Overall, companies are performing well in this area. Significant progress has been made since 2010 in spite of the more challenging set of measurement criteria used in 2012.
GlaxoSmithKline leads in this area, demonstrating very good performance across all measures. Access is owned and regularly reviewed at board-level and managed across the business by a single department. Tangible targets are set and well supported by performance management and incentive schemes directly oriented at furthering access. The company engages a wide range of stakeholders and actively seeks to shape and manage stakeholder expectations, as well as to inform the company approach to access. Good quality information about the company’s access activities is publicly available.
Johnson & Johnson follows very closely in 2nd place, performing to a similar level and having made significant progress across many measures since 2010 in this area, rising 11 places in rank.
Novo Nordisk has also improved since 2010, rising three places to rank 3rd. It has a good level of board ownership, performance management and incentives but could improve its score by publicly disclosing targets for more of its access initiatives. The company’s has active engagement programmes across its main access platforms but at a lower level of engagement than the two leading companies.
Eisai has also risen in rank, by eight places to 11th. The company has improved across many measures, now having board ownership of access, having established a Global Access Strategies unit and by having made some improvements in target setting and performance management. Further work in these areas would improve its score, as well as more extensive stakeholder engagement and making more of its access rationale public.
The other notable riser is Merck KGaA, which rises seven places to rank 9th. The company has introduced a new access to medicine charter, which includes reporting, rationale, objectives, targets and progress measurement.
The fallers in this area have decreased in rank because they maintained their level of performance or have made progress less rapidly than their peers. Against the background of others making rapid progress and in the context of more demanding measures, they have therefore comparatively fallen back.