A survey by the Internal Investigations Forum has highlighted vast differences in the quantity and quality of complaint reports globally and that companies need to nurture trust to improve internal relations. Here, Gary Giampetruzzi, Thomas Hauser and Jenny Pu provide an analysis of the results, including where there are areas for improvement and how pharmaceutical companies can use this information to refine their practices when it comes to misconduct.
HAVING CRITICAL insight that goes above and beyond the company’s intellectual property comes hand in hand for employees at any life sciences enterprise. As such, it is not uncommon for employees to see or hear about misconduct that the senior management team is completely unaware of. The highly pressurised and confidential nature of the pharmaceutical and medical technology industry means that the workplace culture may not be deemed as supportive of those who report misconduct – often for fear of being involved in an investigation. However, the knowledge employees hold is vitally important for the business’s overall success and there is a level of responsibility to share this information; otherwise, the company could face reputational damage, or worse, legal action if it is not shared. Fostering a culture where staff feel able to share information is therefore vital, as highlighted by guidance issued by the United States Department of Justice (US DOJ) last year.
This report addresses the key factors shaping pharmaceutical formulation, including regulation, QC and analysis.
Access the full report now to discover the techniques, tools and innovations that are transforming pharmaceutical formulation, and learn how to position your organisation for long-term success.
What you’ll discover:
Key trends shaping the pharmaceutical formulation sector
Innovations leading progress in pharmaceutical formulation and how senior professionals can harness their benefits
Considerations and best practices when utilising QbD during formulation of oral solid dosage forms
In April 2019, the US DOJ published its second version of compliance guidance for life sciences and other companies, focusing on corporate reporting systems and internal investigations. The US DOJ advised that a “well-designed compliance programme” inherently means implementing processes for employees to confidentially and anonymously report any known breaches of conduct or company policy. The guidance further states that companies need to ensure there are “proactive measures” in place to encourage staff to report breaches, including protecting whistle blowers so there is no fear of repercussion.
The US DOJ also highlighted the need for investigations to be conducted by qualified independent, objective and correctly recorded. Investigations should identify the root causes of an alleged incident, as well as who was accountable, even when that implicates senior executives.
But where does this guidance leave companies and how should they act in light of it? A survey of leading medical technology and pharmaceutical companies, led by the Internal Investigations Forum, Navigant Consulting (a Guidehouse company) and Paul Hastings, was conducted to better understand investigation trends and cultivate best practice.
Areas for improvement
Companies need to start closing the gap between filed complaints and unreported incidents”
The results revealed vast regional differences in the quantity and quality of complaint reports and showed that companies generally need to nurture trust and develop internal relations. There will never be a one-size-fits-all approach, but there are areas for improvement. Companies need to start closing the gap between filed complaints and unreported incidents, which will in turn foster a stronger internal process for investigations.
The survey shows that all participants take misconduct and compliance seriously. All companies had a standard operating procedure (SOP) in place, clearly dictating what issues need to be reported, and most respondents had guidelines in place indicating how an investigation should be handled.
For the most part, those surveyed had pre‑determined criteria for deciding which claims to examine. Some, however, relied on human intervention to decide on more complex issues. This naturally brings subjectivity into the process, but it means that potential leads are not dismissed too early. Finding the balance between vehemently relying on standard criteria and utilising human screening is therefore key.
The results showed that over two thirds (69 percent) of reports were investigated. Of these, nearly half (46 percent) were substantiated. It is important to note that the disregarded claims were not necessarily unfounded, but that compliance teams had insufficient evidence to warrant a full investigation. This raises some important questions: could more be done to ensure all claims reported are tackled in the right way and, perhaps more worryingly, are the critical underlying issues being covered up or not reported due to fear of reprisals?
To address this, companies should be allocating appropriate resources for compliance efforts. Dedicated HR teams responsible for employee relations and assistance are essential to provide staff with tailored training, which should cover what ought to be reported and why, how to make a complaint and what to expect in the aftermath, including the limits of confidentiality.
Collaboration and the top down approach
In most companies, the legal or compliance department will handle misconduct reports. While these departments tend to lead the inquiry, they typically require help from other business areas that the case relates to. Depending on the issue at hand, the resolution could involve multiple departments, regional and local management and human resources. This complexity is shown by the length of time it takes to resolve a report – between 30 and 180 days.
Whilst 90 percent of respondents said they had provided training to employees, including sessions on corporate laws, finance and internal audits, employment law and case management, none provided training to help teams operate and work together towards a common goal. This lack of consistency can result in miscommunication, policy breaches and consolidation amongst employees that the legal and compliance teams should be avoiding.
Companies need to help executives and managers understand how investigations work and how they will be supported by creating an open dialogue to promote compliance and support whistle blowers. It is vital that this training takes into consideration the handling of complex behaviour that influences whether employees report violations or not. This will help create a ‘speak up’ culture.
It is not only about encouraging staff to feel comfortable reporting potential issues. Managers at board level should lead by example and be held accountable. This requires managers to demonstrate that raising concerns is welcomed and ensuring both direct and indirect line reports feel comfortable approaching them and asking questions. There is also a time and place for keeping employee confidences and making a judgement on whether an issue needs escalating.
Showing a willingness to co-operate with misconduct investigations and trying to understand how an incident happened encourages employees to engage with issues, whilst simultaneously helping to prevent similar problems arising.
The cultural gap
Implementing these processes can become complicated in large multinational corporations, particularly where various regions have entirely different cultures, and businesses must understand how to bridge this. The survey results highlighted huge gaps in reporting trends in different regions, including who reports issues, how often and how many claims are investigated and subsequently substantiated. For example, North American employees are far more likely to raise concerns than those in Russia or the Middle East. APAC countries have a much lower number of reports, but a much higher percentage of them are substantiated.
Repercussion incidents not only demoralise individuals in the workplace but can also damage the business to its core”
Not only do these results suggest a disparity in culture between outspoken and reticent behaviour, they also suggest a variation in the level of legal protection for whistle blowers. The latter is proven by the strong protection in the US and Canada where reported claims are highest, followed by the EU which is aiming to introduce a similar directive. Most countries do not have such in-built laws and subsequently we observed a drop in the number of staff willing to raise concerns.
Fear of retaliation
Whilst regional differences are apparent, reporting culture needs improvement everywhere. Fear of retaliation continues to be a prominent problem and, in turn, individuals that are part of a culture of reprisal are reluctant to report misconduct. Retaliation can come in many forms depending on the position of the staff involved; it ranges from threats and public shaming to reputational damage, demotion or even job loss. Repercussion incidents not only demoralise individuals in the workplace but can also damage the business to its core.
For example, the widely publicised case of Theranos demonstrated a culture of secrecy whereby employees who dared to speak up were marginalised, forced out of their jobs or threatened with litigation. Tyler Shultz, a former Theranos employee who blew the whistle on the whole operation, encouraged businesses to build a culture where staff can disagree and be taken seriously.
To ensure this happens, employers should be encouraged to:
Listen to all employees before expecting them to speak up
Take all reports of retaliation seriously and put measures for reporting it in place
Include specific examples of retaliation in the anti-retaliation policy that managers and supervisors may not have otherwise realised were legally actionable
Provide regular training to management of all levels and senior leadership
Demonstrate successful reports of misconduct.
Committing to compliance
There is a lot that companies can do when it comes to compliance. Implementing channels that staff can use to report incidents anonymously will help to increase the number of claims, and implementing strict anti-retaliation policies makes whistle blowers feel protected*. For example, when an employee files a misconduct complaint, the job of that employee is protected for six months following resolution of the complaint.
Training managers with leadership skills to foster integrity in their teams is vital. Understanding how and why an employee might not want to report an issue is necessary if they want to mitigate the risk.
No-one can change a corporate culture overnight, but leaders and employees across all regions and business functions need to understand the implications for themselves and the company as a whole if a serious compliance breach occurs. When the board leads from the top and the appropriate measures are put in place from middle management to protect staff, businesses can start to foster a truly forthcoming and accountable culture.
*Protected means if any disciplinary actions need to be taken in the six months after an employee files a misconduct compliant, the investigator and/or the compliance officer in charge of the investigation needs to be contacted and will ensure this disciplinary action is not in retaliation.
About the authors
Gary Giampetruzzi is a partner in the Litigation Department at Paul Hastings and Global Chair of the Life Sciences Department and Vice Chair of the Investigations and White Collar Department. Prior to joining Paul Hastings, Gary served as Vice President, Assistant General Counsel and Head of Government Investigations at Pfizer Inc., with responsibility for government investigations across the company’s multiple business units and operations globally.
Jenny Pu is a managing consultant at Navigant Consulting, a subsidiary of Guidehouse. Jenny is experienced in forensic accounting, financial investigations, anti-money laundering, anti-bribery and corruption and regulatory compliance projects, having worked across Asia Pacific, Africa, China, Europe and the UK over the last decade.
Thomas Hauser is the European practice leader for the Life Sciences Governance, Risk Management and Compliance practice at Guidehouse. He has more than 25 years of operational business experience in management roles as CEO and in operational compliance and consulting, providing him with significant international experience in medical device and pharmaceutical companies; focusing on the US, Europe, Russia/ CIS, Middle East and China.
This website uses cookies to enable, optimise and analyse site operations, as well as to provide personalised content and allow you to connect to social media. By clicking "I agree" you consent to the use of cookies for non-essential functions and the related processing of personal data. You can adjust your cookie and associated data processing preferences at any time via our "Cookie Settings". Please view our Cookie Policy to learn more about the use of cookies on our website.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorised as ”Necessary” are stored on your browser as they are as essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. For our other types of cookies “Advertising & Targeting”, “Analytics” and “Performance”, these help us analyse and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these different types of cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience. You can adjust the available sliders to ‘Enabled’ or ‘Disabled’, then click ‘Save and Accept’. View our Cookie Policy page.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Cookie
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-advertising-targeting
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Advertising & Targeting".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent WordPress Plugin. The cookie is used to remember the user consent for the cookies under the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent WordPress Plugin. The cookie is used to remember the user consent for the cookies under the category "Performance".
PHPSESSID
This cookie is native to PHP applications. The cookie is used to store and identify a users' unique session ID for the purpose of managing user session on the website. The cookie is a session cookies and is deleted when all the browser windows are closed.
viewed_cookie_policy
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
zmember_logged
This session cookie is served by our membership/subscription system and controls whether you are able to see content which is only available to logged in users.
Performance cookies are includes cookies that deliver enhanced functionalities of the website, such as caching. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Cookie
Description
cf_ob_info
This cookie is set by Cloudflare content delivery network and, in conjunction with the cookie 'cf_use_ob', is used to determine whether it should continue serving “Always Online” until the cookie expires.
cf_use_ob
This cookie is set by Cloudflare content delivery network and is used to determine whether it should continue serving “Always Online” until the cookie expires.
free_subscription_only
This session cookie is served by our membership/subscription system and controls which types of content you are able to access.
ls_smartpush
This cookie is set by Litespeed Server and allows the server to store settings to help improve performance of the site.
one_signal_sdk_db
This cookie is set by OneSignal push notifications and is used for storing user preferences in connection with their notification permission status.
YSC
This cookie is set by Youtube and is used to track the views of embedded videos.
Analytics cookies collect information about your use of the content, and in combination with previously collected information, are used to measure, understand, and report on your usage of this website.
Cookie
Description
bcookie
This cookie is set by LinkedIn. The purpose of the cookie is to enable LinkedIn functionalities on the page.
GPS
This cookie is set by YouTube and registers a unique ID for tracking users based on their geographical location
lang
This cookie is set by LinkedIn and is used to store the language preferences of a user to serve up content in that stored language the next time user visit the website.
lidc
This cookie is set by LinkedIn and used for routing.
lissc
This cookie is set by LinkedIn share Buttons and ad tags.
vuid
We embed videos from our official Vimeo channel. When you press play, Vimeo will drop third party cookies to enable the video to play and to see how long a viewer has watched the video. This cookie does not track individuals.
wow.anonymousId
This cookie is set by Spotler and tracks an anonymous visitor ID.
wow.schedule
This cookie is set by Spotler and enables it to track the Load Balance Session Queue.
wow.session
This cookie is set by Spotler to track the Internet Information Services (IIS) session state.
wow.utmvalues
This cookie is set by Spotler and stores the UTM values for the session. UTM values are specific text strings that are appended to URLs that allow Communigator to track the URLs and the UTM values when they get clicked on.
_ga
This cookie is set by Google Analytics and is used to calculate visitor, session, campaign data and keep track of site usage for the site's analytics report. It stores information anonymously and assign a randomly generated number to identify unique visitors.
_gat
This cookies is set by Google Universal Analytics to throttle the request rate to limit the collection of data on high traffic sites.
_gid
This cookie is set by Google Analytics and is used to store information of how visitors use a website and helps in creating an analytics report of how the website is doing. The data collected including the number visitors, the source where they have come from, and the pages visited in an anonymous form.
Advertising and targeting cookies help us provide our visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns.
Cookie
Description
advanced_ads_browser_width
This cookie is set by Advanced Ads and measures the browser width.
advanced_ads_page_impressions
This cookie is set by Advanced Ads and measures the number of previous page impressions.
advanced_ads_pro_server_info
This cookie is set by Advanced Ads and sets geo-location, user role and user capabilities. It is used by cache busting in Advanced Ads Pro when the appropriate visitor conditions are used.
advanced_ads_pro_visitor_referrer
This cookie is set by Advanced Ads and sets the referrer URL.
bscookie
This cookie is a browser ID cookie set by LinkedIn share Buttons and ad tags.
IDE
This cookie is set by Google DoubleClick and stores information about how the user uses the website and any other advertisement before visiting the website. This is used to present users with ads that are relevant to them according to the user profile.
li_sugr
This cookie is set by LinkedIn and is used for tracking.
UserMatchHistory
This cookie is set by Linkedin and is used to track visitors on multiple websites, in order to present relevant advertisement based on the visitor's preferences.
VISITOR_INFO1_LIVE
This cookie is set by YouTube. Used to track the information of the embedded YouTube videos on a website.