Roche and Gilead lead pharma ESG rankings, patient groups say

USA – Despite growing skepticism about environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies in the U.S., pharmaceutical companies’ ESG practices remain important to patient advocacy groups.

A recent PatientView survey of 701 patient groups found that these organizations consider a company’s impact on society, governance standards, and environmental efforts when choosing partners.

Why ESG matters to patient groups

Among the surveyed groups, 94% believe a company’s social impact is important, while 88% value corporate governance, and 67% consider environmental responsibility.

More than 80% of patient groups said they factor in a company’s social efforts when deciding on partnerships, while 58% consider environmental commitments.

PatientView evaluated 15 major drugmakers based on how well they communicate their ESG activities, address health inequities, and report their progress on ESG goals.

Roche ranked first overall, followed by Gilead Sciences and Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine.

Among companies that patient groups had direct experience with, Gilead took first place, followed by Roche and AstraZeneca.

Patient groups want companies to demonstrate real action on ESG issues and communicate their efforts more clearly.

Many advocacy groups also seek stronger collaborations with pharma companies on shared ESG goals.

Broader ESG trends and challenges

Although ESG remains important to patient groups, broader industry support is declining. A GlobalData survey found that only 8% of respondents believe ESG will significantly impact their business in the next year, down from 20% in early 2022.

Additionally, skepticism about companies’ true commitment to ESG is growing, with only 4% of respondents believing most businesses take ESG seriously, down from 8% the previous year.

In the U.S., ESG has become a controversial topic, often linked to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.

Twenty states have passed anti-ESG laws, and more legislative efforts are underway. This controversy likely contributed to lower participation from U.S.-based patient groups in the survey compared to previous pharma-related studies.