Sanofi call-rate KPIs: briefing email breached Clause 15.9 and high standards (AUTH/2947/3/17)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2947/3/17
Parties	Anonymous v Sanofi
Issue	Representatives’ call rates / KPI communications
Applicable Code year	2016
Complaint received	22 March 2017
Case completed	14 July 2017
Appeal	No appeal
Breach clauses	Clause 9.1; Clause 15.9
No breach clauses	Clause 15.1; Clause 15.4; Clause 15.9 (training materials)
Key evidence referenced	Redacted manager email dated 16 January 2017 (“Business Reviews – Focus and Action 2017”); certified 2016/2017 training/briefing materials
Sanctions	Undertaking received (additional sanctions: Not stated)

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

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

An anonymous (contactable) complainant (appearing to be a Sanofi employee) alleged Sanofi set the same call-rate expectations despite widely varying target customer numbers (eg, 30 vs 120), making the required frequency unrealistic in some territories.
The complainant alleged management pressure to bring appointments forward and to maintain activity even where Clause 15.4 limits would restrict visits, supported by weekly activity reporting and potential performance plans/disciplinary consequences.
The complainant also alleged insufficient training/refreshers on a “heritage product” while representatives could still be bonused.
The complainant provided a redacted email (“Business Reviews – Focus and Action 2017”, dated 16 January 2017) referencing expected contacts per day and minimum frequency (including “8 contacts” with hospital doctors and nurses).
Sanofi said call rates were part of performance management (15% of measures) but not part of the sales incentive bonus; it provided certified 2016/2017 briefing materials and described training provided (including Lantus eLearning and optional refresher webinar).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of Clause 15.4 (Panel not satisfied, on balance of probabilities, that representatives over-called health professionals).
No breach of Clause 15.1 (complainant did not prove lack of training for the unnamed “heritage product”).
No breach of Clause 15.9 in relation to the certified 2016/2017 training materials (Panel said they could have been clearer but did not advocate action likely to lead to a breach).
Breach of Clause 15.9 in relation to the 16 January 2017 briefing email (email pushed increased contact rate/frequency but was silent on relevant Code requirements and could not rely on training materials).
Breach of Clause 9.1 (high standards) as a consequence of the Clause 15.9 breach.

🔒

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