UK Pharmacy Body Drops Teva After Ethical Concerns

Published: 09 October 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

A major British pharmacy organisation has ended its sponsorship relationship with Israeli pharmaceutical company Teva UK following pressure from pro-Palestinian campaigners and concerns raised during an internal review of the company’s activities. The decision makes the Royal College of Pharmacy the second major UK healthcare body to sever commercial ties with the drugmaker in recent weeks, intensifying debate about ethical standards, corporate accountability and the role of political considerations in professional healthcare institutions.

The Royal College of Pharmacy, which represents approximately 34,000 pharmacists across Britain, confirmed that Teva UK would no longer sponsor or exhibit at its forthcoming annual conference next month. The arrangement had formed part of a £15,000 agreement covering the company’s participation in four college events.

The college said its decision followed a further due diligence review that identified possible activities by Teva Pharmaceuticals that did not align with the organisation’s values. The sponsorship and exhibition arrangement was terminated with immediate effect, although the college did not publicly specify which activities had prompted its concerns.

The decision was taken by the college’s executive team after it became a charity in April and began reviewing its policies and commercial relationships. The organisation’s statement indicated that the reassessment of its responsibilities and values had contributed to the decision to end the partnership.

The development follows a similar move by the Royal College of Nursing, which ended its longstanding relationship with Teva UK the previous week. The nursing organisation, representing around 500,000 nurses across the UK, removed the company as a sponsor of the organisation and an event focused on headaches and migraines.

Together, the two decisions have drawn attention to the ethical responsibilities of professional healthcare bodies when accepting funding or sponsorship from pharmaceutical manufacturers. They have also encouraged campaigners to press other medical organisations to reconsider their commercial relationships with the company.

Teva Pharmaceuticals, which specialises in generic medicines as well as other pharmaceutical products, expressed disappointment at the Royal College of Pharmacy’s decision. The company argued that healthcare should remain focused on patients rather than becoming politicised, maintaining that its priority was to help people obtain the medicines they need.

The dispute developed after an open letter circulated by campaigners, including UK Healthcare Petitions to Royal Colleges, urged the pharmacy organisation to cancel the sponsorship arrangement and conduct a comprehensive investigation into its commercial governance and due diligence procedures. The letter was signed by individual pharmacists and other healthcare professionals who raised concerns about the ethical implications of maintaining the partnership.

The campaigners drew comparisons with the response of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the predecessor organisation to the Royal College of Pharmacy, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. At that time, the society stopped investing its money in funds involving Russian companies. The campaigners argued that comparable ethical scrutiny should be applied to investments and commercial relationships connected with Israel.

Their argument centres on the principle that healthcare organisations should assess corporate relationships according to clearly defined ethical standards, rather than treating sponsorship primarily as a source of funding. Supporters of the campaign say professional institutions carry public trust and should ensure that their partnerships reflect the values they claim to uphold.

The campaign has also raised questions about whether ethical policies should extend beyond investment portfolios to sponsorships, conference exhibitions and other commercial arrangements. Such relationships can provide pharmaceutical companies with opportunities to engage with healthcare professionals, while helping professional bodies finance events and educational activities.

For the organisations involved, the challenge is to establish transparent criteria for assessing commercial partners and apply those standards consistently. The Royal College of Pharmacy has not disclosed the specific activities that prompted its decision, leaving some details of the review unclear. Nevertheless, its action represents a significant change in its relationship with Teva UK.

UK Healthcare Petitions to Royal Colleges welcomed both the pharmacy college’s decision and the earlier action by the nursing organisation. The campaign group said the decisions reflected ethical concerns that members of the public expect healthcare professionals to take seriously.

It is now urging other professional medical organisations that have current or previous commercial relationships with Teva to reconsider their arrangements. These include organisations representing general practitioners, psychiatrists and hospital doctors, several of which have had sponsorship agreements with the company in recent years.

The campaign’s organisers believe that the decisions by the nursing and pharmacy bodies could influence wider institutional policies, including procurement and purchasing decisions within the National Health Service. They argue that the influence of professional organisations extends beyond their own events because their ethical positions can shape expectations throughout the healthcare sector.

Dr Barrak Almoosawi, an NHS doctor and organiser of the open letter, said the two decisions demonstrated that professional bodies could take action when concerns arose about commercial partnerships. He argued that institutions with respected professional identities should ensure that their reputations are not used to lend credibility to relationships that raise ethical questions.

However, Teva has rejected the suggestion that its healthcare role should be judged through political considerations. In its response, the company said it believed healthcare worked best when patient needs remained central. It maintained that it would continue operating with integrity and focus on improving access to medicines.

Teva also emphasised the scale of its international operations, saying it serves more than 150 million patients daily around the world. The company said its activities were guided by international law, local regulations and its stated values. It further stated that it did not make donations to political parties, political organisations or military entities in any country.

Beyond the immediate sponsorship dispute, Teva has faced significant regulatory penalties and legal challenges in previous years. These cases have become part of the wider debate surrounding the company’s corporate conduct, although the Royal College of Pharmacy has not explicitly identified any particular case as the reason for ending its sponsorship agreement.

In 2024, the European Commission fined Teva €462.6 million over conduct involving its multiple sclerosis treatment Copaxone. The commission said the company had obstructed competition from rival manufacturers in seven European countries over a period of between four and nine years.

The previous year, Teva agreed to pay $225 million in fines imposed by the United States Department of Justice as an alternative to prosecution after being charged in a case involving price-fixing allegations concerning three medicines.

Earlier, in 2016, the company reached settlements with the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice involving civil and criminal allegations connected with bribery of government officials in Russia, Ukraine and Mexico. The agreements required payments totalling $519 million.

These cases provide context for the scrutiny surrounding Teva’s business practices, but the current sponsorship controversy has its own distinct focus: whether professional healthcare institutions should maintain commercial relationships when concerns arise about a company’s conduct or wider activities.

The question is particularly sensitive because pharmaceutical manufacturers supply medicines on which patients depend. Professional bodies must balance their responsibility to protect public trust with the practical need to support education, conferences and professional development. At the same time, campaigners argue that patient access to medicines and ethical scrutiny of corporate behaviour need not be mutually exclusive.

The Royal College of Pharmacy’s decision is therefore likely to remain part of a broader discussion about how healthcare institutions evaluate sponsors, communicate their ethical standards and respond to pressure from members and the public. Greater transparency about the criteria used in due diligence reviews could help explain such decisions and strengthen confidence in the process.

For Teva, the loss of another prominent professional sponsor represents a reputational challenge at a time when its relationships with healthcare institutions are receiving increased scrutiny. The company has made clear that it disagrees with the decision and intends to continue focusing on medicine access and patient care.

For campaigners, the immediate objective is to persuade other professional bodies to review their own arrangements. Whether those organisations follow the same path will depend on their individual policies, assessments and responses to the concerns being raised.

The latest development demonstrates how commercial sponsorship in healthcare can become a wider test of institutional accountability. As professional bodies reassess their relationships with pharmaceutical companies, the debate is increasingly focused on transparency, consistent ethical standards and the responsibility to maintain public confidence while protecting patients’ interests.