Reputation management in the biotechnology industry

10.5912/jcb3 ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert W Grupp ◽  
Leslie Gaines-Ross
Keyword(s):  
Business Model ◽  
Value Chain ◽  
Corporate Reputation ◽  
Biotechnology Industry ◽  
Reputation Management ◽  
Negative Events ◽  
Corporate Communications ◽  
Industry Value Chain ◽  
Biotechnology Companies ◽  
Development Orientation

As biotechnology companies mature, the focus of their activities shifts from a research-and-development orientation to a business model based on marketed products that deliver revenue and earnings. Companies are thus striving to occupy key positions at every stage of the industry's evolving value chain, covering each step from gene identification to patient care. The management of corporate reputation must therefore be based on the new biotechnology business model, which takes into account the shifting industry value chain. The authors discuss how the function of corporate communications in biotechnology is changing along with the industry itself, as well as the key components of a biotechnology company's reputation in the current environment. Additionally, a case study of Cephalon, Inc., is presented to illustrate how positive and negative events can affect corporate reputation in the biotechnology industry. The authors conclude with some observations on tactical solutions for building and managing corporate reputation in today's biotechnology industry.

scholarly journals Time for a new business model?

1969 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yali Friedman
Keyword(s):  
Business Model ◽  
Hybrid Model ◽  
Business Models ◽  
The United States ◽  
Biotechnology Industry ◽  
New Firms ◽  
Technology Platform ◽  
Economic Climate ◽  
New Business ◽  
Biotechnology Companies

In the relatively short history of the biotechnology industry, new business models have emerged every few years. Some have been little more than short-lived marketing or investment-attraction devices, whereas others have had endured as viable options. Given the dramatic changes in the economic climate and potentially the regulations affecting biotechnology, is it time for a new business model?A SHORT HISTORYFirst there was the FILCO, or fully integrated life science company, business model. This model, employed by some of the first biotechnology companies, positioned firms to capture the revolutionary advances of biotechnology and to build large vertically-integrated companies. Companies like Amgen and Genentech were able to fulfill this endpoint, but many other companies were not so fortunate. Another early model was to improve existing products, rather than to build an entire franchise around discovering and commercializing new ones. This model is exemplified by Alza, which was founded to improve medical treatment through controlled drug delivery and focused on improving existing drugs rather than developing new ones. This same model is still employed today, and shares some similarity with the technology platform business model, where companies focus on developing technologies that can be sold to other R&D firms, rather than independently developing consumer applications.Newer business models did not replace the older ones, but rather enabled new firms to focus on the unique environment in which they were founded. Examples include the hybrid model that combined product development with a technology platform, which could be sold or licensed to others, and the no research, development-only model that as a derivative of the specialty pharmaceutical model, saw newly founded companies buying drug leads off of other companies to complete late-stage clinical trials. These models enabled new firms to meet the respective needs of risk-averse and cash-rich investors.WHERE ARE WE NOW?I've previously written that the global economic crisis has been (and still is) transformative for the biotechnology industry. The aforementioned biotechnology business models rose to prominence in conditions that favored them. For example, the hybrid model emerged in a funding drought and was favored as it enabled companies to build internal revenue streams while still maintaining the possibility to realize the upside of product sales.What are the factors influencing biotechnology companies today? In the United States, beyond the general economic climate there are still unresolved questions about the availability of early stage financing, the ability to recruit foreign workers, and – post-commercialization – data exclusivity, generic biologics and the potential for price controls. Internationally, some nations are still undergoing dramatic economic reorganizations, while others are making significant investments in building biotechnology R&D capacity.So, the question remains: Is the biotechnology industry ready for a new business model, and is there a business model that can accommodate the myriad domestic challenges faced by many countries while addressing the increasing globalization of activities?

scholarly journals From Green Building Material to Platform Economy: How MOSIA Upgrades Social Innovation and Leads Industrial Transformation

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 62-72
Author(s):  
Yuan-Hsiang Liang ◽  
◽  
Tzu-Chuan Chou
Keyword(s):  
Business Model ◽  
Value Chain ◽  
Building Material ◽  
Social Innovation ◽  
Green Building ◽  
Industrial Transformation ◽  
Industry Standards ◽  
Industry Value Chain ◽  
Industry Environment ◽  
Health Field

In the market of the healthy residence industry nowadays, the universal value of health has been increasingly emphasized and pursued. It caused the interior renovation process and quality to undergo increasingly strict inspections and requirements. To pursue sustainable development and solve the long-standing gap in the health field, Taiwan’s first ecological green building material manufacturer, MOSIA invested in establishing a social enterprise, GDcometrue.com. It connected the capabilities and resources of industry partners, such as designers, workers, equipment vendors, and material vendors, to reshape the industry value chain, set industry standards, develop a comprehensive green renovation solution, and guide the construction of industry ecosystem and put industry’s turnaround and innovation into practice. By transforming the industrial ecosystem, the company explores innovative business development and reconfigures and redeploys resources. GDcometrue.com shaped Asia’s first green renovation service system, then that system became Asia’s first and largest shared economy platform for “green design,” and promoted a benchmark business model for cross-industry cooperation. The company used its unique platform business model to create market value and satisfy the dynamic needs of the market and customers. Ultimately, the company achieved organizational ambidexterity to cope with industry environment changes and provide a novel solution for the gap in the global green building industry and green building material industry.

scholarly journals Disputed aspects of the reputation management implementation

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 60-67
Author(s):  
Vitaliy Shkromyda
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Corporate Reputation ◽  
Reputation Management ◽  
Corporate Communications ◽  
Governance System ◽  
Relevant Market ◽  
Strategic Development ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
Scientific Value

The recognition of the company and its products, its positive perception among stakeholders are important drivers of sustainable development, which together generate constant sales, provide high margins and strengthen competitive positions in the relevant market. The key factor in this success is the company’s impeccable corporate reputation, the importance and role of which is more and more attested by the researchers in their publications, both on the theoretical and practical levels. Reputation management as a separate component of the company’s governance system is accompanied by debatable issues regarding its separation and independence. The sources on this subject trace differing views among scholars and practitioners to be agreed. Some researchers attribute reputation management to the “public relations” and “corporate relations” competencies and, while others single out and prove its independence as a separate management system, which has its own purpose and specific tasks. The study proved that reputation management is an independent component of the company’s governance system. The substantiation of such a statement is revealed by the essential content of corporate reputation, is accompanied by the clearly outlined goal and performed functions, as well as the justification of the importance of reputation management in the company’s activities and its strategic development. We agree that reputation management is deeply integrated with other components of the governance system, such as “public relations”, “corporate communications” and “corporate relations”, as a result of which they are often equated. However, these components of the governance system differ from each other both in content and purpose. It is established that the highest goal of reputation management is to build a corporate reputation and achieve the key stakeholders’ loyalty. The scientific value of the research is to supplement the theoretical and methodological basis of reputation management, in particular in terms of addressing the disputed aspects of its implementation in the companies’ activities.

Biotechnology business models: An Indian perspective

1969 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Viren Konde
Keyword(s):  
Value Chain ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
Chain Structure ◽  
Biotechnology Industry ◽  
General Description ◽  
Business Plans ◽  
A Value ◽  
Biotechnology Companies

A typical business model consists of three components – value proposition, value-chain structure and revenue generation. These components are used to give a general description of a business. The biotechnology industry is not really characterised by specific business models and neither is there one single model for success. The sector is not only characterised by an enormous diversity, but is also driven by innovations, which makes the prediction of future development rather difficult. The enormous flexibility of biotechnology companies is a strength that has helped them survive in times of economic difficulties. In years of crisis, companies have managed to reorient themselves, change their business plans or even switch markets. Several Indian firms have focused their businesses on the development, manufacturing and marketing of biopharmaceuticals and providing services. The Indian companies appear well positioned to leverage their cost-effective manufacturing capabilities to corner some of the market share and compete on a global scale. This paper discusses the various business models and strategies adopted by the biotechnology companies that directed the growth of the biotechnology industry in the country based on the techno-economic dynamics and the key challenges faced by these firms.

scholarly journals Making Resilient Decisions for Sustainable Circularity of Fashion

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Celinda Palm ◽  
Sarah E. Cornell ◽  
Tiina Häyhä
Keyword(s):  
Value Chain ◽  
Circular Economy ◽  
Ecological Impacts ◽  
Ecological System ◽  
Fashion Industry ◽  
State Response ◽  
Social Ecological ◽  
Industry Value Chain ◽  
The Many ◽  
Sustainability Challenges

AbstractThe fashion and textiles industry, and policymakers at all levels, are showing an increased interest in the concept of circular economy as a way to decrease business risks and negative environmental impacts. However, focus is placed mainly on the material ‘stuff’ of textile fashion and its biophysical harms. The current material focus has several shortcomings, because fashion is a social-ecological system and cannot be understood merely by addressing its environmental dimensions. In this paper, we rethink the fashion system from a critical social-ecological perspective. The driver-state-response framework shows social drivers and ecological impacts as an adaptive social-ecological system, exposing how these interacting aspects need to be addressed for sustainable and resilient implementation of circular economy. We show how current responses to global sustainability challenges have so far fallen short. Our overall aim is to expand possibilities for reframing responses that better reflect the complex links between the global fashion system, culture and creativity and the dynamics of the living planet. We argue that reducing planetary pressure from the global fashion and textiles industry requires greater recognition of the system’s social drivers with more emphasis on the many cross-scale links between social and ecological dimensions. Resilient decisions aiming for sustainable circularity of the fashion industry must therefore pay attention to social activities beyond the industry value chain, not just material flows within it.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document