Merck’s reporting is generally robust, but the pharmaceutical giant could be more aware of its stakeholders

The author of the Guardian newspaper’s Bad Science column and bestselling book of the same name, Ben Goldacre, has just published his second book. It’s called Bad Pharma.

In it he demonstrates, using numerous examples, that the R&D, sales and marketing practices of large pharmaceutical companies have prevented healthcare workers from making good decisions for their patients. Merck is one of the companies featured.

Merck was investigated for a series of misdemeanours between 1999 and 2004 linked to the painkiller Vioxx, which the company finally took off the market because it posed heart risks. This and similar cases have received widespread coverage in the media over the past two years, as lengthy investigations have ended in settlements. In 2011, Merck was ordered to pay $950m. 

Past problems

The company could have chosen to be transparent about its shady past and, like other pharmaceutical giants that have encountered controversy, taken pains in its sustainability report to describe the changes it has since made to its sales, marketing and research practices.

In fact, in Merck’s report, information on sales and marketing is buried in the Access to Health section under the heading Commercialisation – which does little to communicate a patient-centric approach.

While, for example, Merck rival GlaxoSmithKline is taking steps to align its practices with its values, Merck describes a purely compliance-based approach. Its reporting focuses on its policies and code of conduct, which may be a deliberate move to show how seriously it takes ethical behaviour, but does not make a particularly engaging read.

Other parts of the report are much more appealing.

Among the highlights is the Merck for Mothers programme, launched in September 2011 to support the global effort to reduce maternal mortality. It is emotive; shows commitment to product innovation; and is an area where Merck is seemingly taking the lead. Merck does well to showcase it on its sustainability microsite homepage and elsewhere on Merck.com.

The sustainability homepage also showcases content on transparency and disclosure (though nothing here relates to sales and marketing or research practices), its philanthropic giving guidelines and information on its patient assistance programmes. It is unclear why this content has earned a place on the front page, particularly as the report does not have a materiality matrix or other means of explaining how Merck identified and prioritised its issues.

Merck’s environmental reporting is impressive, with a three-part sustainability strategy and absolute, time-bound targets for greenhouse gases, water, packaging and waste. Merck is currently in the “becoming leaner and smarter” phase of its strategy, which will be followed by “transformation” between 2015 and 2030, and “environmental sustainability” between 2025 and 2050.

The company is evidently improving its performance, but when you read that Merck has been “reporting on progress and environmental footprint measures since 1993” you question whether it could be “leaner and smarter” already.

Clarity and brevity

To complement the full sustainability report, Merck has produced an engaging suite of short, sharp communications. These will appeal to a wider, less specialist audience and are ideal companions for the full report, some of which is unavoidably dense and complex.

Examples include a short video overview – a nice idea that could nonetheless do with feeling a bit more human – as well as a highlights document available for print and iPad, and an interactive global map that drills down to regional activities. A KPI table provides a quick overview of targets and performance.

Merck could promote these resources more widely, on Merck.com rather than just the sustainability section. Presumably these more engaging assets have been created for non-specialist audiences, and so it seems a shame to restrict them to a place where perhaps only specialist audiences are likely to venture.

Overall, Merck’s reporting has strong foundations. But it could work harder to respond to societal expectations. Merck is taking steps in the right direction by producing a wider range of communications than most. It would benefit from considering how to make better use of these items to reach a broader audience and address past mistakes more openly.

Emily Haynes is a consultant at Context Europe.

Snapshot

Follows GRI? Yes

Assured? No

Materiality analysis? No

Goals? Yes

Targets? Yes

Stakeholder input? Yes

Seeks feedback? No

Key strengths? The range of channels and formats used to communicate. 

Chief weakness? Doesn’t tackle high profile issues head on.

Pleasant surprise? Merck for Mothers programme.