The goal for us is to try to eliminate cancer. So that's a high goal and we are already making significant progress in certain cancers.
I mentioned yesterday, by the way, that we had published a new ranking of S&P 500 companies, best companies for the future. Happy to say Johnson & Johnson was in the top 20. Right up there with all the tech companies and number one among the pharmaceutical companies. So congratulations on that. It says something about your leadership.
Thank you. No, I we are pleased with the recognition, but I would aim to be number one in the total ranking.
Overall, okay. Nvidia, look out.
And liver, look out. And look, I think it reflects the state of opinion of things right now. There's a tremendous focus on the technology companies that we see everywhere and hence why when you do a ranking, the majority of the companies that are on top are technology companies. Now, the value ultimately would be created by companies like us when we deploy that technology and our moment will arrive.
So you're arguing 20 is too low. 20 out of 500 is pretty good, but
Yeah, yeah, it's look, we are a company that has embarked in a significant transformation in order to make sure that we focus on areas where we can make a bigger difference. And that's medical innovation, medical breakthroughs. And I think that's a high cause and something that we are being successful at. So now we are squarely focused in medical innovation through medicines and medical technologies trying to address some of the most complex diseases that have a big social impact and that's what we are trying to do and I think that's driving growth for the company and a good perspective for the coming years which is also helped by technology too, right?
Yes, well let's dive into the transformation a little bit. I asked this group last night is there any CEO in the audience who isn't leading the transformation? I didn't get any hands on that so I assume everyone is but you really have. You've been there four years. It's a pretty phenomenal change over that four-year time. You've spun out the consumer business. You've made 30 to 35 billion dollars worth of acquisitions. You've changed Johnson & Johnson pretty dramatically. How would you describe the change? What's the difference between Johnson & Johnson of four years ago and Johnson & Johnson today?
That we are more focused and that we have more clarity on what is our strategy and it has a common umbrella which is we're going to make a difference in diseases that are complex that affect millions of people around the world. We're going to focus on cardiovascular disease, oncology, and neuroscience and we are going to be able to bring advances in the standard of care that are going to affect millions of people. So that's our focus today. So we are a medical innovation company.
You know it used to be said that the consumer business, the baby shampoo etc., provided the company stability, a little more predictability. What was wrong with that thesis?
The fact of the matter is that the company has evolved very positively and it has more focus today. So I think it's important for a company to share a common mission. And our mission is to address these important diseases through medical innovation. And in that context, consumer was better served by being an independent company like Kenvue. So, now we are a more focused company. We have clearer priorities. We can allocate capital better, and we can rally all our employees around the common cause of bringing medical breakthroughs to address these diseases.
You can tell the difference in the employees.
And while our consumer business was important for our identity, and still when we talk about Johnson & Johnson today, people may still believe that we are about baby shampoo or Band-Aids, the reality is that the majority of our business had already migrated into medicines and medical technologies. So, we were just acknowledging something that was real. This is giving us the opportunity to have higher revenues and higher growth. As a matter of fact, our 2025 trajectory was the best in our company history. We have a total shareholder return around 50% that had never happened in the past. And I trace that back to the focus that we have now squarely in medical innovation.
And part of that, of course, was a pretty aggressive M&A campaign. A number of big companies, Abiomed, Shockwave, Laminar. What ties those acquisitions together in your mind?
External innovation is always a way of trying to build your portfolio in a way that you are in the areas where medical need meets science, so where you can bring real improvements of the standard of care. The majority of our growth comes from our internal innovation or from acquisitions that we do very early on that take time to mature. For example, this year we have announced two acquisitions, both in the area of oncology, where we aim to be the number one global oncology company. We're already number two. So, you wouldn't say Johnson & Johnson
Uh you know, I prefer for them to do that, right?
What? You don't want to advertise for them, okay.
So, I mean, we acquired two companies. One company we announced yesterday.
So, both companies are companies that have new platforms to attack cancer. So, it's different ways of trying to attack cancer. Both of these companies will mature over the next decade. So, the majority of the times when we're doing M&A, we are building platforms that are going to have an impact over the long term.
You can only do that if your existing portfolio is strong enough to drive business in the short term. So, the majority of the acquisitions that we do are things that are going to utilize our scale in discovery, in development, in manufacturing, in commercialization, and will mature over the long term. Those are value-creating acquisitions.
Well, let's stick with oncology for a minute. With these acquisitions, with Johnson & Johnson aiming to be number one, where will we be in the treatment of cancer 10 years from now?
The goal for us is to try to eliminate cancer. So, that's a high goal. And we are already making significant progress in certain cancers. For example, in multiple myeloma.
The life expectancy of a multiple myeloma patient now is more than 10 years. Before, it was only single years. We have treatments now that utilize your own immune system to attack the cancer that for patients that were already going into hospice, so they didn't have any other alternative, they are more than 5 years with a single administration in remission. That's spectacular. Keep in mind that a single administration of a small bag for a patient can keep them without any other treatment alive without remission for 5 years. When patients see that, they cannot believe because they have been coming to the hospital every week during a decade having multiple therapies. So, we are working in order to understand on one hand the biology of cancer, understanding what are the drivers that are making cancer and tumor cells grow, and then coming up with different technologies that are going to address that. So, it's a combination of better understanding of the biology behind cancer, and then better technologies that are going to address that.
And curing cancer, of course, is a grand ambition, but is it a realistic ambition?
I think it's realistic to believe that we are going to cure certain cancers, and some others we're going to turn them into chronic diseases. And cancer is an important thing. I mean, I cannot think about anybody who has not been touched by cancer. But there are many other opportunities for us to actually advance science to address very important social problems. Let me give you one example. Dementia, cognition overall. I think that's an important problem for society. I cannot think about something more important because as we age, it's normal that our cognition declines, and it becomes a social problem, an economic problem, too. So, investing in understanding better the underlying causes of dementia and developing medicines or medical technologies that are going to address that is a fundamentally important thing that we have to do as a company, and we are up to the challenge.
Do you think over the course of the next decade we will see a significant increase in longevity?
I think we are going to see an increase in the life expectancy overall as we have seen in the 20th century. A massive increase in the life expectancy. The idea here is to be able to have an increase in the life expectancy with high quality of life. And there is where issues like dementia come into play. We can live longer, but we have to live longer in a way that is with dignity.
How does AI fit into this picture? What is the Whenever I ask someone where we are going to see the biggest social benefits from AI, they almost always answer health care. Do you agree with that? Where are we going to see it? Are you starting to see it already? How long will it take?
AI in a company like life sciences like us is a force multiplier because it's going to help us meet and fulfill our purpose better. If our purpose is being medical technologies and medicines faster and better for patients, AI is only going to help. So in that context, AI is a positive thing and within Johnson & Johnson we embrace AI. And we are deploying AI in multiple areas of the company. Like any other company, we deploy AI in managing the overall transactional aspects, operational aspects of the company, but we do have two areas in which AI can have a significant impact in advancing our mission. One is in developing better medicines faster and the other one is incorporating AI into our medical technologies to make medical procedures with better outcomes.
And are you today seeing measurable differences in top line, bottom line performance of the company or are we not there yet?
I see that we can develop medicines faster. For example, we already have in the clinics already in humans medicines that it would have taken a long time, close to a decade to get into the clinic we have done in a single year. So we have accelerated the process of getting medicines into the clinic. I see today that our medical technologies already incorporate AI for example in helping electrophysiologists navigate when they are doing procedures into the heart, navigate into the heart and giving them the ability to understand where they are and what they have to do next. So I see AI already advancing. To what extent that's already coming into our bottom line is still to be seen, but we see AI amplifying our ability to develop better medical technologies and better medicines.
And when you think about the transformation that you've been leading for the last four years, where would on a scale of one to 10, if one is where you started and 10 was your destination, where are you now?
