Sanofi in the US: Ambition Tested by Execution

The context, in plain terms

On May 14, 2025, Sanofi announced its intention to invest at least $20 billion in the United States over the 2025-2030 period. This significant commitment aims to increase research and development (R&D) spending and a substantial allocation to US production.

The investment specifically targets immunology and inflammatory diseases, with the goal of increasing production capacities through direct investments in its existing US sites and through partnerships with other local manufacturers. Sanofi, whose sales in the US accounted for nearly 49% of its total sales in 2024 (47.06% in the first quarter of 2025), is the first 'Big Pharma' from the European Union to announce an investment of such magnitude across the Atlantic. The group already employs over 13,000 people in the US and plans to create a significant number of well-paying jobs.

The scope and distribution of this investment are expected to evolve based on the external environment, new drug launches, and performance. Specific direct investment projects at sites and details of partnerships with other local producers were not specified in the announcement. The exact amount and final distribution between R&D and production may be adjusted according to changes in the economic environment and commercial performance. The exact motivation related to pressure from Donald Trump or threats of taxes is mentioned, but the decision is also described as a long-term decision, leaving some uncertainty about the relative weight of each factor.

A Panel Divided Between Support and Hostility

The panel of 57 simulated voices reveals a clear division in reactions. 27 voices express support, perceiving the investment as a strategic move to consolidate Sanofi's position in a key market and stimulate innovation. These voices likely value the focus on R&D and job creation. However, 25 voices show hostility, raising concerns about implications for other regions or the underlying motivations of the decision. A smaller group of 5 voices remains in doubt, adopting a wait-and-see attitude, potentially seeking more details or guarantees.

This distribution indicates that a significant portion of the panel sees the merit of the decision, but an almost equal number holds strong reservations. The decision-maker must recognize this polarization and prepare distinct messages for each block, anticipating opponents' arguments to prevent resistance from escalating. Understanding what motivates each side allows for adapting communication to reassure skeptics without diluting the enthusiasm of supporters.

Contrasting Signals for the Decision-Maker

The test bench highlights several signals. First, a CEO of a European biotech, although part of a group of mostly hostile pharmaceutical competitors, declares support for the decision. This signal, which Kapari calls a dissenting voice, is an action lever: the decision-maker must prioritize listening to this profile to understand what in the decision can convince even the most skeptical in their sector. Identifying these unexpected points of agreement can provide powerful arguments to rally other stakeholders.

Second, pharmaceutical competitors, while representing only 9% of the panel, are noisy. This signal, which Kapari calls the noise, indicates that their reactions, even if they do not hold a majority weight on the panel, can capture media attention or influence other stakeholders. The decision-maker must anticipate their criticisms and prepare talking points to defuse their impact before any public announcement, to control the narrative and prevent minority voices from dominating the public debate.

A third important signal is that external voices receive the decision less favorably than internal voices. This signal, which Kapari calls internal vs. external, suggests that internal communication may have already created some alignment, while external parties perceive more risks or hidden motivations. The decision-maker must therefore develop a distinct message for external parties, directly addressing the concerns of those not directly involved with the company, emphasizing global benefits and a long-term vision. Finally, the panel's verdict remained stable over three independent passes of the engine. This stability signal indicates that the reactions are not random and that the identified fault lines are robust, reinforcing the need for a targeted and thoughtful communication strategy.

Doubt About Execution, a Major Obstacle

The dominant friction identified by the Kapari engine is doubt about execution. It is not the legitimacy of the investment itself that is questioned by part of the panel, but Sanofi's ability to realize a project of such scale and complexity. Uncertainties regarding specific direct investment projects at sites, details of partnerships, and the exact distribution between R&D and production fuel this hesitation. Voices in doubt and some hostile voices fear that promises will not be kept or that expected benefits will not fully materialize, which could harm the company's reputation.

For the decision-maker, the turning point lies in the ability to transform this doubt into confidence. It is not about convincing of the strategic relevance of the investment, but about reassuring regarding its operational feasibility. Before any major communication, it is important to clarify as much as possible the key execution steps, intermediate milestones, and monitoring mechanisms. Showing how Sanofi plans to manage the logistical, human, and financial challenges related to such a deployment in the US is important to defuse this friction and potentially shift some hesitant or hostile voices toward cautious support.

Adjusting the Communication Strategy

The Kapari test bench verdict of "Divided response" means that the decision, while receiving significant support, encounters substantial resistance that requires adapting the communication and action strategy. The reception risk is high, indicating that without these adjustments, the decision could be poorly perceived or encounter unforeseen obstacles, threatening its success. The way forward is to directly address the friction points identified by the simulated panel, transforming the observed signals into concrete action levers.

To move forward, the decision-maker must first listen to the dissenting voice of the European biotech CEO (the "dissenting voice" signal) to refine their message and identify the most impactful arguments for their sector. Next, they must anticipate and defuse the noise from pharmaceutical competitors (the "noise" signal) by preparing clear responses to potential criticisms, particularly regarding the investment's motivations. It is also important to distinguish internal from external communication (the "internal vs. external" signal), offering external parties more concrete guarantees on execution and long-term benefits, while reinforcing the strategic vision internally. Finally, the stability of the verdict over several passes (the "stability" signal) confirms that these fault lines are deep and require a methodical approach, not just a superficial correction, ensuring that the adjustments made will be lasting and effective.

Questions about this case

Related cases