Eli lilly ranbaxy case group 4

9,062 views

Published on

e

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
9,062
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
11
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
216
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Eli lilly ranbaxy case group 4

  1. 1. ELI LILLY IN INDIA RETHINKING THE JOINT VENTURE STRATEGY Abhay Kishore – 01 Abhishek Kunal – 05 Anil Kumar Jadli – 11 J.Harish – 25 Khushal Malik – 28 Sharad Singh – 49
  2. 2. PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY – Global Trend • • • • Mainly concentrated in the United States, Europe, and Japan Developing a drug from discovery to launch took 10 to 12 years. Cost of development of drug is between $500-$800 million. Drugs were strictly controlled by government agencies: o Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – USA, o CPMP – Europe North America 8% 12% o MHW – Japan o DPCO & Indian Patent Act - India Europe 38% Asia 18% Japan • Size of industry : USD 960 billion in 2012. 24% ROW • Few Firms control entire market (Oligopoly). • 4 Firms – Control 20% , • 20 Firms – 50-60%, • 50 Firms – 65-75%
  3. 3. PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY – Global Trend • Covered the chemical substance itself • Offered typically 20 years of protection • Usually a lag time of 1012 years by the time the patent was obtained and the launch date • Covered the method of processing or manufacturing the product • Very little protection because it was easy to slightly modify the process
  4. 4. Global Issues in Pharma Sector • Prices in of the drugs varied in developed countries • US & Canada by factor 1.2 to 2.5. • Europe by factor 1.1 to 2.5. • Parallel Trade: an outside company sells a patented product in a market not designated to sell the drug. o Independent firm exploited parallel trade by using the differentials in price across various countries. • Generic Drugs: unbranded drugs of comparable efficacy available at fractional cost of branded product. o Posed as major challenge for pricing power of large pharma companies. o No additional expense for drug R&D of new compounds. o Generic companies made money by copying the products discovered & developed by other major pharmaceuticals companies.
  5. 5. Issues in Indian Pharma Sector • • Initially country had no indigenous production capability & was totally dependent on imports. Post independence HAL (promoted by WHO ) & IDPL (Russian assistance) were established in 1954 & 1961 respectively. • Indian Patent Act was passed in 1970, it abolished Product patent & permitted Process patent for 5-7 years. • Drug Price Control Order (DPCO) instituted price control by which govt. stipulated prices for all the drugs. • • • Many of MNCs left India which resulted in emergence of local manufacturing companies. Indian drug prices hovered around 5%-20% of U.S. prices due to these. Prime minister Mrs. Gandhi had said at World Health assembly in 1982: “The idea of a better-ordered world is one in which medical discoveries will be free of patents and there will be no profiteering from life and death.” • In 1990s , post globalisation, FDI upto 51% (up from 40%) was allowed in Drugs & Pharmaceuticals industries. • A suitable Environment for entry of Eli Lilly entry into India.
  6. 6. Eli Lilly & Company • • Founded in 1876 with $1400 and 4 employees. Chairman Dick Wood decided to take the company global in the mid-1980s • By 1992, Lilly manufactured in 25 countries and sold in more than 130 countries. • • Company’s commitment : Technical & Managerial excellence. Gerhard Mayr, head, Lily International in 1992, wanted to expand operations in Asia including India due to : • • Opening of market for foreign investment Opportunity for clinical testing
  7. 7. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd • • Began as a family business in the 1960s. By the 1990s, it grew to become India’s largest manufacturer of bulk drugs and generic drugs. • • • Had a domestic market share of 15% (1996). Capital cost was 50-75% lower than comparable US plants. The higher price in foreign countries provided the impetus for Ranbaxy to pursue international market. • It had presence in 47 markets outside India, mainly through exports. • R&D expenditure of company was 2-5% of annual sales.
  8. 8. Strategic Environment Strategic Context Strategic Objectives Lilly is re-evaluating its strategy for India and “the direction for the JV, with Ranbaxy signaling an intention to sell its stake” Take advantage of the opportunities present and developing in the Indian market. Lilly’s product portfolio for India is limited Emphasis on emerging markets (such as India) to manage company growth. ELR JV depends for manufacturing and distribution on Ranbaxy. India: Healthcare expenditures in India are rising; Increasing demand, improving regulatory framework, better infrastructure; WTO membership and resulting change in ownership requirements, trade, IPR/patent protections. Industry: Slowdown in growth (price competition, shift in demand, entry of large competitors); Internal consolidation to achieve synergies and economies of scale; Increasing rivalry and fierce competition. Maximize returns and achieve long-term sustainability. Shape opinions – be a driving force in the industry.
  9. 9. Porter’s 5 Forces Analysis Barriers to Entry are high: Threat of New Entrants Bargaining Power of Suppliers is medium/low: •Suppliers are diverse and geographically dispersed •Some raw materials are basic resources – low switching costs, easily available, bulk production •Some suppliers provide differentiated inputs (i.e. R&D, APIs) •Switching costs depend on input type Bargaining power of Suppliers Competitive Rivalry within Industry Threat of Substitutes Threat of Substitution is medium: •Substitutes are available– generics vs. prescription, parallel trade •Some products exist that perform the same or similar function •Buyers may face uncertainty and/or inconvenience when switching •Existing substitute products (generics) satisfy price, value, and quality expectations •Brand loyalty usually exists Bargaining power of customers •Economies of scale exist •High start-up capital requirements as well as investment intensive operation (R&D, clinical trials, etc.) •Forward & backward integration •Access to distribution •Experience/learning curve •Strict government policies/controls •Proprietary knowledge and patents •Brand identity/loyalty relating to patents Bargaining Power of Customers is low: •Switching costs depend on drug – generic vs. patented •Substitutes are available for some drugs •Buyers are fragmented with only few influential ones (i.e. government agencies) •Product may be a critical input
  10. 10. SWOT Analysis Strengths •Lilly is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world (12th largest) •Large, durable organization •Commitment to scientific and managerial excellence •Global influence spans 151 countries •Leading brands and R&D capabilities •Ethical marketing & integrity •Good stakeholder relationships •World-class sales process •Expertise in clinical trials Opportunities •Changes in population, markets, and demands •Emerging markets – low cost labor, new customers, etc. •Use world for clinical testing •Shape opinion with leaders in the medical field around the world •Strong performance of ELR JV •Shift in R&D focus (chronic therapies) •Positive changes in India’s business environment Weaknesses •Patents – infringement vs. expiration •Financial risks – increasing costs vs. pricing constraints •Limited product focus (two groups – off-patent drugs & patent drugs with barriers to entry) •Dependent on international sales Threats •Ranbaxy is local market leader •Competitive structure of the industry is evolving – consolidation trend, entry of new & large competitors •India – weak IP protection/enforcement, new competitors •Limitations on pricing – small margins -> cash flow constraints •Escalating costs (R&D, clinical trials, pricing pressures etc.)
  11. 11. Eli Lilly & Ranbaxy - The start of the JV • • • • • • • JV signed in November 1992, named as Eli Lilly - Ranbaxy. Each had a 50% stake with an initial investment of roughly $10 million Board of Director of JV: comprising of 6 directors, 3 from each Company. Management committee comprised of 2 directors, 1 from each. Lilly retained right to appoint the CEO of the JV. Alignment of broad values. Ranbaxy would supply certain products they already made under the JV then formulate and finish some of Lilly’s products locally in India. • • Ranbaxy would also package and distribute Lilly’s products. Exit option: Agreement provided for transfer of share incase any partner desired to dispose a part or its entire share in the company. • Ranbaxy was driven by the generics business, Lilly was driven by innovation and discovery.
  12. 12. Mutual Advantages to JV Partners – Complimenting Eli Lilly Ranbaxy Eli Lilly got access to distribution network in India. Lilly’s product portfolio was unknown to Indian physicians which got accepted due to JV. Eli Lilly built its brand in India. Ranbaxy helped JV in getting govt. approvals, licenses, distribution & supply. Eli Lilly built its production facility in India, gained economy of scale. JV offered life time association to new employees to counter employee turn over. Lilly’s training program was made available to Ranbaxy. Technical Ranbaxy. learning for Ranbaxy learned global HR practices about non-unionised workforce.
  13. 13. Why it worked ! CULTURAL FIT • Andrew Mascarenhas of Lilly and Rajiv Gulati of Ranbaxy were put in charge, shared a good rapport. • • Able to see eye to eye on most of the issues. Both companies had commonality on following: • • • • • High ethical standards, honesty and integrity, Technology & Innovation, Concern for employees, Responsible corporate citizens. No cannibalisation of each other’s employees ALLIANCE MANAGEMENT • • • Clarity on Governance structure, Selection of alliance managers, exit terms & conditions outlined before hand
  14. 14. Alliance Performance ….. • • • • • • New Product launch on Human Insulin, Focus on therapeutic areas where Lilly had a niche. Focus on two group of products : Off potent drugs, Patented drugs where significant entry barriers, Existing product of Ranbaxy like Seclor marketed by adding significant value in form of medical information to physician • • In 1996, JV achieved break even point & became profitable. New initiative like Medical Regulatory unit which handled product approval process with govt. • By 2001, JV surpassed the average growth rate of Indian pharmaceutical industry. • Sales increased by around 57% in 2000-01 & PAT increase of 103% during same period.
  15. 15. Changing World Order ….. • Consolidation trend in industry through Merger & Acquisition. In 1990 top 10 Cos accounting for 28% Market, In 2000 same were accounting for 45% of market. • Partnership on pharmaceutical & biotechnology companies was growing rapidly. • Increased challenges of • • • • increased R&D cost and development, Approval time & Competition from generics. India signed GATT & became member of WTO, according to which India would grant product patent recognition form 2005 onwards. • Indian govt. decision to allow 100% FDI in Drug and Pharmaceutical industries in 2001.
  16. 16. Change in Order ….. • Eli Lilly had established foothold in Indian market & expanded their network. • Ranbaxy formulated a new mission to be a Research based International Pharmaceuticals Company. • Ranbaxy started forming JVs for developed market for US, Canada & Ireland. • Due to increased competition in India, JV might be less profitable than other markets.
  17. 17. Strategy Alternatives Strategy A Strategy B Strategy C Restructure - renegotiate JV with Ranbaxy • Pro: maintain successful JV; retain access Ranbaxy’s manufacturing and distribution; well established relationship Form a new JV - find a new partner • Pro: cooperative partner – support; potential access to manufacturing and distribution; share risk and burdens • Con: Ranbaxy may not easily be swayed to continue JV – possible result: lack of commitment; companies goals, structures and visions have changed – alignment may be difficult/impossible; JV mission and goals have been achieved • Con: difficult to find suitable partner; negotiations take time; Ranbaxy may transfer shares without concern for company fit; JV purpose/mission? Terminate JV – establish subsidiary • Pro: India offers many opportunities; decisions can be made with the interest of Lilly in mind; ELR successful, reputable company in India; revenue to support parent company; integrate technology and knowhow of subsidiary to realize company strategy • Con: large financial commitment; country and market risk exposure; limited manufacturing and distribution channels
  18. 18. Conclusion: Strategy C is suitable for Eli Lilly as well as Ranbaxy in prevailing business scenario • Eli Lilly had established foothold in Indian market & expanded their network. It may pursue its focus on innovation & discovery. • Ranbaxy formulated a new mission to be a Research based International Pharmaceuticals Company. It may pursue its focus on generics. • Due to increased competition in India JV might be less profitable than other markets. • Ranbaxy started forming JVs for developed market for US, Canada & Ireland. Ranbaxy was experiencing cash flow difficulties due to its network of international sales and selling its share would give a chance to improve its financial situation.
  19. 19. Conclusion: Strategy C is suitable for Eli Lilly as well as Ranbaxy in prevailing business scenario •The strategy will help Lilly to increase and strengthen its foothold in India which it has gained over the years from the JV •Enable the company to take advantage of recent positive market developments (economic and political). • Address key issues and concerns faced by Lilly, while allowing the company to respond to global as well as local industry changes. •Will be able to utilize its core competencies to take advantage of the many opportunities present in the Indian market. •To use India for clinical testing through ELR’s medical infrastructure and expertise in clinical trials. It will allow the company “to provide clinical trial data to support global registrations” as well as proactively manage costs which is a global concern. • Help to returns will be maximized and profitability increased, thus meeting Lilly’s strategic objectives .
  20. 20. Thank you

×