Report published by PatientView,              June 2016


If you would like more information, or would like to get hold of this report, please use contact details below

  • Contact: Alex Wyke

  • Tel: +44-(0)1547-520-965

  • Email:

  • Website:

  • Publication date: 
  • Friday,  3rd June 2016

About this report

London, 3rd June 2016. This report is based on the findings of a PatientView November 2015-January 2016 survey exploring the views of 62 UK patient groups. The report provides feedback (from the perspective of  these patient groups) on the corporate reputation of the pharma industry during 2015, as well as on the performance of 11 pharma companies at six key indicators that influence corporate reputation. Results are compared with those of other country/geographic regions from the 2015 survey.

For the purposes of this report, the phrase ‘corporate reputation’ is defined as the extent to which pharma companies are meeting the expectations of patients and patient groups.


The six indicators of corporate reputation:

  1. Patient-centricity.
  2. Patient information.
  3. Patient safety.
  4. Useful products.
  5. Transparency.  And ...
  6. Integrity.

The 11 companies analysed:

AstraZeneca I Bayer I Bristol-Myers Squibb I GSK I Janssen I Lilly I Merck & Co I Novartis I Pfizer I Roche I Sanofi


“Pharma pay a lot of lip service to being patient-centred, yet remain afraid to even speak to patients, so it does not translate into their work. Pharma companies need to actually talk with patients, to fully understand their needs, and understand their experiences, in order to develop the most effective drugs.”

—National UK-based patient group specialising in a rare disease

"All [pharma companies] need to be able to demonstrate that they offer good value for money, that they involve patients, and that they publish research data—irrespective of the success or failure of trials or studies.”

—National UK-based patient group specialising in cancer



Only 25.9% of the 62 UK patient groups told the 2015 ‘Corporate Reputation of Pharma’ survey that the pharma industry as a whole had an “Excellent” or “Good” corporate reputation that yeara low score. The equivalent figure from UK patient groups responding to the previous year's survey of 2014 was slightly higher, at 28.0%. The equivalent figure among patient groups worldwide in 2015 was 44.7%—significantly higher. UK patient groups responding in 2015 ranked the pharma industry 7th out of 8 healthcare-industry sectors for corporate reputation—only ahead of for-profit health insurers. Pharma was ranked 5th in 2015's global results.

Only 15.0% of 2015’s UK patient groups said that the pharma industry’s corporate reputation had improved over the previous five years—a slightly higher figure than the 14.0% of UK patient groups which said the same in 2014. However, the equivalent figure from patient groups worldwide in 2015 was 27.5%—again, significantly higher.

  • The only activity for which pharma was rated more highly by UK patient groups than by patient groups in other countries and regions of the world was in providing access to clinical trials. 44% of UK patient groups stated that pharma was “Excellent” or “Good” at this task.

The percentage of UK patient groups (compared with patient groups from other countries/geographic regions) stating that pharma in 2015 was “Excellent” or “Good” at providing ACCESS TO CLINICAL TRIALS

  • 28.8% of the 62 UK patient groups commenting to the ‘Corporate-Reputation’ survey in 2015 stated that the most-important single policy a pharma company can adopt to improve its corporate reputation is: having a fair pricing policy (an even higher percentage than the 19.4% of UK patient groups that reported the same in 2014).

If a pharma company wishes to improve its corporate reputation with patients and patient groups, which single strategy from the list below do you think would be the MOST IMPORTANT for the company to follow? Please select only ONE option




    The table shows the 11 companies ranked according to their corporate reputation, as measured by UK patient groups in 2015 (and in 2014).

    • UK patient groups were far more sceptical about the pharma industry than patient groups from most other parts of the world. Their attitude affected the results achieved by all of the pharma companies analysed in this report.
    • Only a minority of the UK patient groups claimed to have worked with the pharma companies analysed in the UK report—a fact that may explain the analysed companies’ far-lower scores for excellence in the UK among the six indicators of corporate reputation, when compared with the scores attained among patient groups worldwide.



    PatientView is a UK-based research organisation that consults closely with patient groups, and publicises the work of the patient-advocacy movement.