New Year, New Gel Pack Supplier

Why pharma procurement teams are taking a closer look in 2026

The start of a new year creates a rare pause in pharmaceutical supply chains.

Peak volumes ease. Reporting cycles reset. Conversations that were postponed during the rush of Q4 finally resurface. For procurement managers, it is often the first proper opportunity in months to step back and ask a simple but important question.

Are our suppliers still doing what we need them to do?

In pharmaceutical distribution, this question carries real weight. Temperature control is not a nice-to-have. It underpins product integrity, regulatory compliance, and patient safety. When it works, it is invisible. When it fails, it becomes very visible, very quickly.

That is why gel packs are increasingly part of new year supplier reviews.

At Thergis, we see a clear pattern every January. Procurement teams are not looking for dramatic change. They are looking for confidence. Fewer unknowns. Fewer assumptions. Fewer late-stage surprises.

When gel packs stop being background noise

Gel packs rarely get attention when everything is running smoothly.

They sit inside validated shippers, quietly doing their job. They are often specified years ago and reused across multiple lanes, products, and temperature ranges with minimal scrutiny.

Problems tend to emerge gradually.

A temperature excursion on a delayed shipment.
A stability report that raises questions.
A route that suddenly behaves differently to expectations.
A seasonal spike in failures that cannot be explained by ambient conditions alone.

When procurement teams dig into the detail, gel packs often sit closer to the root cause than expected. Not because they are “wrong”, but because they are no longer right for how the supply chain actually operates today.

Why consistency matters more than peak performance

One of the biggest misconceptions in thermal packaging is that higher performance always equals better protection.

In reality, pharmaceutical distribution depends on predictability. A gel pack that holds temperature exceptionally well in a controlled test but behaves inconsistently across batches or environments introduces risk rather than removing it.

Procurement managers are increasingly focused on questions such as:

• Does this gel pack perform the same way every time?
• How sensitive is it to handling variation or delay?
• Does it release energy gradually or unpredictably?
• How does it behave at the end of the journey, not just the start?

These are not academic questions. They directly affect loss rates, deviation investigations, and internal confidence in the cold chain.

In many cases, the issue is not that a gel pack fails outright. It is that it behaves slightly differently each time, which makes validation harder to trust over the long term.

The reality of switching suppliers

Changing gel pack suppliers is often perceived as disruptive.

Validation takes time. Documentation needs to be reviewed. Internal stakeholders need reassurance. No procurement manager wants to introduce risk by fixing something that does not appear broken.

But there is another side to that equation.

Sticking with an existing supplier without periodically re-evaluating performance also carries risk. Especially as product portfolios evolve, distribution networks expand, and temperature tolerances tighten.

More procurement teams are recognising that a review does not have to mean a wholesale switch. It can begin with targeted testing, parallel trials, or focusing on the most challenging routes rather than the easiest ones.

The goal is not change for the sake of it. The goal is certainty.

What a good gel pack supplier relationship actually looks like

Strong supplier relationships in pharma are rarely transactional.

The most effective partnerships are built on shared understanding. Of products, of routes, and of what happens when things do not go to plan.

When procurement teams assess gel pack suppliers, the most useful conversations tend to focus on:

• How formulation choices affect thermal behaviour
• How manufacturing controls ensure batch consistency
• How data supports real-world performance, not just lab tests
• How responsive technical support is when questions arise
• How scalable the solution is without changing its fundamentals

A supplier who understands pharmaceutical distribution will not overpromise. They will explain trade-offs clearly and help procurement teams make informed decisions rather than selling a one-size-fits-all answer.

Why 2026 feels different

The pressure on pharmaceutical supply chains is not easing.

Products are becoming more temperature sensitive. Distribution models are becoming more complex. Regulatory expectations continue to tighten. At the same time, procurement teams are expected to reduce supplier risk, improve resilience, and demonstrate value beyond cost.

This combination is forcing previously overlooked components, like gel packs, into sharper focus.

The new year provides a natural moment to ask whether long-standing assumptions still hold true. Whether solutions designed for yesterday’s challenges are still fit for today’s reality.

For many teams, the answer is not an immediate no. It is a quiet maybe.

A calmer approach to supplier review

At Thergis, we do not believe supplier reviews need to be dramatic or disruptive.

Our work with pharmaceutical procurement teams often starts with understanding how products actually move through the network. Where variability exists. Where confidence is high. And where it is not.

Sometimes that process confirms that the current solution is doing exactly what it should. Sometimes it highlights small adjustments that significantly reduce risk. Occasionally, it points towards a different approach altogether.

All three outcomes are valuable.

The aim is not to sell change. It is to reduce uncertainty.

As 2026 gets underway, more procurement managers are choosing to ask these questions early, while there is time to act thoughtfully rather than reactively.

Because in pharmaceutical logistics, the quietest supply chains are usually the best ones.

And that is rarely an accident.