Grünenthal: cycle plan “activity” expectations and speaker contracting failures (AUTH/2823/2/16)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2823/2/16
Parties	Anonymous, contactable complainant v Grünenthal
Issue area	Conduct of representatives; cycle plans/CRM call logging; GP-PEP/PEP speaker programme contracting
Complaint received	23 February 2016
Case completed	16 August 2016
Applicable Code year	2016
Breach clauses	2, 9.1, 15.4, 15.9, 20, 23.1, 29
No breach clauses	2, 9.1, 18.1
Appeal	Appeal by complainant; successful on Clause 23.1 point (missing contracts); unsuccessful on other no-breach points
Sanctions	Undertaking received; Advertisement
Notable factual findings	Confusing/qualified guidance on unsolicited call limits and call vs contact rates; errors in CRM call categorisation; 9 speaker agreements signed after events (2014–2015) and 6 speakers with no contract located (4 in 2014, 2 in 2015)

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI

📋

⌄

An anonymous but contactable complainant alleged Grünenthal put inappropriate pressure on sales representatives via quarterly “cycle plans” and performance expectations, risking Code breaches and call falsification.
Cycle plans required reps to plan “activity/interactions” with target customers; some internal materials referenced daily interaction capacity and activity rates.
Briefing materials used internal terms (call/contact/interaction) and included wording that appeared to qualify/downplay the limit of no more than 3 unsolicited calls per year (eg assuming a significant proportion would be on customer request).
CRM logging categories included “cold call” and “requested return visit”; evidence showed confusion among some new starters and errors in call recording.
Separately, the complainant raised concerns about the GP pain education programme (GP-PEP/PEP), including speaker selection criteria and whether consultants spoke without contracts and/or were unpaid.
Grünenthal’s review initially stated 5 speaker agreements were signed after meetings; on appeal it corrected this to 9 (5 in 2014, 4 in 2015) and also identified 6 speakers (4 in 2014, 2 in 2015) where no contract could be located (electronic or hard copy). Grünenthal stated those 6 speakers were not paid.

⚖️

⌄

Breach found: Clause 15.4 (insufficient clarity re meeting cycle plans while complying with the supplementary information; and insufficiently clear distinction between call rates and contact rates in context).
Breach found: Clause 15.9 (briefing/definitions and qualifying language likely to lead to a breach of the Code).
Breach found: Clause 29 (failure to comply with an undertaking from the earlier case AUTH/2652/11/13).
Breach found: Clause 9.1 (failure to maintain high standards) in relation to representative briefing/standards and also in relation to speaker contracting governance.
Breach found: Clause 2 (bringing discredit on, or reducing confidence in, the industry) in relation to the representative activity/briefing/undertaking issues.
No breach: Clause 15.4 allegation of actual “over-calling” on health professionals (insufficient robust evidence; upheld on appeal).
No breach: Clause 18.1 (no evidence of a minimum prescribing threshold as an inducement; upheld on appeal).
No breach: Clause 9.1 allegation that reps were targeted on number of GP-PEP meetings with pay-rise consequences (insufficient evidence; upheld on appeal).
No breach: Clause 2 in relation to the GP-PEP issues (Panel/Appeal Board did not consider particular censure warranted).
Appeal change: Appeal Board ruled a breach of Clause 23.1 due to inability to locate contracts for 6 speakers (in addition to the late-signed agreements issue).

🔒

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access