AstraZeneca defies Trump to bet on China
When Pascal Soriot flew in to speak at the Boao Forum in China this year, many expected him to keep a low profile. With Donald Trump and Xi Jinping firing shots at each other in an ever-escalating trade row, it was presumed that the AstraZeneca boss would want to keep his head down.
Yet Soriot was happy to make his position clear: 'The two large innovators in our industry today are the US and China,' the no-nonsense Frenchman said on the sidelines of the forum, and China was set to 'emerge as really a driving force for innovation in our sector'.
Days later, Soriot was one of 40 Western executives summoned to a gathering with Xi Jinping, orchestrated to cement ties between global corporations and Beijing. 'China is absolutely open for us,' Soriot said.
Such statements threaten to thrust AstraZeneca into the spotlight at a time when US and China leaders are painfully sensitive to where companies are spending their cash.
In recent months, Trump has sought to exert growing power over where companies are investing. In particular, he is keen to ensure it is not in China.
Trump has threatened heavy tariffs on Apple unless it moves its manufacturing out of China and the trade deal with the UK struck earlier this year handed the US a 'veto' over Chinese investment in Britain.
While the US president's focus has so far been on pulling manufacturing jobs back to America, many company chiefs are wary of finding themselves in Trump's firing line. For pharmaceutical companies, there are particular risks.
Trump this year threatened new tariffs on pharmaceuticals, adding: 'When they hear that, they will leave China.' The US is currently in the middle of an investigation into drug imports, which could be a precursor to action.
For AstraZeneca, which does not ship drugs between the US and China, it may seem like they should be immune. Yet Trump's unpredictability means nothing can be assumed – and the president has been clear he wants companies to invest in the US, not China.
The president's push to make multinationals choose between the US and China is awkward for AstraZeneca, Britain's biggest pharmaceuticals company.
AstraZeneca has been in China for more than 30 years and is the largest drugmaker in the country. It made its first foray into the US in the 1970s and now makes 42pc of its revenues there.
Both countries have benefited from recent investment from the British drugmaker. Last November, AstraZeneca put $3.5bn into the US to expand its research and manufacturing facilities. It unveiled a $2.5bn (£2.6bn) new centre in Beijing in March. Two weeks ago, AstraZeneca announced a new strategic partnership with China's CSPC Pharmaceuticals Group, worth up to $5.3bn.
Michel Demaré, the company's chairman, insists the business is above the fray.
'When you are a global company like AstraZeneca you have always to cope with geopolitical risk,' he told the Financial Times in 2023. 'You have to try to manage that without getting too involved.'
Yet taking a studiously neutral approach is becoming ever more difficult.
When it comes to Trump, 'the company will have to manage a tightrope to ensure that they are not going to be penalised for their commitment to China and the wider Asian region,' says Ketan Patel, a fund manager at Whitefriars who is an AstraZeneca investor.
Over the past few years Soriot has not been shy in voicing his admiration of China. This year, he said that the nation was paving the way in fast-moving areas including antibody drug conjugates and cell therapy.
'They're very committed to China,' says Emily Field, a Barclays analyst who follows the company. 'And that's because there's going to be this huge volume opportunity where Chinese local players are not able to produce drugs.'
Patel believes recent pledges from AstraZeneca to do more research in the country and strike deals with Chinese biotechs are a risk move.
'Research and development is a long duration activity and the current partnerships with local players is very much at a nascent stage.'
It is not hard to see why some investors are nervous. This year, more than 100 of AstraZeneca's former sales staff were jailed in China over alleged medical insurance fraud. The National Healthcare Security Administration claimed AstraZeneca staff had been involved in scamming medical insurance companies.
At the same time, Chinese authorities have been investigating alleged illegal imports of unapproved medicines. AstraZeneca has said it risks millions of dollars worth of fines.
Perhaps most seriously for AstraZeneca is the situation surrounding Leon Wang, its country president in China. He was then detained in China last autumn amid an investigation into AstraZeneca's activities in the country and remains in detention today.
AstraZeneca says it has been unable to speak to him. 'We all think [about] and miss Leon,' Soriot said this year. 'We certainly wish him the best and we all hope that he's in good, good shape and dealing with a very difficult situation in the best possible way.'
Wang has been put on 'extended leave' and replaced for now. Amnesty International said earlier this year the case raised 'difficult ethical questions' about AstraZeneca staying in China.
The drugs giant argues that its role as a manufacturer of medicine means it has a moral right to be in as many countries around the world as it can. It has, for example, kept operating in Russia even as other companies have quit over the war in Ukraine.
'Incredible'
Still, AstraZeneca is not just remaining in China but ramping up its investments.
With Beijing pushing to make the country a better place to create new drugs and run clinical trials, Soriot has hailed the country's pharmaceutical market as 'incredible'.
By the end of last year, AstraZeneca had over 200 projects in development in China. The company, which currently has around 40 medicines in China, has around 100 new medicines expected to be approved in China in the next five years.
Soriot argues that he has little choice but to turn to China, given ever increasing tax and red tape in Europe make it harder to get things done. In April, Soriot said the continent was 'falling behind in attracting R&D and manufacturing investments, putting its ability to protect the health of its own people at risk'.
There is a potential for things to change. This week, UK ministers have been thrashing out plans to try to boost Britain's competitiveness in an effort to attract more life sciences investment from the likes of AstraZeneca.
On Thursday, talks were under way to try to come to an agreement on the contentious issue of NHS charges paid by drugmakers. Labour is expected to publish its own overarching life sciences strategy imminently.
For now, though, AstraZeneca is focused on China – despite the risks of angering Trump.
'Of course, the US remains extremely important,' Soriot said in April. 'It's the biggest innovation part of the industry. But China is rapidly ramping up and so it's important for us to remain very committed to China.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump suspends trade talks with Canada over digital services tax plan
US President Donald Trump has announced the immediate suspension of all trade talks with Canada, saying he plans to impose high import taxes on Canadian goods. This action was in response to Canada's finance department confirming plans to collect a 3-percent digital services tax on revenue from Canadian users of large digital platforms, retroactive to 2022. The new Canadian tax could cost American technology companies up to $2 billion in retroactive payments, which Trump described as a direct attack on the US. The president also issued warnings to the European Union regarding similar digital taxes, saying that the US holds significant economic leverage in these international trade discussions. The announcement led to market instability and highlights ongoing trade tensions between the US and Canada, one of its largest trading partners.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
How Trump's ‘revenge tax' brought the world to its knees
When Donald Trump unveiled his 'One Big Beautiful Bill' last month, all the focus was on how the president's trillions of tax cuts might blow out America's budget bottom line. But hidden within the bill's 1,000-plus pages was a clause that set alarm bells ringing in boardrooms at many of Britain's biggest companies. In section 899 of the bill, Trump proposed what has become known as a 'revenge tax', which gave him a new power to punish countries that had tax regimes he didn't like. If Britain's taxes displeased him – and they do – he could ratchet up US taxes on British companies' American operations to blood-curdling levels. Every year, British companies would face an extra 5pc tax hit on earnings from their US operations, with the rate maxing out at 50pc. The threat was a devastating one. British companies with big US exposure include the food giant Compass, the big pharma pair GSK and AstraZeneca, Barclays, British American Tobacco, drinks conglomerate Diageo, goods manufacturer Reckitt Benckiser and Intercontinental Hotels Group. All are listed on the London Stock Exchange, meaning Trump's threat could have been devastating for the already beleaguered index. The response was immediate. Business leaders and lobby groups quickly began knocking on Rachel Reeves's door, sounding the alarm and urging the Chancellor to get on the case with Scott Bessent, the US treasury secretary. Reeves got the message. She raised the S899 tax threat with Bessent when he came to London for trade talks with the Chinese in early June. By then, though, the bill was breezing through the House of Representatives and into the Senate, with the only change being a tweak to ensure investors in US Treasury bonds weren't affected by the 'revenge tax'. Businesses began weighing up Plan B. All the options for coping with the revenge tax were expensive and disruptive, ranging from pulling money out of the US to beat the higher rate to scaling back US investments, or dual-listing their stock in New York. Some even considered the nuclear option of spinning off their American businesses altogether. Fearing Trump's wrath The public debate on S899 hasn't matched the anxiety behind closed doors. Companies were reluctant to speak out, fearing Trump's wrath. But the clock was ticking. Trump wants his Big Beautiful Bill to become law by July 4. With less than a week to go, there was still no public sign that his team, or the Republicans in Congress, were ready to compromise. On Thursday night, though, the tax bloodbath was averted. Bessent announced that he'd extracted surrender terms from the finance ministers of the G7 – Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Canada – and told Congress to drop section 899. 'It's a big relief,' says Emanuel Adam, a Washington-based executive director at the lobby group British American Business. CS Venkatakrishnan, the Barclays chief, called it 'welcome progress, and a significant outcome for a great many UK companies like Barclays that invest in the US'. But a deal with Trump always comes at a price. The main target of s899 was efforts to impose a global minimum corporation tax, part of a OECD-led initiative, and in particular the Under-Taxed Profits Rule (UTPR). This aims to ensure that multinational companies always pay a tax rate of at least 15pc on their earnings, rather than being able to shelter profits in lower-tax countries. Bessent says the G7 will now not impose that levy on US businesses. The risk now, observers say, is that an American exemption to the UTPR could start to unravel that whole process, sending the world back into the rabbit warren of widespread tax avoidance. 'The biggest success has been to get a load of low-tax or no-tax countries, like the Gulf states and most of the island tax havens, to up their company tax rate to 15pc,' says Tim Sarson, the head of tax policy at KPMG UK. 'If they think they can reduce that rate and attract US companies to their jurisdiction, that might start to unpick the new system more widely.' Digital services taxes, which were one of Trump's explicit targets of s899, are still on the table. The president sees these as unfair imposts on American tech giants, but The Telegraph understands these will be fought over as part of his trade negotiations with individual countries, rather than as part of this deal. Closer to home, there's the question of whether the s899 deal will deliver yet another blow to Reeves's already shattered Budget. The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that the OECD 'Pillar Two' deal, which includes the global minimum tax rate and the UTPR, would deliver £1.3bn of extra revenue this financial year and next, climbing to £1.5bn by 2029-30. Most of this, though, would come from a different part of Pillar Two, which targets UK companies with subsidiaries in offshore tax havens, rather than US businesses. Tax experts say revenue from the UTPR, which the UK would collect from foreign companies, would be difficult to model and likely have only a small impact on the OBR's forecast. Price worth paying Even if there is a hit to Britain's tax take, it may have been a price worth paying to shield Britain's corporate A-list from Trump's brutal tax. With many blue chip companies reporting their annual or half-yearly results next month, boards were preparing and planning for the inevitable questions from alarmed shareholders. Many were evaluating what could be done to minimise the impact in the short term, in the hope that the political weather in the US might change after the Congressional midterm elections next year and the presidential election in 2028. 'I don't think companies would have retracted their investments or stalled major plans, but it would create additional friction. Projects might have taken longer,' British American Business's Adam says. 'Companies are agile, and companies know how to adjust. But this would have consumed resources and money that could be spent on other things.' Damage to confidence Although the immediate crisis seems to have passed, the Trump administration may have inflicted some lingering damage on the confidence that UK companies and investors have in the US as a place to do business. It just doesn't look quite like the safe, secure and stable proposition it used to be. Joe Dabrowski, of the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association, says that when you add the s899 scare to the tariff threats, Trump's fight with Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve chairman, and his radical surgery on corporate governance, the sum total is much greater uncertainty. 'It all creates an environment where investors just have to tread more carefully. There is a lot more thinking and due diligence and risk you have to factor in,' he says. 'Some of it might just be white noise and political posturing, but at times it's very difficult to tell the difference between that and reality.' And although Reeves probably had little choice but to yield to Trump, the G7's readiness to give way has probably only increased that risk. 'There's the fear, which I'm sure UK Treasury has as well, that if you give the Americans this, then the next time they're unhappy about something, they'll try the same trick,' says KPMG's Sarson. With the mercurial Trump barely started on his four-year term, British businesses should probably just put those contingency plans in a drawer, rather than feed them to the shredder.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
US attacks on Iran redraw calculus of use of force for allies and rivals around globe
For US allies and rivals around the world, Donald Trump's strikes on Iran have redrawn the calculus of the White House's readiness to use force in the kind of direct interventions that the president said he would make a thing of the past under his isolationist 'America First' foreign policy. From Russia and China to Europe and across the global south, the president's decision to launch the largest strategic bombing strike in US history indicates a White House that is ready to employ force abroad – but reluctantly and under the extremely temperamental and unpredictable leadership of the president. 'Trump being able to act and being willing to act when he saw an opportunity will definitely give [Vladimir] Putin pause,' said Fiona Hill, a former Trump national security adviser and one of the principal authors of the UK's strategic defence review. While Trump has pulled back from his earlier warnings about potential regime change in Iran, going from tweeting 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER' to 'NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' within 72 hours, he has nonetheless reinforced Russian perceptions of the United States as an unpredictable and aggressive rival that will not unilaterally abandon its ability to use force abroad. 'It has some pretty dire warnings for Putin himself about what could happen at a time of weakness,' Hill said. 'It will just convince Putin even more that no matter what the intent of a US president, the capability to destroy is something that has to be taken seriously.' It also shows a shift in the calculus in Washington DC, where hawks – along with Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu – were able to convince Trump that launching a strike on Iran was preferable to pursuing negotiations that had not yet failed. That could have knock-on effects for the war in Ukraine, where Republicans and foreign policy hardliners have grown more vocal about Putin's attacks on cities and the need for a tougher sanctions strategy. Although he hasn't changed his policy on resuming military support to Ukraine, Trump is publicly more exasperated with Putin. When Putin offered Trump to mediate between Israel and Iran, Trump said he responded: 'No, I don't need help with Iran. I need help with you.' In the immediate term, however, the strikes on Iran are unlikely to have an impact on Russia's war in Ukraine. 'I don't see it as having a big impact on the Ukraine war, because although Iran was very helpful at the beginning stages in providing Russia with [Shahed] drones, Russia has now started manufacturing their own version and have actually souped them up,' said Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, during a roundtable discussion. More broadly, Trump's attacks could undermine a growing 'axis of resistance' including Russia and China, given the pair's reluctance to come to Iran's aid beyond issuing strong condemnations of the attacks during security discussions under the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) being held in China this week. 'It also shows that Russia is not a very valuable friend, because they're not really lifting a finger to help their allies in Iran and returning all the help that they've received,' Boot added. The strike could also have implications for China, which has escalated military pressure around Taiwan in recent months and has been holding 'dress rehearsals' for a forced reunification despite US support for the island, according to testimony from Adm Samuel Paparo, the commander of US Indo-Pacific Command. Trump had promised a tough line on China, and many of his top advisers are either China hawks or believe that the US military should reposition its forces and focus from Europe and the Middle East to Asia in order to manage China as a 'pacing threat'. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Yet his previous hesitancy to use US force abroad could have emboldened Beijing to believe that the US would not come to the direct aid of Taiwan if a military conflict would break out – the one wild card in what would otherwise probably be a lopsided conflict between China and Taiwan. Experts cautioned that the stakes were far different, and the conflicts too far removed, to draw direct conclusions about Trump's readiness to intervene if a conflict broke out between China and Taiwan. Trump's administration appears further embroiled in Middle East diplomacy than it wanted and its pivot to focus on China has been delayed as well. And while some close to the military say the strikes have regained credibility lost after some recent setbacks, including the withdrawal from Afghanistan, others have said that it won't send the same message for military planners in Moscow or Beijing. 'We shouldn't conflate willingness to use force in a very low risk situation with deterring other types of conflicts or using force when it's going to be incredibly costly – which is what it would be if we were to come to the defence of Taiwan,' said Dr Stacie Pettyjohn of the Center for a New American Security during an episode of the Defense & Aerospace Air Power podcast. Around the world, US rivals may use the strikes to reinforce the image of the US as an aggressive power that prefers to use force rather than negotiate – a message that may break through with countries already exhausted with a temperamental White House. 'The fact that it all happened so fast, there wasn't much multilateral involvement or chance for diplomacy, I think, is something Russians can point to as an indication of, you know, imperialism to the global south,' said Aslı Aydıntaşbaş, a fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings during a conference call. 'But also in their talking points to United States and western allies, they will definitely make a point of highlighting this as something great powers do, and in a way that normalizes Russia's language on its own [conflicts].
