Sally Susman departs Pfizer after 18 years
Why it matters: Susman is credited as one of the early architects of the modern corporate affairs function.
During her time at Pfizer, she managed three CEO transitions, supported the rollout of the COVID vaccine, launched the foundation's Accord for a Healthier World initiative and helped the company dodge a high-profile proxy battle.
Catch up quick: Susman joined Pfizer in 2007, overseeing communications, corporate responsibility, ESG, global policy and government relations, investor relations and patient advocacy.
Prior to joining the pharmaceutical company, she led communications and corporate affairs at the Estée Lauder Companies and American Express.
Susman started her career in Washington, D.C. supporting legislative affairs in the U.S. Senate and Department of Commerce.
What they're saying: In a message to employees, Bourla explained the corporate affairs restructuring as another step "to prioritize focus, speed, and simplify our work processes."
"As we continue to deliver results, my dear friend and longtime colleague, Sally Susman, and I have decided to integrate the critical capabilities of our Corporate Affairs function into the Pfizer organizations where partnerships already exist," he wrote. "Sally will help ensure a smooth transition."
Details: The various functions within corporate affairs will be absorbed by the business units they support, a source tells Axios.
For example, the U.S. government affairs and public policy team will report to the U.S. commercial president, the international policy and public affairs group will report to the international president, and investor relations will report into the chief financial officer.
The big picture: Susman's exit is part of a broader move to shrink the company's most senior ranks as it seeks to return to pre-pandemic operating margins, according to a source familiar with the decision.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Bioavailability Enhancement Technologies and Services Market Industry Trends and Global Forecasts to 2035: Bioavailability Sector Set to Reach USD 10.22 Billion by 2035
The global bioavailability enhancement technologies and services market is projected to grow from USD 3.2 billion in 2025 to USD 10.22 billion by 2035, with a CAGR of 11.11%. Driven by increasing demand for drug solubility solutions, the industry sees significant growth prospects, with North America leading the market. Demand for Bioavailability Enhancement List of Bioavailability Enhancement Service Providers Dublin, July 21, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Bioavailability Enhancement Technologies and Services Market Industry Trends and Global Forecasts to 2035" report has been added to offering. The global bioavailability enhancement technologies and services market is estimated to grow from USD 3.2 billion in 2025, to USD 10.22 billion by 2035, at a CAGR of 11.11% during the forecast period, to 2035. Bioavailability Enhancement Technologies and Services Market: Growth and Trends In recent years, the focus of drug developers has shifted towards development of lipophilic drug compounds due to the increasing issues with aqueous solubility of drugs. According to a recent study, around 90% of NCEs belong to BCS class II and IV, which are known to be associated with low permeability. Given that a large number of drugs fail to reach the market due to poor bioavailability, the industry is looking for various tools / methods to mitigate this challenge. Moreover, as many companies seek to re-formulate existing product candidates that exhibit poor bioavailability, the demand for novel bioavailability enhancement methods has grown significantly. It is worth mentioning that since 2000, more than 55 players offering bioavailability enhancement technologies and services have been established. Amidst the growing competition, the availability of cutting-edge tools and technologies has emerged as a differentiating factor. This has led many service / technology providers to actively expand their portfolios, either through strategic acquisitions / mergers or entering into service alliances with other bioavailability enhancement companies. As drug developers continue to evaluate novel drug targets and classes, the bioavailability enhancement domain is expected to grow at a steady pace over the next decade. Bioavailability Enhancement Technologies and Services Market: Key Insights The report delves into the current state of the bioavailability enhancement technologies and services market and identifies potential growth opportunities within the industry. Some key findings from the report include: Outsourcing has emerged as a popular model for improving drug bioavailability, with nearly 115 companies offering a wide range of services based on different bioavailability enhancement principles. At present, more than 80% of the players are offering bioavailability enhancement services focused on improving the drug solubility, primarily by adopting the solid dispersion approach. Advances in bioavailability enhancement technologies have enabled the development of novel formulations with improved pharmacokinetic properties, resulting in lucrative business opportunities for technology providers. Over 50% of the technologies are focused on enhancing the bioavailability of small molecules, specifically those intended for delivery via the oral route. A rise in partnerships focused on bioavailability enhancement services and technology platforms validates the growing interest in this domain; ~40% of such deals were instances of mergers and acquisitions. In the past decade, several clinical trials have been registered for evaluating novel therapeutic interventions with improved bioavailability, across different geographical regions. 5,800+ articles discussing various bioavailability enhancement techniques have been published in different scientific journals, thereby indicating the rapid pace of research activity within this domain. Bioavailability enhancement domain is characterized by extensive R&D activity, leading to the development of multiple high value technologies and a strong intellectual property portfolio. With the market evolving at a steady pace, emerging players need to incorporate innovative bioavailability enhancement technologies to augment their service portfolio and surpass the competition. Considering the concerns related to low solubility / permeability of certain marketed drugs and a large number of NCEs, the demand for bioavailability enhancement technologies and services is anticipated to rise in the future. Driven by the increase in number of BCS II and BCS IV molecules being evaluated in early phases of development, the bioavailability enhancement domain is likely to grow at CAGR of ~11%, till 2035. Bioavailability Enhancement Technologies and Services Market: Key Segments New Drug Approvals Occupy the Largest Share of the Bioavailability Enhancement Technologies and Services Market BCS II Drug Class is Likely to Dominate the Bioavailability Enhancement Technologies and Services Market During the Forecast Period Size Reduction Approach is the Fastest Growing Segment of the Bioavailability Enhancement Technologies and Services Market During the Forecast Period Liquid Dosage Form is Likely to Dominate the Bioavailability Enhancement Technologies and Services Market Bioavailability Enhancement Technologies and Services Market: Research Coverage Market Sizing and Opportunity Analysis: The report features an in-depth analysis of the bioavailability enhancement technologies and services market, focusing on key market segments, including type of drug class, type of BCS classification, type of bioavailability enhancement approach, type of dosage form, and key geographical regions. Market Landscape 1: A comprehensive evaluation of bioavailability enhancement service providers, considering various parameters, such as year of establishment, company size, location of headquarters, bioavailability enhancement principle supported, bioavailability enhancement approach employed, type of dosage form supported, and route of administration of drug product. Market Landscape 2: A comprehensive evaluation of bioavailability enhancement technology providers, considering various parameters, such as year of establishment, company size, location of headquarters, bioavailability enhancement principle supported, bioavailability enhancement approach employed, type of molecule, type of dosage form supported, route of administration, availability for license and associated intellectual property rights. Key Insights: A detailed analysis, encompassing the contemporary market trends, using six schematic representations, including a world map representation depicting the region-wise distribution of various stakeholders engaged in offering bioavailability enhancement services, on the basis of their company size, a waffle chart representation, highlighting the regional distribution of bioavailability enhancement service providers, based on various types of bioavailability enhancement approaches employed by them, a heat map representation of bioavailability enhancement service providers, based on bioavailability enhancement approaches and type of dosage form, a horizontally grouped bar chart, highlighting the distribution of bioavailability enhancement service providers based on their company size and type of bioavailability enhancement principles, an insightful tree map representation of bioavailability enhancement service providers, as well as a 3D bubble analysis comparing the key players engaged in drug bioavailability enhancement market, based on several relevant parameters. Company Profiles: In-depth profiles of key industry players offering bioavailability enhancement technologies and services, focusing on company overviews, financial information, bioavailability enhancement services portfolio, recent developments and an informed future outlook. Competitive Benchmarking Analysis: A competitive benchmarking analysis that emphasizes the primary focus areas of various players engaged in the drug bioavailability enhancement market. This analysis compares their existing capabilities within and beyond their respective peer groups based in North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and other regions. It offers stakeholders insights into potential strategies for achieving a competitive edge in the industry. Partnerships and Collaborations: An analysis of partnerships established in this sector, since 2013, covering mergers and acquisitions, licensing agreements, alliances, product development and manufacturing agreements, research and development agreements, product development and commercialization agreements, service agreements, and other agreements. Publication Analysis: A detailed review of peer-reviewed, scientific articles related to research on bioavailability enhancement of drug compounds and / or drug candidates, based on parameters, such as year of publication, type of publication, popular keywords, top journals, top publishers and top copyright holders. Patent Analysis: Detailed analysis of various patents filed / granted related to bioavailability enhancement approaches and technologies based on type of patent, patent application year, patent publication year, bioavailability enhancement approach, CPC symbols, geography, emerging focus area, type of organization, leading industry and non-industry players, and individual patent assignees. It also includes a patent benchmarking analysis and a detailed valuation analysis. Clinical Trial Analysis: Examination of completed, ongoing, and planned clinical studies of various bioavailability enhancement of various drug compounds and / or candidates based on parameters like trial registration year, trial phase, current recruitment status, enrolled patient population, study design, type of sponsor / collaborator, leading industry and non-industry players, type of molecule and key geographies. Technology Evaluation Framework: An insightful framework evaluating the bioavailability enhancement approaches based on various parameters, such as number of technologies, number of approved drugs, trends highlighted in published literature and patents, and business models adopted by industry stakeholders. It also provides a value addition matrix for respective bioavailability enhancement approaches currently employed by stakeholders. Players in the Bioavailability Enhancement Technologies and Services Market Profiled in the Report, Include: Adare Pharma Solutions Ascendia Pharmaceuticals Catalent Lonza Lubrizol Life Science Health Pace Life Sciences Quotient Sciences WuXi STA Reasons to Buy this Report The report provides a comprehensive market analysis, offering detailed revenue projections of the overall market and its specific sub-segments. This information is valuable to both established market leaders and emerging entrants. Stakeholders can leverage the report to gain a deeper understanding of the competitive dynamics within the market. By analyzing the competitive landscape, businesses can make informed decisions to optimize their market positioning and develop effective go-to-market strategies. The report offers stakeholders a comprehensive overview of the market, including key drivers, barriers, opportunities, and challenges. This information empowers stakeholders to stay abreast of market trends and make data-driven decisions to capitalize on growth prospects. Additional Benefits Complimentary PPT Insights Packs Complimentary Excel Data Packs for all Analytical Modules in the Report 10% Free Content Customization Detailed Report Walkthrough Session with Research Team For more information about this report visit About is the world's leading source for international market research reports and market data. We provide you with the latest data on international and regional markets, key industries, the top companies, new products and the latest trends. Attachments Demand for Bioavailability Enhancement List of Bioavailability Enhancement Service Providers CONTACT: CONTACT: Laura Wood,Senior Press Manager press@ For E.S.T Office Hours Call 1-917-300-0470 For U.S./ CAN Toll Free Call 1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Trump sharpens the axe for the Education Department. Swing away, Mr. President.
Despite the Department of Education's massive budget, students in the U.S. far too often lag behind peers in other industrialized countries. The largest employer in the United States isn't a Fortune 100 company like Alphabet, Amazon or Apple. It's the federal government − and that's a problem. Thankfully, President Donald Trump continues to slash bureaucratic bloat. On July 11, the administration sent layoff notices to more than 1,300 State Department workers, and three days later, the Supreme Court allowed Trump to move forward with plans to gut the Department of Education. That's bad news for government employees, but great for taxpayers, especially given the Education Department's expense − $268 billion in the last fiscal year − and its lack of effectiveness. Despite the department's massive budget, students in the U.S. far too often lag behind peers in other industrialized countries. In 2022, for example, American high school students scored behind teens from 25 other countries on an international math test. And we're losing ground. Math and reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress continue to decline. Part of the drop can be attributed to pandemic-related learning loss, but reading scores in the U.S. began to decline in 2019 − before Americans had even heard of COVID-19. But how will pulling the federal government out of K-12 education help? It's important to note that more than 90% of public school funding comes from state and local governments along with foundations and other private sources. Much of the federal education budget is used to feed the bureaucracy, which generates rules and regulations that local administrators and teachers must obey. If all of that bureaucratic oversight consistently produced better results, there might be a case for keeping it. But the data clearly shows it doesn't. Removing federal bureaucrats from our schools should give states and local school districts more flexibility to set education policy, and that should improve choices for parents like me. Returning more control to the states also should improve efficiency and enable schools to better meet students' needs. Opinion: Our schools are struggling because teachers unions don't put kids first Government efficiency is vital for the American people Trump isn't cutting jobs only at the Education Department, of course. The State Department layoffs follow reductions at other federal agencies this spring. The cuts are driven by necessity: our national debt is now more than $37 trillion and the annual budget deficit will top $1 trillion again this year. So, I was surprised to see news reports paint the laid off State Department workers as heroic. Cameras caught teary goodbyes and applause for well-liked employees. I don't recall the same concern when President Joe Biden halted construction of the Keystone Pipeline, which cost 1,500 workers their jobs and eliminated plans to create thousands more. Opinion: PBS, NPR push liberal propaganda. Trump is right to cut their funding. Companies often restructure. So should the federal government. While job loss is certainly scary, and I don't wish it on anyone, federal job cuts should be put in the context of the overall jobs market. Microsoft announced this month it would eliminate 9,000 jobs, not because the company is failing but because it's retooling as the market changes. Other companies, including Intel and Meta, have announced plans to restructure this year as the emergence of artificial intelligence and other technology changes how Americans work. The federal government should be as flexible as our top companies in adapting to a changing world. Yet, progressives have criticized the Trump administration's efforts to restructure the federal bureaucracy as cruel. The president's job, however, isn't to employ as many bureaucrats as possible. It's to deliver effective services as efficiently as possible to taxpayers. Dismantling ineffective and inefficient bureaucracies like the Education Department is a long overdue step toward achieving that goal. Nicole Russell is a columnist at USA TODAY and a mother of four who lives in Texas. Contact her at nrussell@ and follow her on X, formerly Twitter: @russell_nm. Sign up for her weekly newsletter, The Right Track, here.
Business of Fashion
5 hours ago
- Business of Fashion
A New Challenge for New York Fashion
NEW YORK — At its midcentury peak, the streets of the Garment District — a stretch of Midtown home to New York's clothing manufacturing industry — were filled with so many rushing racks of fabric and A-line dresses it was hard to pass through. That romantic image is far in the past. Since the 1970s, the city's manufacturing capacity has diminished over 90 percent, according to the New York Economic Development Council. Today, former garment factories, workshops and storefronts sit abandoned. Still, it's the historic and operational centre of New York fashion, where third-generation makers and some of the industry's biggest names craft runway collections and Met Gala dresses. A new zoning measure passed by the Department of City Planning, or DCP, in June could change that. If approved by city council and New York mayor Eric Adams, as expected later this summer, the Midtown South Mixed-Use plan, known as MSMX, will lift manufacturing zoning protections to allow the neighbourhood's buildings to be converted into housing. The district saw manufacturing rules relaxed in both 2004 and 2018, and given the industry's shrinkage in the area, many consider the move overdue. Fashion wouldn't be pushed out, DCP said. In its environmental impact analysis, however, it found 114 fashion-related businesses, out of a total of nearly 500 still operating in the area, could be displaced, mostly due to the inevitable rent increases that would follow redevelopment. Opponents worry that in its current state, the plan could further harm an already weak ecosystem, still feeling the aftershocks of Covid's impact. While the Garment District is far from its height, it's not yet a relic. Brands — especially young labels — rely on the area's sample and pattern-makers, sewers, finishers, button suppliers and other specialised makers, and their close proximity fosters creativity and resource sharing. The impact wouldn't be immediate, but it could force some makers to either relocate or shutter altogether, which has implications for fashion. 'This perpetual erosion of the Garment District is an active dismantling of our creative infrastructure,' said Tessa Maffucci, assistant chair of fashion at Pratt Institute and The Fashion Workforce Development Coalition lead. 'What has made New York a global capital is we have this innovative, playful, break-the-rules model that works because of this diverse ecosystem of makers that are centrally located and clustered together. When we lose that, we don't get the next Ralph Lauren.' Of course, Ralph Lauren emerged from a different Garment District, over 50 years ago. Now, it mostly operates as an 'R&D hub' with small-batch production, said Steven Kolb, chief executive of the Council of Fashion Designers of America. He doesn't believe the rezoning represents a major threat to the district's primary uses. But as designer Jackson Wiederhoeft, who makes his namesake ready-to-wear and bridal line in the Garment District, put it, 'It's a beautiful plant that's teetering and needs more soil … instead, we're putting it into a smaller pot and chopping off fruit. It's never going to grow into a huge tree if we keep reducing the size of the pot.' The situation is one of many challenges New York fashion faces today. Last year, The Partnership for New York City, a business advocacy group, published a report with consulting firm McKinsey, alleging New York's status as a global fashion capital is at risk, citing lack of support for emerging talent, the closure of specialty stores, high operating costs, disintegration of manufacturing and a fragmented and increasingly negligible fashion week. There's no clear solution to these problems, with fashion businesses in the middle. 'The challenge is to work within a system that is in disruption,' said Stan Herman, designer and former CFDA president. 'We're not moving backwards.' Everything Is an Ecosystem While much of fashion has filtered out of the Garment District for downtown or even further out to Bushwick, Long Island City and Sunset Park (which the city pushed for in 2018), it's still the symbolic center of the industry. 'It's a representation of New York itself. You had a dream, and you came to New York to make it happen,' said Wen Zhou, co-founder and chief executive of 3.1 Phillip Lim, which launched in the early 2000s. Brands including Thom Browne, Carolina Herrera and Calvin Klein have offices, ateliers and showrooms in the area, and often work with local finishers and patternmakers on samples and special pieces. Up-and-coming designers, such as Kallmeyer, TWP, Meruert Tolegen and Grace Ling, in particular, benefit from the collaboration, speed and access it provides. As a fashion capital, New York's evergreen advantage is its proximity to culture and American consumption. But a fashion capital needs a strong talent pool, top schools to churn it out, retailers, a fashion week that attracts international press and buyers, access to funding, media and production capabilities, all firing in tandem. 'Every piece of it needs the other piece to continue to go,' said Sergio Hudson, the LA-based designer of his namesake line, which is made entirely in New York. Fashion 'is all about immediacy,' said Zhou, and local production creates a 'feedback loop' that fosters experimentation and efficiency. When 3.1 Phillip Lim was just getting started, 'the speed and flexibility made it feel like we were able to do anything and everything.' But it's also crucial for vendors themselves, many of whom now share employees, depending on the unpredictable ebb and flow of work. The opportunity to learn in the district is a huge pull for New York's fashion schools, said Naika Colas, associate director of fashion management at Parsons School of Design. Working designers rely on the district's experts in construction and commerciality. 'They know exactly what needs to go in these stores. They know what Saks wants, they know what Neimans wants,' said Hudson. 'My brand wouldn't be what it was if it wasn't for those people that poured knowledge into me.' For designers just starting out who can't meet minimums to manufacture abroad or manage importing complexity, local production is often the only option. But proponents say there are advantages for anyone, especially now, given president Donald Trump's protectionist trade policies. Brands don't have to take as big of risks on inventory and can closely react to demand without falling into a pattern of discounting, said Gigi Burris, a milliner and the founder of Closely Crafted, an organisation aimed at preserving American craftsmanship. Though as a brand scales, producing in the Garment District gets more challenging because of capacity. Underlying the real-estate struggle is a skilled-talent crisis, which spans outside New York. Plus, technology is relatively aged. Ready-to-wear label Tanner Fletcher, for example, got its start in the Garment District in 2020, but to meet growth goals, moved half of its production to a factory in China this year. 'We're able to make a lot more and the quality is really good … [even with tariffs] it's still more cost effective to produce in China,' said designer Tanner Richie. Evening wear and wedding collections are still made in the Garment District because 'we need to be fitting it on customers really quickly.' Changed systems reflect a changed world. While New York needs to 'preserve, subsidise and support the garment manufacturing industry,' strict centralisation around the district is not important because designers can do a lot remotely, said Gary Wassner, founder of financing and factoring company Hilldun Corp. Something is lost, though. 'You lose the feeling of an industry working together, you lose the feeling of energy, excitement and creativity, being part of an ecosystem,' said Wassner. A Fashion or Finance Capital? There is some optimism: Fashion stakeholders such as the NYFWDC, CFDA, Closely Crafted and Pratt Fashion want to harness the moment to secure support in a city where it's hard to come by, despite the industry contributing over $3 billion in annual tax revenue and immeasurable cultural impact. While other cities like Paris and Milan protect fashion as a crucial cultural export with tax and trade incentives, subsidised shows and support schemes, New York has toggled between inconsistent and laissez faire approaches. It also lacks the stabilising influence of luxury giants. 'Fashion is a big economic driver,' said Kolb. 'The city knows and understands that … but sometimes we are at a disadvantage because we don't get the government support that other cities get. Everything we do we're on our own.' The CFDA supported the 2018 rezoning, with the Economic Development Council promising $20 million in funding to aid in purchasing a fashion-specific building and tax abatements for landlords who house manufacturers, none of which materialised, said Kolb. The city also pledged funding to the Garment District Alliance (the neighbourhood's business development organisation), aimed at supporting the district, that the NYFWDC says has yet to be funneled to makers. 'You can point a lot of fingers,' said Kolb. But 'now in 2025 I want to see how you're going to make good on those promises.' In addition to re-upping pledges made in 2018, groups have advocated for expanding local workforce programs, and establishing a displacement relief fund for those negatively impacted. The CFDA has pushed for reconsideration of its 'The Local Production Fund,' a proposal that would offset costs to make in New York with credits to factories. Kolb said he feels positive about the progression of talks with the city. 'The garment and fashion sectors are important segments of the city's economy, and we are committed to investing in these sectors,' said Joe Marvilli, DCP deputy press secretary, in an email to BoF. 'We will continue to work with our partners across City government to identify how to support the district, including through non-zoning tools and small business support, as this plan moves forward.' Consistent business would reduce prices, said George Kalajian, a fifth-generation pleater who has worked with brands including Carolina Herrera, Khaite and Proenza Schouler. 'I have seven pleating machines. One is running almost every day. If two of my machines ran everyday, I could drop my prices by 50 percent. More work circulating here would be so much better for all of us,' Kalajian said. In New York, everything comes down to dollars and cents. The city has an affordability problem. Rising rents have quickened the pace of closures in the Garment District. Designers, meanwhile, lament the cost of showing, working and living as compared with other fashion capitals. In turn, some talent has seeped out. In the face of so many challenges, proactivity is important, said Herman. 'We have to be aggressive about how we feel about fashion, otherwise the world will pass us by,' Herman said.
