METHODOLOGY
This analysis evaluates Eli Lilly’s global health equity strategy and its positioning relative to six peer pharmaceutical companies: Novartis, GSK, Sanofi, Johnson & Johnson (J&J), Roche and Novo Nordisk. Our approach integrates internal insights from Eli Lilly’s existing research with a comprehensive external analysis of publicly available reports, rankings and best practices from industry leaders. External sources include the Access to Medicine Index (ATMI) 2024, corporate sustainability and impact reports, global health partnership announcements, and initiatives from organizations such as WHO, UNICEF and DNDi.
A weighted scoring model was applied across eight categories to assess each company’s performance. These categories were selected based on their relevance to sustainable, high-impact global health strategies, with weights totaling 100%:
Product Access and Affordability (20%): Evaluates pricing models, tiered access, donation programs, and voluntary licensing, as these directly influence medicine availability for vulnerable populations.
Measurable Impact (15%): Evaluates tangible health equity outcomes, including patient reach, affordability impact and diversity in clinical trials.
Geographic Reach (15%): Assesses the extent of a company’s global footprint, particularly in LMICs and underserved populations in high-income countries.
R&D Investment (15%): Measures commitment to diseases disproportionately affecting underserved populations and whether access plans are integrated into new drug development.
Health Systems Strengthening (10%): Recognizes efforts to train health care workers, improve health infrastructure and strengthen supply chains for long-term impact.
Innovation in Digital Health and Business Models (10%): Examines AI, telemedicine, mobile health and novel financing as scalable access solutions.
Access to Medicine Index (10%): Incorporates an independent third-party ranking, which evaluates companies’ health equity efforts over time.
Public Commitment and Transparency (5%): Assesses corporate governance, stakeholder engagement and access-related reporting. While important, this holds less weight than direct impact-driven measures.
This methodology seeks to provide a structured and data-driven evaluation of Lilly’s competitive positioning, identifying areas where it leads, lags, and has opportunities for growth.
SOURCES
We validated each claim from the executive summary and category analyses by cross-referencing internal Eli Lilly reports and extensive publicly-available external research. This included Lilly’s own sustainability and social impact reports, the Access to Medicine Index (ATMI) 2024 findings, public disclosures from peer companies (Novartis, GSK, Sanofi, Pfizer, J&J, Roche, Novo Nordisk, Merck, etc.), and information from global health organizations (e.g., UNICEF, WHO). Each data point was checked against these sources to ensure accuracy. The sources used are all publicly available (annual reports, index rankings, press releases, and partnership announcements), providing a comprehensive and well-documented basis for verification.