News

Leadership perspectives on Swiss pharma policy, global trade pressure and the economics of innovation

By Reinier H. Labadie, Client Partner based in Zürich, Switzerland.

October 2026

“Executives Unfiltered – Behind the Title” is a leadership interview series by Pedersen & Partners Switzerland capturing concise perspectives on leadership, transformation and decision-making.

For readers who may not know you yet, how would you describe your role today, and what does Interpharma stand for in one sentence?

I am the CEO and Delegate of the Board of Interpharma, representing Switzerland’s 23 leading research-based pharmaceutical companies.

My role is to bring our members together on the issues that shape the future of the industry and to engage with politics and society on the conditions needed for research, investment and access to innovation.

In one sentence: Interpharma works to keep Switzerland a leading location for pharmaceutical research and innovation and to ensure that medical progress reaches patients rapidly.

You spent years in public policy and sustainability at Credit Suisse before moving into the pharma association world. What carried over most clearly, and what did you have to unlearn?

What carried over most clearly is the importance of understanding different perspectives.

At Credit Suisse I learned to think in terms of risk, competitiveness and economic value creation. In the pharmaceutical sector I had to broaden that perspective. Success is not only measured by financial performance but by whether a breakthrough actually reaches patients. That connection between innovation and human impact is probably the biggest shift I experienced.

Whether in banking or healthcare, you operate at the intersection of business, politics and society. Good arguments matter, but so does understanding the interests and constraints of the people across the table.

Switzerland’s pharma model depends on credibility in global markets, but it is now being tested by tariffs, pricing pressure, and political scrutiny. Where do you think the real vulnerability lies today: market access, pricing, or Switzerland’s broader attractiveness as an industrial location - and why?

The biggest vulnerability is Switzerland's long-term attractiveness as a location for research, innovation, manufacturing and investment.

Pricing and market access are part of that equation, but they are symptoms of a broader challenge. If access to innovative medicines becomes slower or less predictable, if clinical research becomes less attractive, or if investment conditions gradually deteriorate, global companies will increasingly direct the next research programme, manufacturing facility or strategic investment elsewhere.

What concerns me most is not a sudden loss of competitiveness. Switzerland remains exceptionally strong, with world-class universities, a highly innovative life sciences ecosystem, strong institutions and legal certainty. The real risk is gradual erosion.

And linked to that is perhaps the greatest danger of all: complacency. Switzerland has been so successful for so long that there is sometimes an assumption that our leading position is guaranteed. It is not. Other countries are investing aggressively to attract research, manufacturing and high-value jobs. International competition for innovation has become significantly more intense.

Competitiveness is not a status; it is a continuous effort. Decisions on regulation, market access, taxation, talent and research policy may seem incremental in isolation, but together they determine where future innovation happens.

Maintaining Switzerland's attractiveness is therefore not only an economic priority. It is also essential to ensure that patients in Switzerland continue to benefit from rapid access to the latest medical advances and that our country remains one of the world's leading centres for life sciences innovation.

Many leaders in pharma talk about innovation, but fewer are willing to say where the system is no longer sustainable. What is the most important tension in the Swiss drug pricing debate that is still being talked around rather than addressed directly?

The fundamental tension is quite clear: we want healthcare to remain affordable, but we also want patients in Switzerland to have rapid access to medical innovation.
Both objectives are legitimate. But we should not pretend that pricing decisions have no consequences for access.

Pharmaceutical companies operate globally, and the conditions in individual markets influence where and when new medicines are launched.

So the question is not affordability or innovation. The political challenge is to deliver both. And as a rich Country we certainly can if there is the political will.

You represent a sector where competitors must still find common ground on policy. What is hardest about building unity among companies that compete commercially but need to speak with one voice publicly?

What unites our members is often bigger than what separates them commercially. They all depend on a strong innovation ecosystem, predictable framework conditions, effective intellectual property protection and a healthcare system that enables patients to benefit quickly from medical progress.

The key to building consensus is establishing common ground around a long-term strategy. That requires looking beyond today's challenges and being ahead of the curve. If discussions focus only on immediate interests, consensus becomes difficult. If the focus is on what Switzerland and its healthcare system should look like five, ten or twenty years from now, common interests usually become much clearer.

In that sense, our role is often to help transform short-term differences into a shared understanding of long-term opportunities and challenges. That is how competitors can speak with one voice on the issues that matter most for patients, innovation and Switzerland's future competitiveness.

In your view, what is the earliest signal that Switzerland’s position as a research, development, and manufacturing hub is weakening relative to competing locations, e.g. the US, Ireland, or Asia?

The earliest warning signs are often the investment decisions that do not come to Switzerland in the first place any more. Recent evidence suggests that this may already be happening. 

A BAK Economics analysis of investment announcements by 72 international pharmaceutical and biotech companies found that Switzerland's share of announced pharmaceutical investments in Europe fell from 29% between 2016 and 2021 to just 12% since 2022. This indicates that investment dynamics within Europe may already be shifting away from Switzerland. Competitiveness is not lost overnight. It is weakened gradually, one investment decision at a time.

If you were advising the CEO of a multinational — in any sector — on how to build resilience against political and trade risk over the next five years, what is the one capability they most need inside their own organization that most companies don't yet have?

The ability and agility to translate geopolitical developments into business decisions. In a world of geopolitical uncertainty, five-year plans are increasingly replaced by scenario planning. 

The winners will not be the companies with the most accurate predictions, but those that can translate geopolitical change into business decisions faster than their competitors and adapt when the assumptions change.

Geopolitics can no longer be treated as separate from corporate strategy. Trade policy, industrial policy, regulation and supply chains increasingly affect where companies invest and how they operate.

When you speak to policymakers or CEOs, what misconception about “lobbying” or industry advocacy do you most want to correct?

The misconception is that lobbying is mainly about access. Access may get you into the room, but it does not make your argument convincing.

To be taken seriously, you need to provide facts and expertise, be transparent about your interests and understand the concerns on the other side.

Good advocacy is not about getting your way every time. It is about contributing to better-informed decisions and recognizing the different logics between politics and business.

What has been your toughest stakeholder conversation in this role, and what did it teach you about influence without formal authority?

The toughest stakeholder discussions are often not about interests, but about fundamentally different views of how healthcare and innovation should work.

In those situations, facts and arguments matter, but they are rarely enough on their own. Influence without formal authority comes from trust, credibility, consistency, persistence and the ability to find common ground despite genuine differences. You cannot win these conversations by speaking louder. You succeed by helping others see a path forward.

When you hire senior people into policy or advocacy work, what is the one trait you look for first: judgment, resilience, analytical depth, or something else - and why?

Judgment.

In policy and advocacy, you rarely have perfect information. You need to understand what really matters, anticipate how a situation may develop and know when to push, when to compromise and when not to act.

Good judgment is closely linked to strong networks and curiosity. The best people are not only well connected within their own ecosystem, they are also willing to engage with people outside their usual bubble and listen to different perspectives. That often provides insights that data alone cannot.

Expertise can be developed. Good judgment is much harder to teach.

In a complex environment, sound judgment comes from combining analysis, relationships and openness to views beyond your own echo chamber.

Looking back, what is one leadership belief you held ten years ago that you would challenge today?

Coming from academia, I probably believed that having the strongest arguments and the best evidence would naturally lead to the best decisions.

Today, I still believe facts matter enormously. But I have learned that decisions are ultimately made by people, not by data alone. Values, emotions, incentives and trust often shape outcomes as much as evidence.

Leadership is therefore not only about being right. It is about understanding different perspectives, building relationships and creating enough trust to move people forward together.

Looking ahead, if we meet again in 2028, what should be true about the Swiss pharma industry’s standing with both the US and the EU?

I would like Switzerland to remain a reliable and attractive location for research, innovation and investment for both the US and the EU.

For a country of our size, openness is essential. We depend on international talent, scientific collaboration, trade and access to global markets.

Ultimately, the test is simple: are companies continuing to invest and innovate here, and do patients have timely access to new medicines?

If the answer is yes, Switzerland will continue to be one of the world's leading life sciences locations.

Rapid Fire Questions

• A country or institution you admire for policy-making rather than for its products.
  Switzerland, despite all its imperfections.
  Direct democracy and federalism can be slow and sometimes frustrating, but they force dialogue, compromise and broad societal buy-in. Much like Churchill's famous observation on democracy, it may not be a perfect system, but I have yet to see a better one for building stable, long-term solutions in a diverse society. In an increasingly polarised world, that remains one of Switzerland's greatest strengths.
• A decision rule you rely on when consensus is impossible.
  When in doubt, choose the option that preserves future opportunities rather than limits them.
• One myth about pharma lobbying you would like to challenge.
  One myth about lobbying is that influence means making others do what you want.
  In reality, influence is often about understanding where politics and society are moving and ensuring that your organisation is prepared for that future.
  The most successful organisations are not always those that change the rules. They are those that adapt fastest when the rules change.