Lifesciences transparency Reporting has expanded in the last decade, from limited state transparency reporting in the US to global national transparency regulations, industry directives, and more across 60 countries.
In this new global transparency landscape, country-specific transparency laws, industry regulations, diverse business practices, different languages, and disparate information systems increase complexity for the global transparency compliance teams.
Small to Medium sized manufacturers with measured resources have to prioritize transparency report preparation, spend monitoring, stakeholders alignment, data privacy, and more. To better manage their transparency reporting, manufacturers have been trying to unify their global transparency systems and staff.
However, after the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its judgment in Schrems II, invalidating the EU-US Privacy Shield; the compliance teams have to rework their transparency system unification strategy.
Companies, that control any private data, including transparency reporting, have to rework their policies, contracts, controls, and system configurations, to protect the privacy of EU citizens’ data against any breach by hackers, data processors, and government agencies.
Is there a best practice blueprint for compliance teams to follow to meet EU data privacy regulations while developing common global transparency systems?
We believe there is a best practice blueprint, it is sometimes referred to as Global Transparency & Privacy 2.0.
Recently a group of industry practice leaders, global systems experts, and partners from Lifesciences EU law firms explored the specific capabilities and challenges for global compliance teams to consider under Global transparency & Privacy 2.0.
In a follow-up blog, we will share a summary of their findings and commentary.