Royal Nursing Union Ends Partnership With Teva UK

Published: 02 October 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

Britain’s Royal College of Nursing has ended its commercial relationship with Teva UK, bringing to a close the pharmaceutical company’s role as a commercial partner and sponsor of an upcoming professional nursing event.

The decision follows pressure from campaign groups over Teva Pharmaceuticals’ links to Israel and concerns surrounding the company’s corporate record. The Royal College of Nursing, which represents more than 500,000 nurses across the UK, said additional due diligence had identified issues involving Teva Pharmaceuticals that it considered inconsistent with the values of the nursing profession.

Teva UK is the British arm of Teva Pharmaceuticals, one of the world’s largest generic drug manufacturers and a major supplier of medicines to the National Health Service. The company had been involved in supporting professional activities connected with the nursing organisation, including sponsorship of an event focusing on migraine and headache services.

The RCN confirmed that Teva UK would no longer sponsor the RCNi Nursing Leadership Summit event scheduled for 30 October 2026 at the union’s London headquarters. Despite the withdrawal of sponsorship, the event itself is expected to proceed as planned.

Carmel O’Boyle, chair of the RCN’s ruling council, confirmed the decision in correspondence with Nurses for Palestine, one of the groups that had campaigned for the partnership to be ended.

The union said its decision was based on findings from further due diligence into Teva Pharmaceuticals’ operations and its history of legal sanctions and public scrutiny. According to the RCN, those issues did not align with the values of the RCN and its publishing and education arm, RCNi.

The organisation said commercial relationships were subject to scrutiny because of the importance of ensuring that companies associated with the nursing profession reflected values connected with healthcare, patient care and professional responsibility.

The decision has been welcomed by pro-Palestinian healthcare campaigners, who had urged the nursing union to reconsider its relationship with Teva. Nurses for Palestine described the move as an important development for campaigners seeking to influence commercial relationships between healthcare organisations and companies operating in or connected to Israel.

UK Healthcare Petitions to Royal Colleges, another campaign group involved in the pressure on the RCN, also welcomed the decision. The organisation has argued that healthcare institutions should carefully consider the wider activities and international relationships of companies with which they enter commercial partnerships.

The campaign comes against the wider backdrop of international disagreement over Israel’s military operations and its conduct in relation to Palestinians. Various governments, international organisations, legal bodies and advocacy groups have expressed differing positions and allegations concerning international law. Those disputes remain politically and legally contested, while campaign groups in Britain have increasingly sought to connect institutional and commercial decisions with concerns over the conflict.

For the RCN, however, the stated basis for ending the commercial relationship also includes Teva’s corporate history and legal settlements and sanctions unrelated to the current political campaign.

Over the past decade, Teva has faced substantial financial penalties and settlements from authorities in Europe and the United States involving allegations or findings related to competition law, drug pricing and bribery.

In 2024, the European Commission imposed a €462.6m fine on Teva after concluding that the company had abused its dominant position to restrict competition from rival medicines to Copaxone, a treatment for multiple sclerosis. The case concerned conduct affecting seven European countries over periods ranging from four to nine years.

The company has also faced proceedings in the United States. In 2023, Teva agreed to pay $225m to resolve a criminal price-fixing case through a deferred prosecution agreement with the US Department of Justice. The case concerned allegations involving the pricing of three medicines.

Earlier, in 2016, Teva agreed to pay $519m to settle civil and criminal charges brought by US authorities involving allegations that company personnel had bribed foreign government officials in Russia, Ukraine and Mexico.

The RCN referred to such matters when explaining its decision, saying further examination had identified operations that had been the subject of legal sanctions and public scrutiny.

Teva has rejected the suggestion that its relationship with the nursing organisation should be viewed through a political lens. The company said it was disappointed by the RCN’s decision and sought further dialogue with the union.

A Teva spokesperson pointed to the company’s position as one of the largest suppliers of medicines to the UK and said it had valued its longstanding relationship with the RCN. The company also highlighted the support the partnership had provided to healthcare professionals and patients.

Teva said healthcare worked most effectively when attention remained focused on patients rather than political disputes.

The disagreement now places the RCN’s decision within a wider debate over how healthcare organisations should approach commercial partnerships. Professional bodies regularly work with pharmaceutical companies to support educational programmes, conferences, research initiatives and professional development. Such relationships can provide financial resources and opportunities for healthcare professionals, but they can also create questions about independence, corporate conduct and ethical standards.

The RCN’s decision illustrates the tension between those considerations. The union has stated that its responsibility is to ensure commercial relationships are consistent with the values of the nursing profession, while Teva has argued that healthcare partnerships should remain centred on patients and professional needs.

The controversy is also continuing beyond the RCN.

Pro-Palestinian campaigners are now calling on the Royal College of Pharmacy to reconsider its relationship with Teva UK. They want the company removed as a sponsor of the college’s annual conference next month and are also seeking the cancellation of an exhibition stand that Teva has booked for the event.

Any decision by the pharmacy organisation could further intensify the debate over the role of pharmaceutical companies in professional healthcare events. It may also raise broader questions about whether professional organisations should consider companies’ international operations, government relationships and legal histories when assessing sponsorship arrangements.

For healthcare professionals, the issue is particularly sensitive because pharmaceutical companies occupy an important position in the health system. Their medicines are used daily by patients, while their commercial activities can simultaneously attract regulatory and legal scrutiny.

Teva’s position as a major medicines supplier means the company remains deeply connected to Britain’s healthcare system even after its partnership with the RCN has ended. The termination therefore affects a specific commercial relationship rather than removing Teva products from the NHS or the wider UK medicines market.

The RCN has made clear that its forthcoming migraine and headache event will continue despite the sponsorship change. The focus will therefore remain on professional education and healthcare services, although the circumstances surrounding the sponsorship withdrawal are likely to remain part of the wider discussion among nurses and healthcare campaigners.

The episode demonstrates how commercial partnerships within healthcare can become subject to wider ethical and political considerations. For the RCN, the decision was framed around its values and due diligence process. For Teva, the decision represents the loss of a longstanding professional relationship and an opportunity to support healthcare professionals.

As campaigners turn their attention to other professional bodies, the debate is likely to continue over where healthcare organisations should draw the line between commercial engagement, corporate accountability and political considerations. The outcome could influence how professional healthcare institutions assess sponsorships and partnerships in an increasingly scrutinised international environment.