AUTH/3500/4/21: Employee complaint about representative training at Sanofi (No breach)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case number	AUTH/3500/4/21
Complainant	Anonymous, non-contactable employee
Company	Sanofi
Issue	Representative training (new diabetes representative)
Products referenced	Toujeo; Lantus
Applicable Code year	2019
Clauses considered	Clause 15.1; Clause 9.1; Clause 2
Outcome	No breach
Complaint received	06 April 2021
Case completed	17 August 2021
Appeal	No appeal

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, non-contactable employee complained about the quality of training provided when joining Sanofi as a diabetes representative.
The complainant alleged that much of the training had been delivered/developed by a fellow representative rather than an experienced training lead, and that trainers lacked sufficient knowledge.
The complainant said remote delivery meant no physical evidence could be provided; the concern was about delivery and perceived lack of knowledge.
The complainant alleged their line manager said the approach was due to budget cuts/lack of knowledge in the business unit.
Sanofi investigated internally and described a 6-week induction programme (March–April 2021) focused on Toujeo and Lantus, delivered virtually due to Covid-19.
Sanofi stated training was delivered by appropriately qualified staff (MSLs, medical team, brand team) and that one experienced representative only supported/co-ordinated and helped in practical sales-aid sessions.
Sanofi highlighted mandatory validations before field promotion (SPC online validations, role-play validations, and an MSL-led viva assessment).

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the ABPI Code of Practice (2019) was found.
The Panel considered the complainant had not provided materials, dates, or other evidence and had not proven the allegations on the balance of probabilities.
The Panel accepted that the Code does not stipulate who must deliver training, but requires training to be adequate and provide sufficient scientific knowledge.
The Panel noted Sanofi’s validation process prior to representatives promoting in the field.

🔒

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