
in
the
pharmaceutical
industry
(Valverde,
2012,
Reputation
Institute
2015).
The
general
public
is
aware
of
company
wrongdoing.
Public’s
opinions
of
pharmaceutical
companies
are
often
affected
by
what
CEOs
and
other
executives
say
and
do
(Global
Economic
Crime
Survey,
2014).
There
is
a
strong
link
between
the
reputation
of
a
Nirm
and
its
CEO
(Weber
Sandwick,
2013;
RanNit
et
al,
2006).
Having
a
CEO
who
is
visible
in
a
world
where
transparency
is
of
growing
importance.
With
an
increase
of
patients
empowering
and
engaging
in
health
care
issues
on
the
Internet,
the
pharmaceutical
industry
needs
to
join
and
be
part
of
the
conversation.
And
although
there
are
barriers
(regulation),
CEOs
should
use
the
opportunity
to
become
social.
With
CEO
reputation
having
a
greater
value
for
the
overall
reputation
of
the
company
than
ever
before,
it
is
important
to
increase
the
reach
and
content
of
CEO
communications.
CEO’s
company
stakeholders,
especially
patients,
increasingly
get
their
information
online,
which
means
that
social
CEOs
have
an
advantage
in
reaching
them
by
becoming
visible.
CEOs
and
their
company
reputations
are
constantly
shifting
because
of
what
is
being
said
in
the
media,
on
social
media,
blogs
etc.
CEOs
should
therefore
join
conversations
by
explaining
what
their
companies
stand
for
and
why
it
is
important
to
hear
what
they
have
to
say.
Social
media
is
an
important
platform.
Especially
in
the
pharmaceutical
industry
where
a
greater
number
of
patients
are
seeking
health
information
online
and
are
engaging
in
conversations
with
other
patients
and
caregivers
in
social
media,
the
healthcare
industry
has
entered
an
interesting
period
(Weber
Shandwick,
2015b;
2013).
CEO’s
online
engagement,
having
a
visible
public
proNile,
is
a
chance
to
share
the
stories
of
their
companies
and
strengthen
the
reputation
of
these
companies.
Online
channels
and
social
media
are
important
tools
for
CEOs
to
increase
their
external
visibility.
17

18. 3.
Research
To
be
able
to
discover
if
a
visible
CEO
within
the
pharmaceutical
industry
in
the
Netherlands
increases
the
reputation
of
his/her
company,
and
to
Nind
out
whether
his
or
her
visibility
is
relevant
for
a
target
group
of
growing
importance,
the
Ninal
patient,
it
was
necessary
to
identify
a
visible
CEO.
After
searching
(online/ofNline)
I
identiNied
one
visible
CEO
within
pharmaceutics:
Marcel
Joachimsthal,
CEO
of
GlaxoSmithKline
Netherlands
(GSK).
GSK
is
expert
in
the
area
of
pulmonology.
Marcel
Joachimsthal
is
active
online
(YouTube,
LinkedIn)
and
ofNline
(e.g.
presentations
at
industry,
present
in
media
about
industrial
and
societal
issues)
(Appendix
b),
and
should
therefore
be
visible
for
all
of
his
stakeholders,
including
the
patient.
To
investigate
the
visibility
(awareness)
of
Marcel
Joachimsthal,
his
company
and
products,
and
the
effect
of
his
visibility
related
to
the
reputation
of
his
company,
I
got
the
chance
to
compose
and
expand
a
survey
among
900
lung
patients,
members
of
the
patient
advocacy
group
(PAG):
‘Longfonds’.
During
the
period
July
22nd
until
July
28th
,
an
online
survey
has
been
send
by
email
to
900
members
of
‘Longfonds’
(Appendix
c).
Methodology
Research
design
Because
of
privacy
of
patient’s
(health)
information,
it
was
not
possible
to
select
respondents
(randomly)
among
the
one
million
lung
patients
in
The
Netherlands
(Longfonds,
2014).
Therefore
I
took
a
probability
sample
among
35,000
members
of
the
PAG.
The
response
rate
of
52%
(n=464)
conforms
to
the
reliability
level
of
95%
(minimal
384
respondents
were
needed
(Journalinks)).
Main
question:
Does
the
visibility
of
a
CEO
within
the
pharmaceutical
industry
impact
the
reputation
of
his
or
her
company
and
does
it
effect
patients?
Sub
questions:
-­‐
Do
you
know
the
name
of
your
medication?
-­‐
Do
you
know
the
name
of
the
pharmaceutical
company
of
your
medication?
-­‐
What
is
your
image
of
the
pharmaceutical
company
of
your
medication?
-­‐
Do
you
know
the
name
of
the
CEO
of
the
pharmaceutical
company
of
your
medication?
-­‐
Does
this
CEO
inNluence
the
image
of
the
pharmaceutical
company?
-­‐
Do
you
know
the
CEO
of
GSK
(the
company
of
the
medication)?
-­‐
Would
you
like
to
receive
information
about
the
pharmaceutical
company
of
your
medication?
-­‐
What
kind
of
information
would
you
like
to
receive?
-­‐
How
will
you
receive
this
information?
Goals
of
investigation:
-­‐
Awareness
by
patients
about
the
name
of
the
pharmaceutical
company
of
their
medication
-­‐
Awareness
by
patients
about
the
CEO
of
the
pharmaceutical
company
of
their
medication
-­‐
Relevance
of
visibility
CEO
by
patients
-­‐
Relation
between
visibility
CEO
and
reputation
pharmaceutical
company
18

19. Respondents
General
characteristics
of
respondents:
62%
of
respondents
have
had
their
lung
disease
>
10
years,
23%
5-­‐10
years.
27%
of
the
respondents
have
had
higher
professional
education,
8%
university.
87%
of
the
respondents
read
daily
news.
65%
of
the
respondents
visits
weekly
Facebook
and/or
LinkedIn
and/or
YouTube.
Pharmaceutical
companies,
pulmonology
products/medication
AstraZeneca
Bricanyl,
Duaklir
Genuair,
Eklira
Genuair,
Oxis
Turbuhaler,
Pulmicort,
Rhinocort,
Symbicort
Turbuhaler.
GlaxoSmithKline
Anoro,
Flixotide,
Incruse,
Relvar,
Servent,
Seretide,
Ventolin.
Novartis/Sandoz
Foradil,
Onbrez,
Seebri
Breezhaler,
Tobi,
Ultibro
Breezhaler,
Xolair.
Boehringer
Ingelheim
Atrovent,
Berodual,
Combivent,
Spiriva,
Striverdi.
Chiesi
Atimos,
Foster,
Nexthaler,
Bramitob,
Hyaneb.
Teva
Pharmacie
Qvar.
Takeda
Alvesco,
Daxas.
Results
A.
Knowledge
about
medication
and
pharmaceutical
company.
Question
1:
Do
you
know
the
name
of
your
lung
medication?
100%
of
respondents
(464)
answered
the
question.
95%
of
the
respondents
(442)
answered
the
question
with
‘yes’
and
were
able
to
mention
names
of
their
medications.
The
pulmonary
products
of
GSK
were
mentioned
most
158x
(30%).
Number
of
product
names
mentioned:
531*
GlaxoSmithKline:
158
(29.76%)
Boehringer
Ingelheim
142
(26.74%)
Chiesi:
74
(13.93%)
AstraZeneca:
59
(11.11%)
Tadeka:
40
(
7.53%)
Novartis:
35
(
6.59%)
Teva:
23
(
4.33%)
*
Many
patients
use
more
than
one
lung
medication.
Question
2:
Do
you
know
the
name
of
the
company
name
of
your
lung
medication?
93%
of
the
respondents
(432)
answered
the
question.
64%
answered
the
question
with
‘no’.
34%
of
the
respondents
(157)
were
able
to
mention
the
names
of
the
company
of
their
medication.
GSK
as
a
company
was
mentioned
most:
46x
(35%).
Number
of
company
names
were
mentioned:
133
GlaxoSmithKline:
46
(34.58%)
Boehringer
Ingelheim:
27
(20.30%)
AstraZeneca:
26
(19.54%)
Chiesi:
15
(11.27%)
Novartis:
11
(
8.27%)
Teva:
5
(
3.75%)
Tadeka:
3
(
2.25%)
19

20. B.
Reputation
of
the
pharmaceutical
company.
Question
3:
Mark
three
words
corresponding
with
your
image
of
the
pharmaceutical
company.
61%
of
respondents
(282)
did
not
answer
the
question.
39%
of
the
respondents
(182)
were
able
to
describe
the
images
(3)
of
their
pharmaceutical
company
of
their
medication.
Most
mentioned
images:
FulNilled
expectations
(68%)
Trustworthy
(67%)
Responsible
(27%)
C.
Knowledge
about
CEO
pharmaceutical
company.
Question
4:
Do
you
know
the
name
of
the
CEO
of
the
company
of
your
medication?
60%
of
the
respondents
(278)
did
not
answer
the
question.
40%
answered
with
‘no’.
-­‐>
One
person
answered
the
question
with
‘Yes’.
Question
5:
Does
this
CEO
inNluence
your
company’s
image?
99.8%
of
the
respondents
(463)
did
not
answer
the
question.
-­‐>
One
person
answered
the
question
with
‘no’.
Question
6:
If
you
had
known
the
CEO,
could
this
have
inNluenced
your
image
of
the
pharmaceutical
company?
63%
of
the
respondents
(293)
did
not
answer
the
question.
30%
answered
the
question
with
‘no’.
-­‐>
6%
of
respondents
answered
the
question
with
‘yes’.
Question
7:
Do
you
know
this
man?
94%
of
the
respondents
(427)
answered
the
question
(6%
(27)
respondents
did
not
answer
the
question)
-­‐>
2%
(11
respondents)
answered
they
knew
the
man
on
the
picture.
99.8%
of
the
respondents
(463)
could
not
mention
the
name
of
the
CEO
of
the
company
of
their
medication,
and
did
not
answer
the
question
whether
a
CEO
could
have
inHluenced
their
image
of
the
pharmaceutical
company
of
their
medication.
2%
Of
the
respondents
(11)
answered
they
knew
the
man
on
the
picture
showed
in
the
questionnaire.
D.
Information
from
pharmaceutical
company.
Question
8:
Would
you
like
to
receive
information
from
the
company
of
your
medication?
95%
of
the
respondents
(439)
answered
the
question,
of
which
44%
with
‘no’.
-­‐>
50%
of
the
respondents
(233)
would
like
to
receive
information
from
the
company
of
their
medication.
20

21. Question
9:
I
would
like
to
receive
information
about
following
subjects:
50%
of
the
respondents
(234)
answered
the
question,
they
would
like
to
get
information
about:
EfNicacy
medication
(39%)
Composition
medication
(38%)
Company
(19%)
CEO
of
company
medication
(
5%)
50%
of
the
respondents
would
like
to
receive
information
from
the
pharmaceutical
company,
of
which:
78%
about
medication,
19%
about
the
pharmaceutical
company
and
5%
about
the
CEO.
Question
10:
How
would
you
like
to
receive
the
information?
50%
of
the
respondents
(233)
answered
the
question,
they
would
receive
this
information
via:
Information
letter
by
email
(38%)
An
App
with
information
about
medication,
company
and
CEO
(14%)
Information
folder
by
post
(13%)
A
blog
on
website
company
of
medication
(
5%)
Presentation
by
CEO
on
location
in
neighborhood
(
3%)
Presentation
by
CEO
on
YouTube
(
2%)
The
respondents
would
like
to
receive
information
via
email
(38%),
App
(14%),
post
(13%).
Information
by
a
CEO,
personal
of
by
YouTube
is
less
wanted
(3%
and
2%).
21