Fortune Staff

Aggregate sales hit $37.8 trillion last year—an increase of 19%, the highest annual growth rate in the list’s history.

Global 500

Previous Rank

Revenues ($M)

Revenue Percent Change

Profits ($M)

Profits Percent Change

Assets ($M)

Employees

GSK | 2022 Global 500

legacy

Key Financials (Last Fiscal Year)

Total Stockholder Equity ($M)

Profit Ratios

Profit as % of Revenues

Profits as % of Assets

Profits as % of Stockholder Equity

GSK | 2022 Global 500 | Fortune

Sophie Mellor

GSK says its COVID antibody therapy works against Omicron. Here’s what other drugmakers say about their treatments

/2021/12/07/gsk-covid-antibody-effective-against-omicron-pfizer-merck-gilead-eli-lilly-antibody-antiviral-treatments/

David Meyer

CureVac scraps its first-generation COVID-19 vaccine candidate, shares tumble

/2021/10/12/curevac-shares-tumble-scraps-mrna-covid-19-vaccine-gsk-bayer/

Suzi Ring

Bloomberg

Glaxo reaches $2.2 billion deal with Alector to develop drug targeting Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s

/2021/07/02/glaxo-reaches-2-2-billion-deal-with-alector-to-develop-drug-targeting-alzheimers-parkinsons/

James Paton

Riley Griffin

GlaxoSmithKline gets rid of Trump’s vaccine adviser Slaoui for sexual harassment

/2021/03/24/glaxo-smith-kline-moncef-slaoui-us-vaccine-czar-trump-sexual-harassment-trump-administration/

The only woman leading a major drug company talks vaccines, the importance of R&D and why she rejects the idea of "CEOs as superheros."

Leadership Next: GSK CEO, Emma Walmsley

Leadership

I feel like Allen, I have to say uh doing this podcast, I not only get so much amazing advice for the workplace but also parenting advice. There are a lot of big life on communication. I don't know if you off my kids, I think it would be welcome to leadership. Next, the podcast about the changing rules of business leadership. I'm Alan Murray and I'm the world has woken up to the power and importance of adult vaccination. I think, you know, we're all in a very different place now than we were three years ago. And actually, as we've woken up to how vaccines can protect us and that everyone recognizes it's always better for burdened healthcare systems, burdened health care budgets and individuals to prevent disease rather than treat it. It's very exciting that G S K has the first approval in history of an R S V vaccine. Did you ever think you would be a CEO? Absolutely not, but I, I absolutely not. But I've always been um extremely curious, hungry to learn, explore the world. Um and, and been lucky enough to do work that was very inspiring for me. You know, I violently reject the notion of CEO S of as superheroes. I think by definition and leadership, it is about helping others collectively and individually to do more together than we can ever do. Uh uh Individually, there is a real opportunity for um next gen technologies to improve the biggest challenge of our sector, which is the productivity of R and D. It can take a decade. It cost billions of dollars and on average has a 90% failure rate to, you know, discover, develop and invent new medicines and vaccines. It's the most profound challenge of our industry and also of society. And you know, when we talk about the burden of healthcare costs, the single best thing we can do is innovate more. You are the only woman ceo of a major pharmaceutical company. And I'm just always curious, I mean, is that a distinction that is important to you? Do you think about it at all? Do you feel a sense of responsibility there? You know, I don't know how it is for you. Ma I, I personally, I, I have always tried not to define my career by my gender first, but that doesn't mean I'm not extremely thoughtful and have a tremendous sense of responsibility as well. Um To highlight what's possible, you know, you have to be conscious of your uh responsibilities if you like as a, as a role model, but also to highlight what needs to change

These are the most important women in global business.

Introducing the 2021 Most Powerful Women International list

fortune's most powerful women international is our yearly ranking of the world's top female business executives outside of the US. The most powerful women international list is something we've done for many years and it looks at women leading business that are based anywhere outside of the U. S. Number one this year. On the most powerful women international list is Emma Walmsley. She's the Ceo of GSK or GlaxoSmithKline, the british pharmaceutical company. She is a repeat from last year. But this year, Walmsley is facing her biggest test yet, pressure from activist hedge fund Elliott management to step down. She has the backing of her board and other major shareholders, though boldly looks to develop GSK into a drug and vaccine making powerhouse. Three newcomers this year by actually based in Asia Helen Wong became Singapore's first female bank Ceo, this january when she was appointed group Ceo of OcBc Bank, Christina Jew became Ceo of Walmart China last may and to lead the retail giant's 11 billion and growing China business. Diva pedal car Ceo of Hdfc life, one of India's largest life insurance companies is also a newcomer this year. One trend we've seen among the women on the list, which has been interesting is that a number of them are brought in to really crisis situations that companies and the Wamsley took over an underperforming GlaxoSmithKline martina Merz Who is in the top 10 of this year's list is the Ceo of Justin corrupt. He's trying to sew off parts of the business and make it profitable again. The Ceo of AviVA, which is a huge insurance company based in the UK, is doing the same. So often times, these women are brought into kind of clean up a business that's been left in really bad shape. It's very important to have an international list so that we can showcase women leading global companies and doing great things outside of the US. Many countries are actually behind the US in terms of women's leaders. So I think it's important to spotlight the women leaders that are around the world and inspire the next generation of speakers.

[ MUSIC ] Over the last decade or so, a new industry really has developed, and that's the industry of direct- to- consumer genetic testing. It really is a completely different model than the traditional model of doing genetic or genomic testing, which would be much more clinic based or clinic focused. [ BLANK_AUDIO ] We haven't really worked out what the rules should be so it's a bit of a regulatory morass that contrasts a lot with getting a test in an established medical environment. In the state run programs there are very, very serious. And strict legal protections about exactly how that information is used. And most of those protections would not apply in the direct to consumer context. [ MUSIC ] In a clinical relationship, it's the obligation of the clinician offering you that test To act in your best interest. So you can be pretty confident that no one is offering you a test just because they want to make money from the test. Or that they want to do something nefarious with the information. That protection really is not the case in other environments. Where the purpose for gathering data and information about individuals may be much more to, for example, aggregate data, or aggregate a data set that then can be used for other purposes. For example pharmaceutical companies, others who have an interest in aggregating large volumes of data. [ MUSIC ] Regardless of which technology is used the interpretation is very, very difficult and complicated. It's not a simple thing like you read it and dip a little thing in a dish and it turns green or red and it's really straightforward. It's very hard to actually interpret. What it actually means and then what it means for an individual. They're often right about the particular genetic sequence that you have. What varies is how you call that or whether you interpret that as being something that is actually associated with a disease or is not associated with a disease. Having a genetic predisposition to a disease is not the same thing as having the disease itself. Although, increasingly, because we can identify that kind of risk We are creating a whole new category of individual that some people call the worried well. Other people talk about them as previvers or people that are dealing with the consequences of having an illness even before they are diagnosed. [ MUSIC ] Who owns the data? How the data will be managed is actually mostly determined by the agreement that is flashed up quickly across the screen. Very few people take the time to actually look at them or read and in the case of direct to consumer, you probably should do that. It really will determine whether information gets shared, whether it gets resold, etcetera.

5 Things To Consider Before Taking A Home Genetics Test

Health

Inexpensive consumer kits can present a host of problems.

 What a year for big mergers for the drug industry. And especially that huge deal between Pfizer and Allergan. What does that deal mean for your industry? If you look at it from our point of view, it has no impact on us at all. We don't compete with any of those products. It doesn't really change anything from our perspective. I think what we are much more focused on are what's happening in the companies who are developing technologies which could develop products which are more of a threat to us, and how do we compete with those. If I'm honest with you, this kind of transaction doesn't really change that territory. You're saying that the Pfizer Allergan combination doesn't pose more of a competitive threat at all for Glaxo? I don't think this makes a big difference to our competitive landscape. Our big competitors are companies like Gilead in HIV for example, or AstraZeneca Respiratory. Those are the companies that we tend to be focused on. There have been reports that Pfizer approached GlaxoSmithKline about a possible takeover. Obviously they were turned away. Tell us why. Well, we don't talk about any kind of conversations that we may or may not be involved in or have been involved in anemone for obvious reasons. So unfortunately, that's the one question I'm not going to be able to give you any kind of comment on. Given all the deal making that's going on in your industry and companies getting bigger and bigger, can Glaxo really go it alone and still compete in this very competitive environment? Absolutely. I mean, we're a huge company. We've got over 100,000 employees. We operate in 130 countries around the world. But do you think it's just a matter of time that Glaxo is going to have to partner up with somebody, whether you're a buyer or seller? No, I don't think it is. We've just done a transaction with Novartis to build up the two areas we wanted to strengthen. We feel like those areas have got tremendous growth. We're signaling a very strong optimism for the growth of consumer and vaccines over the next five years. I prefer that. Why? Because it's more focused. I haven't put the whole company in play. I can only spend three or four years going through a massive integration. It's something we can do in a very targeted way, it's very focused. That's a great game plan for us over the next several years. We're very happy with that. And it doesn't matter to us that we're the biggest or not in the sector. We're big where we need to be big, we lead where we need to lead. As you know, the Pfizer and Allergan deal has really stirred up debate about these so-called tax inversions. I'd like to get your view on these so-called tax avoidance tactics in the context of the overall industry. Is it helpful or harmful? As far as the overall industry's concerned, the industry unfortunately over the last several years has attracted too much controversy for a variety of reasons. What we all have to focus on as members of this industry is to get the message across about the great things that the industry develops, the great work that our research scientists are doing. And we need to try and figure out ways to solve problems to improve the reputation of the industry. Pfizer's CEO Ian Read has said that this decision is good for the country. Our fortune editor-in-chief thinks otherwise and says it's a bad decision. It's going to have long lasting impact for the industry and for the country. And he calls it Pfizer's desertion. I mean, where do you stand on this? In our case, we're a British company. We've been a British company for 300 years. This year's our 300th anniversary. But because we're a British company, we focus on working with the British government to try and improve the environment so that we can invest more in Britain, create more research in Britain, as a consequence, generate more exports. 98% of my sales are outside of Britain. So Britain is not important to GSK as a market, but it's a critical important center for R&D and manufacture, and we're a critically important company to Britain for tax and job creation. I do think companies, just like individuals, have a role to play in society. We can't be separate from it. Having a role to play in society it doesn't mean just take, it means pay back, it means contribute, it means helping to build and evolve a better system. So my overall view is much better to take that assertion, that commitment, and then work through problems with people to make it better for everybody. 

Why GlaxoSmithKline Won't Do A Merger

CEO Andrew Witty explains to Fortune's Susie Gharib.

Year	Revenues ($M)	Profits ($M)	Assets ($M)	Total Stockholder Equity ($M)
2021	$43,7321.5%	$7,37324.4%	$109,949	$19,940
2020	$43,0734.8%	$5,92722.7%	$105,552	$15,106
2019	$41,1095.8%	$4,832145%	$73,941	$5,552
2018	$38,8683.3%	$1,97360.3%	$76,252	$-92
2017	$37,6423%	$1,231-90.4%	$72,985	$1,389

GSK

Company Information

Key Financials (Last Fiscal Year)
As of 8/3/2022

Profit Ratios
As of 8/3/2022

GSK Rank History

Historical Data

GSK

Company Information

Key Financials (Last Fiscal Year)As of 8/3/2022

Profit RatiosAs of 8/3/2022

GSK Rank History

Historical Data

Key Financials (Last Fiscal Year)
As of 8/3/2022

Profit Ratios
As of 8/3/2022