In the past few years, Pfizer has encountered globalization’s new phase. As part of the Indian government’s efforts to make medicine accessible to as many people as possible, in February 2013 India’s Patent Office revoked Pfizer’s patent for the cancer drug Sutent and granted a domestic manufacturer, Cipla, the right to produce a cheaper generic version. India’s Intellectual Property Appellate Board has since set aside the decision and has directed the Patent Office to reassess the case. In China, meanwhile, the government has been slashing drug prices to reduce health care costs. Beijing established price ceilings on essential drugs in 2009 and lowered the ceiling by around 30% in 2011, and it has pledged to expand the list of essential drugs to more than 500 medications by 2014. Such moves pose major risks for a multinational company like Pfizer: Lower prices create disincentives for quality control, and China’s hospitals, which rely on drug sales for profits, are pushing inexpensive locally made products.
The New Rules of Globalization
Reprint: R1401J
Until 2008 going global seemed to make sense for just about every company in the world. Since then, we’ve entered a different phase, one of guarded globalization. Governments of developing nations have become wary of opening more industries to multinational companies. They are defining national security more broadly and perceiving more and more sectors to be of strategic importance, taking active steps to deter foreign companies from entering them and promoting domestic, often state-owned enterprises. Indeed, the rise of state capitalism in some of the world’s most important emerging markets has altered the playing field.
To factor globalization’s new risks into strategy, executives must consider their industry’s strategic importance to the host government and their home government. They can then choose among various approaches: strike alliances with local players, look for new ways to add value abroad, enter multiple sectors, or stay home.
HBR Learning