← Back to Cases
PMCPA Case

Sanofi: bonus scheme slides on e-permissions ruled uncertified briefing material (AUTH/3495/3/21)

📅 2021 | 🖉 Dr Anzal Qurbain
📊

Key facts

⌄
CaseAUTH/3495/3/21
PartiesAnonymous employee v Sanofi
IssueAlleged pressure to obtain HCP email consent (e-permissions) and whether bonus-scheme slides were compliant/certified
Complaint received24 March 2021
Case completed19 October 2021
Applicable Code year2019
Breach clauses9.1; 15.9
No breach clauses15.2; 15.4
AppealNo appeal
SanctionsUndertaking received

Download the full case report (PDF)

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
📋

What happened

⌄
  • An anonymous, non-contactable complainant (describing themself as a Sanofi employee) alleged pressure on staff to obtain health professional consent to receive emails (“e-permissions”).
  • The complainant alleged that targeting and bonusing e-permissions effectively penalised representatives whose customers refused consent, potentially prompting repeated asking/“harassing” of health professionals.
  • Evidence cited included screenshots of slides used by a senior manager in a Zoom session (late 2020) and Q4 2020 bonus letters stating bonus was paid to eligible representatives who hit their e-permission target.
  • Sanofi investigated the bonus incentive scheme, stated the e-permissions element was capped and not an undue proportion of remuneration, and said it sat outside end-of-year appraisal measures.
  • Sanofi provided the original (uncropped) slides, which included (in very small font on the first slide footer) a reminder about Clause 15.4 limits on unsolicited face-to-face calls, and references to separate certified e-permission briefing documents.
  • Sanofi argued the bonus scheme slides were not “briefing material” and therefore did not require certification.
  • The Panel found the slides did constitute briefing material because they set targets, weightings on whom to target, and instructions on calls per customer; the slides were not certified.
  • The Panel did not find the complainant had proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the incentive scheme caused representatives to harass/inconvenience health professionals.
⚖️

Outcome

⌄
  • Breach found: Clause 15.9 (uncertified briefing material; and concern it might encourage Code breaches to meet targets).
  • Breach found: Clause 9.1 (failure to maintain high standards, linked to governance failure in not recognising the slides required certification).
  • No breach: Clause 15.4 (complainant did not prove harassment/inconvenience or improper frequency of calls).
  • No breach: Clause 15.2 (complainant did not prove lack of high standard of ethical conduct in interactions with health professionals).
  • No appeal.
🔒

Unlock the full case analysis

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

Best value
£249/year
Annual — save £99
or
£29/mo
Monthly
Join Now — Instant Access
← All Cases Book a Free Compliance Call

⭐ Business Intelligence Access

See the full compliance picture for every pharma company

291 Company Intelligence Reports — breach patterns, appeal history, industry ranking, PDF export.

Request Access →
⭐ Flagship Programme

AQP Flagship Path — the complete UK ABPI signatory programme

12 modules. 12 weeks. Final Signatory readiness. The industry standard for ABPI Code signatories — £995 + VAT.

Enrol — AQP Path Learn more

📰 Weekly PMCPA Case Breakdown

One real case. One key lesson. Every week — free.

Subscribe Free
🎓 AQP Training