330 Wirtschaft
Refine
Document Type
- Book chapter (4)
- Journal article (3)
- Book (1)
Language
- English (8)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (8)
Institute
- Life Sciences (5)
- ESB Business School (3)
Publisher
- Wiley (8) (remove)
Why are organizations and markets slow to transform toward sustainability despite the abundant well-recognized opportunities it provides? An important subset of the phenomena this question addresses involves decision-makers recognizing the existence of opportunities but failing to undertake ambitious, effective, sufficient, or timely action. Building on existing research on capability traps, market formation, and managing sustainability, we focus on the forces con-straining organizations from developing the capabilities and market infrastructures required for sustainability transformations. We characterize types of sustainability initiatives and, using causal loop diagramming, visualize structures that enable and constrain how organizations can navigate individually and collectively worse-before-better dynamics resulting from uncertain,nonlinear, and delayed returns. Being under day-to-day pressures and deeply intertwined within their environment, organizational actors find it difficult to recognize, undertake, maintain, and coordinate necessary efforts internally and externally. We discuss research implications and directions for future research on avoiding these traps and accelerating sustainability transformations.
AbstractThrough their procyclical behavior, loan loss provisions have been determined as one of the factors that contribute to financial instability during a crisis. IFRS 9 was introduced in 2018 with an expected credit loss model replacing the incurred loss model of IAS 39 to mitigate the effect in the future. Our study aims to analyze loan loss provisions of major banks in the Eurozone to determine for the first time if the implementation of IFRS 9, as intended by regulators, has a dampening effect on procyclicality, especially during the stressed situation under COVID‐19. We analyze 51 banks from 12 countries of the European Monetary Union using 2856 firm‐year observations. While no robust evidence of less procyclicality can be found after the implementation of IFRS 9 until the pandemic, we find evidence that loan loss provisions moved countercyclical during 2020, indicating an alleviating effect at the beginning of the exogenous shock.
This study investigates how integrated reporting (IR) creates value for investors. It examines how providers of financial capital benefit from an improved firm information environment provided by IR. Specifically, this study investigates the effect of voluntary IR disclosure on analyst earnings forecast accuracy as well as on firm value. To do so, we use an international sample of 167 listed companies that voluntarily publish an integrated report. Our analysis shows no significant effect of a voluntary IR publication on analyst earnings forecast accuracy and no significant effect on firm value. We thus do not find evidence for the fulfillment of IR's promises regarding improved information environment and value creation of voluntary adopters. We conclude that such companies might already have a relatively high level of transparency leading to an absent additional effect of IR disclosure. Positive effects of IR appear to be more relevant in environments where IR is mandatory.
The efficiency of pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) reflected by increasing costs of R&D, long timelines, and low probabilities of technical and regulatory success decreased continuously in the past years. Today, the costs for discovering and developing a new drug are enormously high with more than USD 2 billion per new molecular entity (NME), while the average overall success of a research project to provide an NME is in the single-digit percentage rate, and the total timelines of R&D easily exceeds 10 years questioning the return on investment (ROI) of pharmaceutical R&D. As a consequence and also caused by numerous patent expirations of blockbuster drugs that increased the pressure to return to an acceptable ROI, the pharmaceutical industry addressed this challenge and the related causes and identified several actions that need to be taken to increase the output/input ratio of R&D. This book chapter will review the pipeline sizes and the R&D investments of multinational pharmaceutical companies, will describe new processes that have been implemented to increase the reach and to reduce costs of pharmaceutical R&D, and it will illustrate new innovation models that were developed to increase the R&D efficiency.
The reduced research and development (R&D) efficiency, strong competition from generics, increased cost pressure from payers, and an increased biological complexity of new target indications have resulted in a rethinking and a change from a traditional and more closed R&D model in the pharmaceutical industry toward the new paradigm of open innovation. In the past years, pharmaceutical companies have broadened their external networks toward research collaborations with academic institutes, technology providers, or codevelopment partners. To fulfill the demand to reduce timelines and costs, research-based pharmaceutical companies started to outsource R&D activities. In addition, internal R&D processes were adjusted to the more open R&D model and new processes such as alliance management were established. The corporate frontier of pharmaceutical companies became permeable and more open. As a result, the focus of pharmaceutical R&D expanded from a purely internal toward a mixed internal and external model. Today, the U.S. pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly may have established the most open model toward external innovation, as it has integrated its innovation processes with its business model. Other companies are following this more open R&D model with newer concepts such as new frontier sciences, drug discovery alliances, private public partnerships, innovation incubators, virtual R&D, crowdsourcing, open source innovation, and innovation camps.
Clinical development is historically the phase in which a potential new medicine is being tested in phase 2 and phase 3 patient trials to demonstrate the new molecules' efficacy and safety to support the regulatory approval of drugs by health authorities. This relatively focused approach has been considerably expanded by a number of forces from within the pharmaceutical industry and equally important by changes in the healthcare systems. The need to identify the optimal patient population, showstoppers leading to discontinuation of clinical programs, the silent but constant removal of surrogate endpoints for registration, and the increased demand for real-life data which are used to demonstrate the patients' benefit and which have an ever-increasing role for pricing and reimbursement negotiations are today an integral part of this phase.
This chapter will review both the nuts and bolts of clinical development but also recent developments in this area which shape the environment and how the different players have reacted and what options might need to be explored in the future.
It is known that the costs related with drug research and development (R&D) and the timelines to develop a new drug increased over the past years. In parallel, the success rates of drug projects along the pharmaceutical R&D phases are still very low, and the outcome of all R&D efforts is stagnating. In consequence, the R&D efficiency defined as the financial investment per drug has been steadily decreasing. As innovation is the major growth driver of the pharmaceutical industry, reliable data on R&D efficiency and new concepts to overcome these challenges are of great interest for R&D managers and the sustainability of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole. This book chapter reviews publications on R&D performance indicators of the past years, such as the success rates and timelines per phase. Additionally, it illustrates the factors influencing the success rates, timelines, and costs of pharmaceutical R&D most and, thus, the denominators of the R&D efficiency.
This practical guide for advanced students and decision-makers in the pharma and biotech industry presents key success factors in R&D along with value creators in pharmaceutical innovation. A team of editors and authors with extensive experience in academia and industry and at some of the most prestigious business schools in Europe discusses in detail the innovation process in pharma as well as common and new research and innovation strategies. In doing so, they cover collaboration and partnerships, open innovation, biopharmaceuticals, translational medicine, good manufacturing practice, regulatory affairs, and portfolio management. Each chapter covers controversial aspects of recent developments in the pharmaceutical industry, with the aim of stimulating productive debates on the most effective and efficient innovation processes. A must-have for young professionals and MBA students preparing to enter R&D in pharma or biotech as well as for students on a combined BA/biomedical and natural sciences program.