핵심요약

• 22%의 생명과학 기업만이 공급망 차질에 대비하고 있음
• 62%의 경영진이 운영 비용 절감 압력을 느끼고 있음
• 40%가 원자재 가격 상승을 가장 큰 공급망 과제로 지적
• 이란 분쟁 등 중동 불안정성이 API, 냉장물류, 제조 비용, critical medicine 접근성에 영향을 미칠 전망

도입

이란 분쟁이 제약사 공급망에 새로운 압력을 가하고 있습니다. 특히 API(활성 성분) 및 원자재 가격 상승 우려가 부각되면서, 제약사의 운영 효율성과 회복력 균형이 더욱 중요해지고 있습니다. 투자자에게는 제약사들의 공급망 리스크 관리 전략이 향후 실적에 미칠 영향을 면밀히 관찰해야 할 필요가 있습니다.

본문 1: 공급망 차질 대비 현황 분석

Argon & Co의 2026년 운영 전망 보고서에 따르면, 22%의 생명과학 기업만이 공급망 차질에 대비하고 있습니다. 이는 62%의 경영진이 운영 비용 절감 압력을 느끼고 있음에도 불구하고, 공급망 안정성이 여전히 저평가되고 있음을 보여줍니다. 특히 40%의 기업이 원자재 가격 상승을 가장 큰 공급망 과제로 지적하면서, 원자재 가격 변동성이 제약사의 마진에 미칠 영향이 커지고 있습니다. 이는 제약사들이 단기적으로는 비용 절감에 집중하고 있지만, 장기적으로는 공급망 안정성에 대한 투자가 필요함을 시사합니다.

본문 2: 지정학적 리스크의 장기적 영향

이란 분쟁은 중동 지역의 불안정성을 더욱 가중시키고 있습니다. 이는 API 및 냉장물류에 대한 의존도를 높이고 있으며, 특히 특정 지역에 집중된 제조 시설의 취약성을 부각시키고 있습니다. 제약사들은 이란 분쟁이 API 공급에 미칠 영향뿐만 아니라, 에너지 가격 변동성 및 관세 정책 변화도 고려해야 합니다. 이는 제약사들의 글로벌 공급망 전략에 변화를 요구하며, 지역별 리스크 분산 전략이 더욱 중요해질 전망입니다.

본문 3: 시나리오 계획의 중요성

미셸 사비니 아르고앤코 부사장은 시나리오 계획이 효율성과 회복력 균형을 맞추는 데 중요하다고 강조했습니다. 이는 제약사들이 다양한 시나리오를 고려하여 공급망 리스크를 관리할 수 있도록 하는 전략적 도구입니다. 특히 이란 분쟁과 같은 지정학적 리스크가 지속되는 상황에서, 시나리오 계획은 제약사들이 공급망 차질을 최소화하고 지속 가능한 성장을 달성하는 데 필수적입니다.

결론

이란 분쟁이 제약사 공급망에 미치는 영향은 단기적뿐만 아니라 장기적인 전략적 변화를 요구하고 있습니다. 제약사들은 공급망 안정성에 대한 투자를 강화하고, 시나리오 계획을 통해 다양한 리스크 시나리오를 준비해야 합니다. 향후 제약사의 공급망 관리 전략이 실적에 미칠 영향을 면밀히 관찰할 필요가 있습니다.

---

원문 링크: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMipwFBVV95cUxPZFIzVkluZHZSZEQyenBKZ18zOEM2R0x1STRQcXJJMEduTVBDV0VQQ0Y0d0VmcDB2aHVnenp3TWRRdmhzcmtuek42SzNwVTJfSTNMRnhjRnlWZ3VINUF6ZkthQXVFTXhUY1FCQWVDenJwWEdmOHBmWVNXampIRkREdmo3OXd1aXlBWkRWZnh1T2U2Vng2V25mbDNBMDdRcVExdFEzX3Zvdw?oc=5

What the Iran War Means for Pharma Supply Chains - The Medicine Maker

Pharmaceutical supply chains are under renewed pressure as geopolitical instability adds to the pressures already created by the war in Ukraine, tariffs, energy volatility, and rising raw material costs. According to Michel Savini, Associate Partner at Argon & Co, recent disruption in the Middle East has reinforced a longer-running concern: many life sciences companies remain underprepared for shocks that could affect APIs, cold chain logistics, manufacturing costs, and access to critical medicines.

Argon & Co’s Operations Outlook 2026 report found that only 22 percent of firms are actively preparing for disruption, despite 62 percent of life sciences leaders reporting pressure to reduce operational costs and 40 percent citing rising raw material costs as their biggest supply chain challenge. In this conversation, Savini discusses the report’s findings, why scenario planning remains underused, and how pharma companies can balance efficiency with resilience.

What prompted you to explore geopolitical risk in pharma supply chains – and how much of this work predates the current Iran conflict?

Geopolitical risk has been bubbling away as a major concern for pharmaceutical supply chains for years, long before the conflict in Iran began. The pandemic first exposed just how fragile and interconnected global pharma supply networks had become, particularly around APIs, logistics routes, and manufacturing concentration in a small number of regions. Since then, we’ve also seen the impact of the war in Ukraine, Trump’s tariffs, energy price volatility, and more – all placing sustained pressure on supply continuity.

That’s why this year’s Operations Outlook is especially pertinent. Argon & Co’s Operations Outlook 2026 report explores how organizations across industries are responding to a more volatile operating environment.

The findings from the life sciences industry reflect the real conversations we’re having with organizations across the industry, as we continue to focus on helping businesses move away from reactive crisis management and towards more resilient, long-term supply chain design.

Why do you think only 22 percent of firms are actively preparing for disruption?

The global pharmaceutical industry has had a multitude of supply chain challenges in recent memory, and during these disruptions, many companies implemented quick, tactical fixes such as building buffers or securing alternative suppliers.

However, while effective in the moment, these measures were often temporary and not embedded into long-term strategy. Systematic, ongoing scenario planning has still not been rolled out at scale.

Much of this comes down to competing priorities and difficult trade-offs. Our research found that 62 percent of life sciences leaders are under relentless pressure to reduce operational costs, while 40 percent cite rising raw material costs as their biggest supply chain challenge. Companies recognize the need to invest in resilience, but margin constraints mean they are being highly selective in where and how they act.

As a result, structured risk planning is often deprioritized in favor of immediate cost or transformation priorities. But firms cannot afford to keep kicking the can down the road. The vulnerabilities exposed by conflict in the Middle East are yet another proof point that scenario planning needs to become part of everyday decision-making.

To address these challenges, pharmaceutical companies should take a more strategic approach to supply chain design. This starts with segmenting supply chains based on product criticality, ensuring that the most essential medicines are supported by the highest levels of resilience. Measures such as dual sourcing, increased safety stock, and dedicated logistics capacity for priority products can help mitigate disruption.

Which types of medicines or supply chains are most vulnerable to geopolitical instability, and why?

In general, medicines are uniquely vulnerable to geopolitical disruption because, unlike many other goods, they are tightly regulated and often require precise transportation and storage conditions. That leaves very little flexibility when supply chains are interrupted unexpectedly, making rapid rerouting far more complex than in other industries.

Looking at the conflict in the Middle East more specifically, the medicines most at risk are medicines requiring refrigeration, including biologics and vaccines. This is because these medicines are ordinarily transported via air freight to maintain cold chain integrity, but disruption to Middle Eastern airports means they risk delay and leaving their temperature zones.

Disruptions to energy markets due to the conflict are also having a profound impact on supply chains. Pharmaceutical manufacturing itself is highly energy-intensive, so volatility in oil and gas supply can drive up production costs, delay output, and ultimately impact pricing and availability for patients worldwide.

The industry is also indirectly exposed through its heavy reliance on active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), solvents, and intermediates sourced from manufacturing hubs such as China and India. Many of the energy supplies and upstream materials that underpin API manufacturing flow through the Strait of Hormuz, meaning instability in the region can trigger energy price spikes and higher input costs that ripple across the pharmaceutical supply chain.

What does a worst-case scenario look like if instability in the Middle East continues or escalates?

Even just a small fracture in the pharmaceutical supply chain can have serious consequences for the delivery of life-saving treatments to patients. If the conflict in the Middle East continues or escalates, the risk of widespread medicine shortages becomes increasingly real.

The conflict has, and will continue, to impact petrol and diesel prices, manufacturing costs, and access to vital ingredients simultaneously. That combination would place heavy pressure on global pharma supply chains, potentially leading to delayed treatments and higher medicine prices. In England, the National Pharmacy Association has already warned that community chemists are charging customers around 20-30 percent more for paracetamol and certain hay fever medications in April than they did in February. If petrol and diesel prices continue to rise, the knock-on impact on manufacturing and transport costs will ripple further down the supply chain, likely feeding back through directly to pharmacies.

Many firms are under pressure to cut costs – how can they realistically balance efficiency with resilience?

Many pharmaceutical companies are facing difficult trade-offs, having to balance the competing pressures of improving supply chain resilience while also controlling costs.

What we’re seeing is some firms changing their approach to inventory, sourcing, or supplier diversification in response to recent geopolitical disruption. That includes selectively increasing dual sourcing arrangements, regionalising parts of their supply base, and modestly raising safety stock levels for critical SKUs.

But the reality is that with many organisations under pressure to protect margins, resilience investments are typically being prioritised around therapies where the patient impact and commercial risk of disruption are highest. Critical medicines and high-revenue products are therefore being prioritized the most.

What practical steps should companies be taking now to better prepare for geopolitical shocks?

Pharma companies should take a more strategic approach to supply chain design. This starts with segmenting supply chains based on product criticality, ensuring that the most essential medicines are supported by the highest levels of resilience. Measures such as dual sourcing, increased safety stock, and dedicated logistics capacity for priority products can help mitigate disruption.

Organizations should also institutionalize scenario planning, rather than treating it as a one-off exercise. Practically, this could look like developing clear contingency plans, establishing trigger points for action, and improving real-time visibility across the supply chain.

Integrating these capabilities into sales and operations planning (S&OP) processes can enable faster, more coordinated responses when disruption occurs.

Finally, what is the one change you would prioritize if you were advising pharma leaders today?

It would be embedding resilience into day-to-day decision-making, rather than treating it as a standalone risk function.

Source: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMipwFBVV95cUxPZFIzVkluZHZSZEQyenBKZ18zOEM2R0x1STRQcXJJMEduTVBDV0VQQ0Y0d0VmcDB2aHVnenp3TWRRdmhzcmtuek42SzNwVTJfSTNMRnhjRnlWZ3VINUF6ZkthQXVFTXhUY1FCQWVDenJwWEdmOHBmWVNXampIRkREdmo3OXd1aXlBWkRWZnh1T2U2Vng2V25mbDNBMDdRcVExdFEzX3Zvdw?oc=5