The start of a new year creates a rare pause in pharmaceutical supply chains.
Peak volumes ease. Reporting cycles reset. Conversations delayed during Q4 finally resurface. For procurement managers, January is often the first genuine opportunity in months to step back and ask a deceptively simple question.
Is our gel pack supplier still doing what we need them to do?
In pharmaceutical distribution, this question matters. Temperature control is not a value add. It underpins product integrity, regulatory compliance, and patient safety. When it works, no one notices. When it fails, the consequences escalate quickly.
That is why gel packs are increasingly under review as 2026 gets underway.
At Thergis, we see a clear pattern every January. Procurement teams are not looking for sweeping change. They are looking for confidence. Fewer assumptions. Fewer unknowns. Fewer late-stage surprises.
Gel packs rarely attract attention when supply chains are stable.
They sit inside validated shippers, quietly doing their job. Many were specified years ago and continue to be used across multiple routes, products, and temperature ranges with little scrutiny.
Issues tend to surface gradually.
A temperature excursion following a delay
A stability review that raises new questions
A lane that no longer behaves as expected
A seasonal spike in deviations with no obvious external cause
When procurement teams investigate, gel packs often sit closer to the root cause than anticipated. Not because they are fundamentally wrong, but because they are no longer right for how the supply chain actually operates today.
One of the most common misconceptions when selecting a gel pack supplier is that higher performance automatically means lower risk.
In practice, pharmaceutical distribution depends on predictability.
A gel pack that performs exceptionally in a controlled test but behaves inconsistently across batches, handling conditions, or environments introduces uncertainty rather than removing it.
Procurement teams are increasingly asking more practical questions:
• Does this gel pack behave the same way every time?
• How sensitive is it to handling variation or transit delay?
• Does it release energy gradually or unpredictably?
• What happens at the end of the journey, not just the beginning?
These questions have direct implications for deviation rates, investigation workload, and confidence in long-term validation.
In many cases, the issue is not outright failure. It is variability. Small differences that accumulate into risk over time.
Switching gel pack suppliers is often seen as disruptive.
Validation requires time. Documentation must be reviewed. Internal stakeholders need reassurance. Few procurement managers want to introduce perceived risk by changing something that does not appear broken.
But there is another side to that equation.
Continuing with a gel pack supplier without periodic review also carries risk, particularly as product portfolios expand, routes evolve, and temperature tolerances tighten.
More teams are recognising that a review does not have to mean a full transition. It can start with targeted trials, parallel testing, or focusing on the most challenging lanes rather than the most forgiving ones.
The objective is not change for the sake of it. The objective is certainty.
Effective supplier relationships in pharma are rarely transactional.
The most valuable gel pack suppliers understand how products move in the real world, not just how they perform in the lab. They focus on clarity rather than overselling.
Procurement conversations increasingly centre on:
• How formulation choices influence thermal behaviour
• How manufacturing controls protect batch-to-batch consistency
• How performance data reflects real distribution conditions
• How responsive technical support is when issues arise
• How scalable the solution is without altering core behaviour
A good gel pack supplier does not claim to solve everything. They explain trade-offs clearly and support informed decision-making rather than offering generic answers.
Pressure on pharmaceutical supply chains is not easing.
Products are becoming more temperature sensitive. Distribution networks are more complex. Regulatory scrutiny continues to increase. At the same time, procurement teams are expected to reduce supplier risk, improve resilience, and demonstrate value beyond cost.
This combination is pushing previously overlooked components, like gel packs, into sharper focus.
The new year provides a natural moment to reassess long-held assumptions. To question whether solutions designed for yesterday’s challenges are still fit for today’s reality.
For many teams, the answer is not a definitive no. It is a cautious maybe.
Supplier reviews do not need to be disruptive.
Our work with pharmaceutical procurement teams often begins with understanding how products actually move through the network. Where variability exists. Where confidence is high. And where it is not.
Sometimes the outcome confirms that the current gel pack supplier is performing exactly as required. Sometimes small adjustments reduce risk significantly. Occasionally, a different approach becomes the logical next step.
All three outcomes are useful.
The aim is not to sell change. It is to reduce uncertainty.
As 2026 unfolds, more procurement managers are choosing to ask these questions early, while there is time to act deliberately rather than reactively.
Because in pharmaceutical logistics, the quietest supply chains are usually the most reliable.
And that is rarely accidental.
To find out more call our expert team on 0115 931 6969 or contact us for more details.
