Legal & Regulatory

Traceability

Trade & Brand Protection

Brand & Product Security

Business and Finance

Containers & Shippers

Devices

Software

Cold Chain

Commercial Channels

Artificial Intelligence

Digitalization

Real World Data

Data & Technology

Manufacturing & Packaging

Supply Chain

Logistics & Transportation

Commercialization

Pricing

Trade & Channel

Market Access

Opinion

Adherence

HUB Services

Patient Assistance Programs

Patient Support

News

Pharma Pulse

Academy

Publications

Partner Perspectives

Webcasts

Resources

Conferences

Conference Coverage

Conference Listing

Events

Videos

Peer Exchange

Podcasts

Editorial Podcasts

Subscribe

Pharmaceutical Commerce connects biopharma executives to insights on business processes, technologies, and strategies for taking approved drugs to market.

About Us

Advertise

Editorial

Contact Us

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Privacy Policy

Terms and Conditions

Pharmaceutical Commerce - Biopharma Business News, Market Insights

Instagram

Facebook

LinkedIn

Threads

Soundcloud

Spotlight

Digital Editions

Security

Asembia AXS25 Summit 

Topics

Data and Technology

Legal and Regulatory

Supply Chain Logistics

1rem

How recent executive orders—both under the Biden and Trump administrations—have reshaped the drug pricing landscape, and the legal challenges or uncertainties they present for pharmaceutical companies

What life sciences companies should be doing now to proactively prepare for further executive action on drug pricing and market access

The key differences in how executive policies versus legislative actions affect the pharma industry’s pricing and commercialization strategies

The legal and strategic risks executive policy shifts pose to investors and biopharma leaders who may be planning product launches or portfolio expansion over the next few years

Alice Valder Curran outlines the steps manufacturers should take to better prepare for upcoming executive actions on drug pricing and market access.

How Recent Executive Orders Impact the Drug Pricing Landscape

 interview, Steve Silvestro, president of OptimizeRx, a digital communications platform, details:

The benefits to integrating direct-to-consumer (DTC) and healthcare provider (HCP) marketing strategies with technology, especially for patients and providers

The application of artificial intelligence (AI) toward the pharma marketing stage of commercialization

Ways that pharma marketers can navigate the rapidly changing landscape of state-level consumer privacy legislation

Recommendations for pharma brands as they start to think about 2025 planning

Steve Silvestro explains the value of artificial intelligence in launch plans, benefits to integrating DTC and HCP marketing strategies, and more. 

Incorporating AI into Commercialization Plans

The Spain-based CDMO strengthens its North American presence and capabilities through its purchase, while also acquiring a new rare disease treatment from Sanofi one month prior.

Esteve Expands US Footprint With Acquisition of Regis Technologies, Boosts Rare Disease Portfolio

Kevin Chinn, vice president and head of the cell & gene therapy service line at Cencora, outlines why early planning, stakeholder engagement, and innovative access strategies are key to long-term CGT success.

How CGT Developers Can Overcome Market Access, Regulatory, and Commercialization Hurdles

The agreement grants LEO Pharma exclusive rights to the branded form of spesolimab for generalized pustular psoriasis and potentially, other IL-36–driven conditions.

LEO Pharma to Head Global Commercialization of Spevigo in $105M Deal with Boehringer Ingelheim

Engaging the full workforce—from HR to R&D—can elevate launch outcomes, build trust, and create long-term brand ambassadors.

Beyond the Brand Team: Why Every Employee Needs to Be Part of the Journey

As drug development increasingly targets multiple indications, pharma companies must make strategic branding decisions—balancing regulatory requirements, market dynamics, and patient safety—to choose between single-brand or multi-brand approaches.

Multi-Indication Drug Branding in Today’s Pharmaceutical Industry

Balancing AI Ambition With Cost Pressures in Pharma

, Philip Sclafani, PwC's pharmaceutical and life sciences lead, he describes how the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) is expected to significantly influence prescription drug spending by reshaping access and reimbursement within Medicaid, certain Medicare segments, and ACA exchange plans. The OBBBA introduces pressure on pharmaceutical revenues, particularly by limiting coverage for high-cost drugs in publicly funded markets. This could reduce patient access to specialty medications and diminish pharma sales in those sectors.

Simultaneously, broader market forces are also impacting prescription drug trends. On the private commercial insurance side, cost inflators like the rapid growth of GLP-1s and behavioral health treatments are emerging, while biosimilars act as deflators. The intersection of these trends—OBBBA and private market shifts—presents a complex environment for pharmaceutical companies.

To mitigate financial risks and preserve innovation, pharma firms are being pushed to accelerate R&D investment and pursue mergers and acquisitions (M&A) that bring in near-term revenue and long-term pipeline potential. There’s also growing interest in global licensing deals, including accessing drug pipelines from China for US or ex-China markets.

At the operational level, companies are responding to tighter margins by improving efficiency—through digitization, AI integration, and reevaluating commercial spend, such as Salesforce deployment and direct-to-consumer marketing.

Overall, Sclafani emphasizes that OBBBA is just one factor within a larger industry shift, and successful pharma companies will need to respond holistically—balancing cost containment, innovation, and strategic partnerships to adapt to this evolving landscape.

He also comments on balancing the demand for innovation with increasing payer pressure to control costs; the role biosimilars play in long-term cost containment strategies; operational and pricing strategies pharma executives should prioritize in order to stay competitive while ensuring patient access and affordability; and much more.

PwC’s “Behind the Numbers 2026” report notes that AI could initially drive up medical expenses, despite its potential for long-term efficiencies. How should pharma companies evaluate AI investments to ensure they deliver measurable value without exacerbating short-term cost pressures?

It's an interesting question as AI is rolled out. I'll say I'm usually somebody who believes healthcare in the US moves at a glacial pace, and we've seen these fads before, like everything was going to be on the blockchain 10 years ago, and there's no more blockchain conversations going on really. AI has definitely come and made a meaningful impact in a very short time here, and we do see more coming. I think within that, I think about it in maybe three or so buckets.

I think there are probably easy things for a CFO or leadership team to green light doing, so the repetitive tasks that a pharma company does, pulling data from portals and data sources, or I have to pull this invoice from 50 different states ongoing. Things like that make a lot of sense to put into, at the very least, automation, but in a lot of cases, AI to drive those easy cost savings and efficiency plays. We see a lot of those moving forward.

I think there are very big scale plays we see pharma companies doing. Drug safety and pharmacovigilance is a great example. There are reports that come into a company, or they become aware of through all the different monitoring channels they have. And previously, somebody would go in and write up a report and all of that that's going to be sent to the FDA.

Now, we see AI and GenAI going in and reading that information and doing a lot of the drafting, and there's still a human looking at it and approving all of that, but a lot of the legwork is being done in tasks like that. We certainly continue to see a lot of that happening in R&D, finance, the commercial side of things, supply chain. All of that is usually valuable. I think there is a play then of, can we get better information and insights to make better decisions that should improve revenue or profitability down the line? Those are a little bit harder to green light. You have to spend the money now to get the AI capability, and it takes time to teach the model and learn and see where that goes to. We do see some of those coming in. R&D is a great example. I mean, anything that a pharma company can do to discover a better molecule, to get it into the lab and get it into patients quicker, and then into clinical trials faster and/or with a higher success rate, but even faster. Just being able to enroll clinical trials and get through that timeline is usually valuable. It's just adding more time and peak sales because you're on the clock with your IP and patent life. So we see some of those areas starting to come in.

The last piece that I'll say is probably more the leading edge and tougher is, how do I then position AI to offer more value services, support activities, to patients, providers, physicians that pharma interacts with? We see some easier use cases, like next best action, like, where do I send my sales rep? Or, we have this inbound request for a medical science liaison. We see some things in there. The next line of more AI interactions with patients and being able to better predict the needs of things evolving. It's tricky when you get into a very regulated space with HIPAA and protected health information. We start to see some of that come.

Maybe one last point here, and maybe not even a pharma example, but we do see AI in the near term as potentially a cost inflator for health plans and some others. Think about that almost as like AI is being used by hospitals and health systems to improve their revenue cycle management. As reimbursement is coming down from payers, or the One Big Beautiful Bill really impacts some hospitals and health systems, one of their responses will be to implement and use AI strategies to improve their revenue cycle management for how they bill, and that will maybe offset some of the cost decreases, but actually inflate costs in the near term. It's a little bit of a back and forth where you see AI being used. I think in regard to the long-term savings, we see a more efficient market, market wide, but in the near term, potentially an inflator, as folks spend money implementing the AI and then also focus on revenue-driving strategies across the sector.

In the third part of his Pharma Commerce video interview, Philip Sclafani, PwC's pharmaceutical and life sciences lead, explains how pharma companies can strategically evaluate AI investments across functions like R&D, pharmacovigilance, and supply chain, ensuring early automation gains and long-term value without intensifying short-term financial strain.

Supply Chain Planning in the Current CGT Climate

, Mark Sawicki, PhD, Cryoport Systems’ president and CEO, discusses the evolving state of global cell and gene therapy commercialization. Sawicki highlighted significant progress in key operational areas, noting that companies are now better prepared for commercial launches than in the past. Early challenges in manufacturing readiness have been largely resolved, with organizations now demonstrating clear strategies, scalable capacity, and well-vetted supply chains. Regulatory hurdles have also been substantially addressed, and most companies are effectively engaging primary launch sites, especially major academic medical centers, ensuring they are trained and ready for product deployment.

However, several persistent challenges remain. Reimbursement, particularly in Europe, continues to be a major hurdle—even for mature companies with marketed therapies. Another notable issue is physician education, especially outside of large teaching hospitals. Many community-based physicians lack a deep understanding of cell and gene therapies, creating a barrier to broader adoption.

Sawicki also pointed to community care engagementas an area needing attention. While major centers are prepared, regional and community sites are lagging in terms of readiness and support. According to available market data, current therapies are reaching only about 20% of the addressable patient population in the United States and Europe, with even lower uptake globally.

Finally, standardization of processes, particularly across clinical sites and within supply chain systems, remains an issue. Inconsistent procedures and infrastructure gaps at these levels hinder the ability of sites to fully support these complex therapies. Addressing these shortcomings will be critical to expanding access and realizing the full potential of cell and gene therapy worldwide.

Sawicki also comments on how supply chain expectations have shifted amid tighter funding, FDA leadership changes and evolving CMC standards; the critical role of cryopreservation, real-time logistics data and AI-enabled fulfillment in protecting product integrity and patient outcomes; what pharma leaders can borrow from CGT’s operational playbook to improve resilience across therapeutic areas; and much more.

How have recent shifts in FDA leadership, funding constraints, and evolving CMC standards impacted supply chain planning for CGT products?

It's really a wait and see. A lot of folks are just taking it slowly to understand any impact. The previous administration was very supportive of cell and gene. The current administration has expressed support, but we obviously have to see that play out, and so I think a lot of folks in the industry are kind of in a wait and see modality right now around that.

From a financing standpoint, there was over $15 billion raised last year in 2024 for cell and gene, which was 30% growth over 2023, which is very positive. There's a potential of 10 EU and 17 US filings, and five to six new therapy approvals this year, representing a record number of approvals last year. That piece continues to be extremely aggressive, and as more of these therapies get into the market, the awareness improves, the visibility improves, the infrastructure improves, the standardization improves, which really ties back into the supply chain planning, and standards—all of those elements, really.

As this becomes more mainstream, there's a lot more impetus to address those issues, and we see a lot of that right now, lots of folks are earnestly looking at standardization, in particular, around supply chain, regulatory, and patient management, which should all have very positive impacts over time.

In the second part of his Pharma Commerce video interview, Mark Sawicki, PhD, Cryoport Systems’ president and CEO, explains how recent shifts in FDA leadership, funding constraints, and evolving CMC standards have each played a role in this process.

Preparing for CGT Launches

What are commercialization teams doing well—and where are they falling short—when it comes to preparing for global cell and gene therapy launches?

If you're looking from a clinical to commercial standpoint, if you look at the first launches the channel, they had a lot of challenges early on. They had a manufacturing readiness issue, which has largely been addressed. Most companies, as they go to launch today, have a defined strategy. They have the capacity to be able to support the commercial launch. They've vetted out their supply chain sufficiently, they understand the challenges associated with the supply chain around cell and gene distribution. They also have largely addressed most of the regulatory challenges associated with the cell and gene space, and they typically do a good job in engaging the primary sites—the larger teaching hospitals—and getting them online, trained, and ready to support that commercial launch activity.

The areas that they still are challenged in is reimbursement. Reimbursement is always an issue. In particular, ex-US reimbursement in Europe. Even mature companies with commercial products are still struggling with reimbursement challenges associated with it. There is also physician education outside of the larger teaching hospitals. If you go beyond that, it’s that small subset of physicians that are very comfortable and understand the benefits of cell and gene, and below that, there's an education issue: a large number of physicians that are oncologists and others, especially outside of those large teaching hospitals, just don't have a fundamental understanding of cell and gene, and there's still a challenge.

Community care engagement is still a challenge as well, pushing out into those more regional sites. If you look at the data in the market, they're currently only hitting about 20% of addressable patient population in the US and Europe, with the rest the world much lower than that, and standardization is still an issue in particular. The support mechanism and the supply chain mechanisms—and standardization— is a challenge for them, in particular for the clinical sites to be able to support these products. I would say those are probably the biggest elements today.

In the first part of his Pharma Commerce video interview, Mark Sawicki, PhD, Cryoport Systems’ president and CEO, discusses both the successes and challenges in commercializing cell and gene therapies.

A Balancing Act

Deloitte’s life sciences R&D strategy leader

 describes how his company’s 15th annual Deloitte report on the return on investment (ROI) in pharmaceutical R&D reveals a continued upward trend, with a projected ROI of 5.9% for 2024. This marks a notable reversal from the consistent decline seen throughout much of the 2010s. During that period, ROI dropped largely due to a more challenging commercial environment, which reduced the projected value of drug pipelines. This was influenced by both business dynamics and a shift toward developing treatments for more specific, nuanced patient populations, often with smaller market sizes.

However, the past two years have shown a positive turnaround, with year-over-year increases in projected ROI. Two key drivers are behind this recent momentum. First, the overall projected value of late-stage drug pipelines has grown, especially when adjusted for risk, signaling stronger confidence in the commercial viability and clinical success of these therapies.

Second, a small number of exceptionally high-value drug programs have had an outsized impact. Among these, treatments in the GLP-1/obesity space stand out, significantly boosting the total value of the late-stage pipeline. These high-potential programs are reshaping expectations and driving much of the improvement in projected R&D returns.

The renewed optimism in pharma R&D ROI is largely attributed to an increase in risk-adjusted value across the pipeline and the emergence of breakthrough therapies in lucrative areas such as obesity treatment, highlighting a shift toward more valuable and promising innovation.

Dondarski also comments on the strategies companies can adopt to manage or mitigate escalating drug development costs; current best practices for balancing long-term pipeline sustainability with short-term financial returns; how GLP-1’s success influence future investment strategies in high unmet-need areas; how AI and automation realistically reduce clinical development timelines; and much more.

Knowing that investing in early-stage innovation is paramount, what are the current best practices for balancing long-term pipeline sustainability with short-term financial returns?

It's one of my favorite topics quite honestly, and it's a real pain point for a lot of different companies—it’s the cyclical nature. It comes back to the word we used earlier, which is discipline. I think the key to anyone's success is having a diversified pipeline. The word diversified can be interpreted in a lot of different ways.

It's not to say spreading yourself in over a million different areas is better, but rather, it's just important to have—from a capital allocation standpoint—whether it's thresholds or minimum, you just need to ensure that there's some degree of investment and innovation that's being focused on both those topics, early stage and late stage. The reality is, when there's cost constraints, there tends to be a disproportionate emphasis on where to look.

To me, there isn't a perfect answer. The key to success, I would argue, is number one, ensuring that you're continuing to focus on those different areas to some degree or some minimum threshold. And then number two, ensuring that as an executive leadership team, there's the recognition that we're solving for multiple things. Over indexing one way or the other just shifts where you feel that pain, or kicks the proverbial can down the road. It's largely about discipline, and solving for what's going to deliver the most enterprise value and patient value, as opposed to specific financial metrics.

In the final part of his Pharma Commerce video interview, Kevin Dondarski, Deloitte’s life sciences R&D strategy leader, describes best practices for balancing long-term pipeline sustainability with short-term financial returns.

The GLP-1 Effect

How do you see GLP-1 therapies’ success influencing future investment strategies in high unmet need areas, and which other disease areas do you believe have the greatest potential to replicate the commercial and clinical success seen with those therapies?

It's a good question, and it's a difficult question, because I'd argue it's a broader trend, at least since we've been writing the report. It’s the proverbial low-hanging fruit, as far as drug targets having been met. I think there's been such a strong emphasis across companies on really trying to drive their focus to unmet medical need, and that's why we've seen such a growth in oncology over the years. I think that doesn't necessarily indicate that there aren't other areas on medical need.

I think what makes the GLP-1 phenomenon so unique is that it's a throwback to the intersection of unmet medical need and large patient populations, The “so what” of this is difficult to summarize because the reality is, there's so much uncertainty with respect to what you're going to see anytime you go from the lab to the clinic. It certainly has reinvigorated—I would say— some of the therapeutic focus in those areas, and much like we've seen in other disease areas, I think we'll continue to see benefits in the sense that there'll be more therapies that come online that may have differentiated impacts to either smaller patient cohorts or subsets of just the broader obesity category.

I think it just showcases that there's still a lot of unmet medical need and a lot of different therapeutic categories. It's exciting to me that we're seeing the broader industry continuously focus on all those different areas, as opposed to just refining its concentration into certain areas.

In the fourth part of his Pharma Commerce video interview, Kevin Dondarski, Deloitte’s life sciences R&D strategy leader, explains how GLP-1 therapies’ success can influence future investment strategies in high unmet need areas.

How to Manage Rising Drug Development Costs

Despite the rising ROI, the cost of developing a drug has climbed to $2.23 billion. What strategies can companies adopt to manage or mitigate these escalating costs?

I think about it in two parts. The first is, what's actually driving the cost and the cost increase over time? I would say, generally speaking, that there's probably three factors that are really responsible for that. First and foremost is always attrition. Failure is always an issue. The later stage the failure, the more of an impact that it has specifically, because the figure you mentioned is more or less a normalized amount for what companies are spending to get an approval.

The second is R&D inflation. Certainly, if you follow the news, inflation has been a factor over the last couple of years. I think that within the world of R&D and R&D services, costs have risen even more so. Third, and finally, I think it oftentimes is the competitive dynamics, specifically in the clinical world. With so much of the industry focusing on similar areas, you don't normally use the word “competition” for patients, but the reality is, there're so many studies that end up taking longer to recruit, and that drives costs off. If I think about that, every company has probably a different area that they focus on if they're trying to address the cost part of the equation.

There’s so much of an effort at all the different companies where we serve to try and think about how in two areas. One is, how can you just really double down on operational efficiency? Much of that is through data and AI, which is perhaps the least surprising thing ever. Then the second is continuing to ensure that what companies are focusing on within their pipeline, A) they feel like they have a differentiated way to kind of pursue either that molecule or that indication, given their knowledge of the disease area, and then B) ensuring that there's the appropriate degree of rigor and discipline when it comes time to making either go, no-go, or investment decisions to ensure that you’re really maximizing the utility of how you deploy your R&D capital.

In the second part of his Pharma Commerce video interview, Kevin Dondarski, Deloitte’s life sciences R&D strategy leader, outlines strategies that companies can adopt to help mitigate these increasing costs.

The Positive Momentum Behind Pharma Innovation

Deloitte’s annual ROI of R&D report—now in its 15

 year—highlights a continued rise in projected R&D ROI to 5.9% in 2024. What key factors do you believe are driving this positive momentum in pharmaceutical innovation?

We've written the report for 15 years now. If you were to look at the year-over-year changes in the IRR figure, for much of the 2010s, we saw a pretty consistent decline, and that was attributable to many factors.

I would say first and foremost was a tighter commercial environment, and so the projected value of what was in the pipeline was decreasing. Some of that's driven up by the commercial nature of the business, but then, some of it reflects the shift in terms of more nuanced patient populations. Over the last couple of years, we've seen the opposite happen. We've seen a year-over-year year increase last year, then again this year.

That's attributable to a few things, but I would call out two things specifically. Number one is what I was just articulating—it's the projected value of what's in the late-stage pipeline, and from a risk adjustment perspective, it's increased in both those last two years.

Then, the second is really what specifically is driving that, and I think we've seen this year in particular that a substantial amount of that increase is driven by a disproportionately small number of exceptionally high value programs, and so particularly in the GLP-1/obesity space, there's an outsized amount of value in that category that has driven up, primarily the increase year over year.

In the first part of his Pharma Commerce video interview, Kevin Dondarski, Deloitte’s life sciences R&D strategy leader, shares the key factors that he believes are propelling a continued rise in projected R&D ROI.  

Face-to-face connections in pharma copmmercialization

 sat down with Blake Powers, CEO of Medigi, to discuss the company’s role in bridging innovation and patient access in the life sciences space. Powers shared his insights on the evolving landscape of commercialization, the growing importance of digital health and automation, and how in-person connection at events such as Asembia remains critical in an increasingly virtual world. As the industry moves toward greater integration of technology and patient-centered solutions, Powers emphasized how Medigi is helping to close the gap between groundbreaking therapies and the patients who rely on them.

PC: What is Medigi’s primary goal in attending this year’s Asembia Trade Show, and how do you expect the event to support that goal?

Asembia is really the Super Bowl of pharma. I feel like all the big players come to a show like this. The cliché answer might be networking, but at the end of the day, that’s truly what it’s all about—getting face-to-face time with people you've previously only connected with through email threads or Zoom conferences. It’s great to build that person-to-person connection.

PC: How is Medigi helping to bridge the gap between life sciences companies and the patients they’re trying to reach?

Therapeutically, today’s technology is outstanding. However, sometimes during the go-to-market process and commercialization, there’s a bit of insulation from the healthcare providers and patients who are actually trying to acquire the medication. That’s where our company comes in—to ensure we complement the state-of-the-art therapy with solutions that make it easier for customers to access and procure it.

For many in the life sciences industry, Asembia is seen as the "Super Bowl for Pharma," bringing together the biggest players in the field. This year, the primary goal for attendees such as those from Medigi is to foster in-person connections, moving beyond email and Zoom to build stronger, face-to-face relationships with industry partners.

Medigi’s mission is focused on bridging the gap between cutting-edge therapeutic technologies and the patients who need them. While innovation in therapies is impressive, commercialization often creates barriers between manufacturers, healthcare providers, and patients. Medigi works to complement these technologies with solutions that improve accessibility and procurement, ensuring that advancements reach patients efficiently.

Several panels at this year’s assembly align closely with Medigi’s focus. The company is particularly interested in sessions on biosimilars and cell and gene therapies—hot topics as hospital pharmacies seek to modernize their digital intake systems. In addition, panels on AI and automation are generating excitement, especially as the industry examines how emerging technologies can transform hospital pharmacy operations.

Looking more broadly, the assembly is evolving to reflect the growing role of digital health and tech-enabled services. The convergence of biotech, distribution, and technology vendors is creating a dynamic environment where innovation is driving better commercialization strategies and, ultimately, better patient access.

As the industry looks ahead to 2025—dubbed by some as the "year of the robot"—there is growing interest in how automation will impact healthcare staffing and operations. Medigi is particularly intrigued by the potential of automation to take over repetitive tasks, allowing healthcare providers to focus more on patient care. Asembia offers a front-row seat to these discussions, highlighting the technologies poised to reshape the future of healthcare.

Blake Powers, CEO, Medigi, discusses how face-to-face collaboration and streamlined commercialization strategies are helping life sciences companies deliver therapies more efficiently to patients.

Latest Conference Coverage

Asembia 2025: The Role of Face-to-Face Connection in Pharma Commercialization

Driving Business Success Through Sustainability

PC: You just wrapped up a panel discussion on “Uniting on Sustainability: How can we drive collaboration and ground-breaking initiatives to ensure ESG is a top business priority?” With sustainability being such a priority nowadays, what were some the highlights of the presentation?

The panel was actually really refreshing because we moved away from just focusing on sustainability reporting and compliance. Instead, we explored how sustainability has become a business imperative for each of us. We discussed how it's driven operational efficiencies, influenced our supply chain partnerships, and provided earlier access to supplier innovations. What we concluded is that sustainability should be viewed as an investment—not just in the planet, but in the future of our businesses. It’s no longer just about cost-cutting, which has often dominated our thinking. What stood out during the panel was how natural it has become for all of us to see non-sustainable practices as illogical.

The panel discussion on sustainability emphasized shifting the focus from compliance to making sustainability a business imperative. The panelists shared their experiences where sustainability initiatives have driven operational efficiencies, influenced supplier partnerships, and enabled early access to supplier innovation. The key takeaway was viewing sustainability as an investment in both the planet and the future of the business, rather than just a cost-driven concern. This shift in perspective has made sustainability an integral part of operations, to the point where acting unsustainably no longer makes sense.

To get more companies on board, the panel suggested three key strategies: first, providing proof points to show the business benefits of sustainability, transitioning from pledges to tangible results; second, being patient and understanding that sustainability is a long-term goal that requires persistence; and third, embedding sustainability into everyday business processes rather than treating it as a large-scale transformation project.

Looking ahead, the next five to ten years are expected to be marked by unprecedented collaboration between competitors, recognizing that sustainability is a collective challenge. The integration of AI with sustainability efforts is also seen as a major opportunity to innovate and accelerate progress toward net-zero goals.

Gilead, specifically, has made notable strides in sustainability, focusing on product, water, waste, and carbon goals. Their commitment to reducing Scope 1 emissions by 46% ahead of schedule demonstrates the importance of integrating sustainability into business processes.

Finally, AI’s role in sustainability is a key area of interest, particularly in how it can be standardized for the common good, contributing to goals like reducing consumption and waste.

Joydeep Ganguly, SVP, corporate operations, interim CIO, Gilead Sciences, shares insights on how sustainability has evolved from a compliance requirement to a key business strategy, driving operational efficiencies, innovation, and long-term growth.

LogiPharma Europe 2025: Driving Business Success Through Sustainability

LogiPharma 2026 in Vienna

PC: What was the thought process behind moving LogiPharma to Vienna in 2026?

First and foremost, it’s about the capabilities of the venue. Lyon has been wonderful and has served us well, but we’re looking to expand the agenda to include more intimate, focused discussions. With around 2,200 attendees, we want to create spaces for smaller groups to address specific challenges or opportunities—sessions that might only attract 10 people but are incredibly valuable to them. The venue in Vienna really supports that kind of setup. Additionally, it has excellent sustainability credentials. For instance, we won’t need printed signage, which will help reduce our carbon footprint.

The decision to relocate the 2026 event to Vienna is driven by several strategic priorities. While the current venue in Lyon has served well, the Vienna location offers enhanced capabilities, particularly for hosting smaller, targeted focus groups—an increasingly important part of the event's agenda. These sessions cater to niche challenges or opportunities relevant to only a fraction of attendees but offer high value. Vienna’s strong sustainability credentials also align with the event's growing focus on environmental responsibility, allowing for a paperless setup and contributing to reduced carbon emissions.

Reflecting on the evolution of the program since moving to Lyon three years ago, two themes have rapidly risen to prominence: artificial intelligence (AI) and sustainability. AI, especially in areas like machine learning and automation, has seen explosive growth, with a surge in real-world applications across the industry. Likewise, sustainability efforts from major pharma players such as AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, and Pfizer have become increasingly ambitious, moving from general goals to actionable, large-scale initiatives.

The scale of the event has also expanded, with over 350 speakers this year. Behind the scenes, the team operates year-round, beginning research conversations immediately after each event to inform the next agenda. These interviews—up to 200 hours’ worth—are invaluable for uncovering the true challenges and innovations shaping the sector.

Looking ahead to 2026, emerging concerns include geopolitical instability and the need for increased agility in the face of unpredictable disruptions. Scenario planning and ensuring business continuity amid global uncertainty are expected to be major talking points. M&A activity is another rising theme, not only among pharma companies but across the broader supply chain, prompting new questions about integration and operational alignment post-acquisition. These shifts suggest a continued expansion of the event's scope and relevance.

Will Robinson, program director, LogiPharma, reveals why the conference will be moved to Vienna moving forward. 

Commercial Channels

Latest News