Portfolio strategy and capital allocation under uncertainty
The method that turns the sustainability criteria you adopted into funding decisions, and shows what each choice costs or gains in the risk-adjusted terms your portfolio committee already uses.
A company can meet every sustainability reporting obligation it has and still fund the portfolio it would have funded anyway. Adopting a criterion and acting on it are different things. Sustainability-adjusted portfolio selection puts sustainability inside the Phase 3 funding decision, next to probability of success and expected value, so the trade-off is priced rather than argued. It comes from my doctoral research at ETH Zurich and 18 years in pharmaceutical development, including ten at Novartis and Sandoz.
The question behind my doctoral thesis. Sustainability-adjusted portfolio selection of Phase 3 drug development programs — ETH Zurich, 2026.
ETH Zurich doctoral thesis (2026) · 18 years in pharmaceutical development, ten at Novartis and Sandoz · 23 peer-reviewed publications · 447-respondent international survey
Eighteen years of quantitative work in pharmaceutical development: the technique, the execution, and the decision.
I began as a biostatistician, moved into global programme leadership accountable for budget, governance and regulatory filing, and then spent four years at ETH Zurich examining how funding decisions get made.
Those are three altitudes on one problem. I work at all three, and separately with executives as a thinking partner.
A ten-minute checklist for a trial you are designing: eight elements, three sustainability pillars, each question marked by whether published guidance addresses it. Free.
Score your trial →A one-page point of view on why a criterion can be formally adopted and still leave the portfolio unchanged.
Read the point of view →Most organisations now say sustainability factors into what they fund. Whether it changes any particular decision is a separate question, and one that is rarely asked out loud. My doctorate is about that gap.
Does sustainability cost us value?
Sometimes, and sometimes the two point the same way. The method’s job is to show which, programme by programme, in the risk-adjusted terms your portfolio committee already uses, so the trade-off is a number you can decide on rather than a debate.
Can we trust the sustainability numbers?
ESG ratings disagree, and portfolio leaders are right to be wary of them. Every figure on this site is tied to a named, dated source, and the free trial checklist shows, question by question, whether published guidance covers it.
Isn’t ESG on its way out?
Reporting rules and labels change. The question of what you fund does not. This is a portfolio decision method, not a reporting exercise.
How is this different from an ESG rating or a sustainability report?
Ratings and reports describe the company after the fact. This method works inside the funding decision, before it is made.
On these figures. Every number traces to a named, dated source. Where my findings are conditional on the case studied, they say so — here and in the papers. I keep illustrative examples and verified results visibly apart. In a field that overclaims routinely, that distinction is most of the value.
Your next funding round is where your sustainability criteria either change a decision or they don’t. A short conversation is enough to tell which.