ACL Digital
September 30, 2026
5 Minutes read
How Life Sciences GCCs in India Actually Run Pharma R&D Now
Ten years ago, a pharma company’s India office usually meant payroll and an IT helpdesk. At present, the same buildings in Hyderabad and Bengaluru hold biostatisticians writing analysis plans for phase III studies and safety scientists signing off on adverse event reports that go to regulators in the US and Europe. The name on the door hasn’t changed much. The work behind it has.
That change is why the life sciences GCC has moved from a finance-team cost exercise to a boardroom topic. For leaders deciding where to put the next dollar of R&D and operations spend, the open questions are what a global capability center should own and how fast it can grow. In the article, we will cover the operating models companies use, what the 2026 data shows, how India became the default location, and what to plan for through 2027.
What a Life Sciences GCC Actually Is
A global capability center is an offshore unit a company owns and staffs for its own work. A GCC is an entity a multinational sets up offshore to do designated work only for its own group, which separates it from an outsourcing vendor serving many clients. For pharma global capability centers, that distinction matters more than in most industries. The work touches patient data, trial integrity, unpublished molecules, and regulatory commitments. Owning the team means owning the controls and the knowledge that builds up around them.
In practice, a life sciences GCC usually starts with enabling functions such as finance, HR, procurement, and IT, then takes on scientific and regulated work once the parent company trusts its quality systems. The better-run centers plan that second phase from the first day.
Why Pharma Is Building Its Own Centers Now
India’s wider GCC market gives the context. According to the NASSCOM-Zinnov report for FY26, India has 2,117 GCCs across 3,728 units, employing 2.36 million people and generating an estimated $98.4 billion in revenue. For comparison, FY2024 figures put the count above 1,800 centers with $64.6 billion in revenue, and forecasts expected 2,100 to 2,200 centers and $99 to $105 billion by 2030. On those numbers, the market reached its 2030 forecast about four years early.
Life sciences is one of the fastest-growing parts of that market. EY’s 2025 analysis found that 23 of the world’s 50 largest life sciences companies have set up centers in India, most of them within the past five years. Estimates of the total count vary with how each firm defines the sector. A Deloitte report put the number of life sciences GCCs in India at 95, while another industry outlook counted more than 100 healthcare and life sciences GCCs in 2024 and projected more than 160 by 2030. On headcount, ANSR data suggests these centers employ over 300,000 people, close to 15% of India’s GCC workforce. Treat any single figure with some caution. Every source points in the same direction.
From Back Office to “HQ Twins”
The more telling data is what these centers do. EY found that India-based life sciences GCCs now handle 70% of finance, 75% of HR, 62% of supply chain, and 67% of IT work for their parent companies. That part was expected. The scientific numbers are the ones that moved: 45% penetration in drug discovery and development, 60% in regulatory affairs, 54% in medical affairs, and 50% in commercial operations.
EY calls the most advanced centers “HQ twins.” In its description, these centers co-own global pipelines and results with headquarters and work directly with the outside ecosystem. For a decision-maker, that is the real benchmark. A center that owns part of the pipeline is worth far more than one that only processes work sent to it.
Core Operating Models for Pharma GCCs
Companies choose among four main models, and many move from one to another as the center matures.
- Fully Owned Captive Center
The company registers its own entity, leases space, hires directly, and runs everything from the start. This gives the most control over data and IP, which is why large pharma companies with long planning horizons prefer it. It is also the slowest and most expensive way to begin, since legal, HR, facilities, and compliance functions have to exist before the first scientist joins. - Build-operate-transfer
A partner sets up and runs the center for an agreed period, often two to four years, then hands over the entity, staff, and processes. BOT suits mid-size biopharma companies that want a captive center eventually but lack the local experience to set one up alone. The transfer terms, especially who holds staff contracts and quality documentation, need legal attention early. - Managed Setup, or GCC-as-a-service
A specialist firm provides the entity, space, and back-office support while the client directs the work and owns the team’s output. It can get a center running in months, and it is popular with emerging biotechs whose budgets won’t cover a full captive build. - Hybrid and Hub-and-spoke
Larger companies increasingly run a main center plus smaller satellite sites, sometimes mixing captive teams with vendors for peak workloads. Zinnov’s data shows the average GCC now operates from nearly two cities. For pharma, a second site lowers business continuity risk and widens the hiring pool.
GCC Vs Conventional Outsourcing in Pharma
Pharma has outsourced for decades through CROs and IT vendors, and that will continue. The useful question is which work belongs where. The main differences:
- A GCC team works inside your SOPs and quality system directly, while a vendor follows its own processes, mapped to yours by contract.
- People who build a trial’s statistical programming or a product’s safety profile stay in your company when you run a GCC. With outsourcing, much of that knowledge leaves when the contract ends.
- Vendors are often cheaper in the first year. A captive center tends to become cheaper per unit of work once setup costs are absorbed, and there is no vendor margin.
- Outsourcing is faster to scale up or down for a single study. A GCC is harder to shrink.
- The sponsor stays accountable for trial conduct and safety reporting either way, and a captive team removes a contractual layer between the sponsor and the work.
Most sponsors use both. A common split keeps judgment-heavy, IP-sensitive work in the GCC and sends volume or specialist capacity, such as country-level site monitoring, to CROs.
Where GCCs are Changing Pharma Operations
R&D offshoring in pharma
R&D offshoring in pharma used to mean sending well-defined, low-risk tasks abroad. It now includes real science. GSK’s Bengaluru center employs more than 2,500 people, and over half work in R&D areas including safety science, regulatory, biostatistics, and clinical operations. Pfizer’s drug development center in Chennai has about 1,000 staff working on complex sterile injectables and new formulations. Teams like these carry parts of the global portfolio themselves.
GCC clinical research operations
Clinical development is where the highest costs and the longest timelines sit, so GCC clinical research operations get the most attention from R&D leaders. India-based teams now commonly run clinical data management, statistical programming, medical writing, trial master file management, and central monitoring. Because they use the same systems and SOPs as headquarters, a study team can hand off work across time zones overnight.
Scaling clinical operations through GCCs tends to follow a pattern. Teams start with data cleaning and reporting on a few studies, prove quality through audits, then take full functional ownership across a therapeutic area. The companies that scale fastest invest early in quality management and inspection readiness at the center, because regulators can inspect any site that holds trial records.
Regulatory affairs and pharmacovigilance
Safety and regulatory work has high volume, fixed deadlines, and little tolerance for error, which suits a well-run captive team. GCC teams now manage global trial data and compliance reporting, with dedicated groups for adverse event reporting and patient safety analytics. Case processing, aggregate safety reports, labeling updates, and submission publishing are standard GCC scope at most large pharma companies.
India As a Life Sciences GCC Hub
Poland, Mexico, and the Philippines all host pharma centers. None of them matches India’s combined depth in scientific and technical talent. The main reasons companies choose India:
- India has more than 2.7 million professionals in the life sciences industry, plus an annual pipeline of about 2 million STEM graduates and over 110,000 medical graduates.
- Central and state governments have eased foreign investment rules, and states such as Karnataka, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh give incentives including capital subsidies, rent reimbursement, skilling support and land rebates.
- Companies can work with global-standard CROs, established academic institutions and a large startup base.
- Grade-A office space is easy to find in the metros and in a growing number of Tier II and III cities.
- A large GCC base in other sectors means pharma centers can hire experienced data engineering and AI leaders from banks and tech firms.
Hyderabad and Bengaluru as talent hubs for biopharma
Two cities do most of the hiring. Bengaluru has more than 29% of all GCC units in India and over a third of GCC talent. Hyderabad has become the pharma-specific center. JLL reports that the city hosts GCCs for nine of the world’s top 18 pharma, biotech and medical device companies, including Sanofi, GSK, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Amgen and Bayer. Pharma GCC leasing in Hyderabad grew about six times, from 0.46 million sq. ft. in 2016-2019 to 2.75 million sq. ft. from 2022 to mid-2025, and was 30% of all GCC leasing in the city in 2024.
Trends to Watch In 2026-27
AI will move from pilots into validated workflows. Zinnov argues that health and pharma GCCs can scale AI by owning clinical validation. Expect centers to take on model validation for safety signal detection, medical coding, and document drafting.
- Zinnov and Indiaspora estimate that 55% of India’s GCC work portfolio faces AI displacement. Data entry and case intake jobs will shrink, and job design has to change before that happens.
- More mid-size and emerging biotechs will open centers, since managed and BOT models lower the cost of entry.
- Privacy compliance will tighten. India’s DPDP Act, through its 2025 Rules, sets an enforceable framework for how GCCs protect personal data. Centers handling trial and patient data will need governance that satisfies Indian and foreign rules at once.
- More global process owners and therapeutic area heads will sit in India, which is the practical form the “HQ twin” idea takes.
Cost Optimization Via GCCs, Measured Properly
Labor arbitrage still counts, but it is now the weakest argument for a GCC. An EY partner put it directly: the story is no longer cost arbitrage, and India is becoming indispensable to the global R&D pipeline. The stronger case for cost optimization via GCCs comes from cycle time. If a center running statistical programming and medical writing overnight takes a few weeks off a submission timeline, the value of reaching the market earlier with a major product is far larger than any salary savings.
Measure the center on outcomes: days saved per study milestone, first-time-right rates on regulatory submissions, audit findings, and retention of senior scientific staff. Headcount and cost per employee still matter, but they won’t tell a board whether the center is working.
Building A Captive Center for Drug Development
- Define the mandate first
Decide which parts of drug development the center will own in three years, then work back to the first year’s scope. Centers planned only around savings tend to stall at enabling functions. - Choose the model that fits your internal capacity
A company with an experienced global shared-services team can go straight to a captive build. One without it should look at BOT or a managed setup, with transfer terms agreed at the start. - Build the quality system before the science
SOPs, training records, computerized system validation, and audit trails need to be in place before the center touches GxP work, since regulators treat a GCC like any other sponsor site. - Hire leaders first, and hire some from outside pharma
The first 20 hires set the culture. People from CROs, big pharma centers, and technology GCCs bring a better mix of domain and data skills than any one pool. - Hand over real ownership early
Give the center global ownership of at least one process within two years. Teams that only execute plans made elsewhere struggle to attract senior scientists. - Plan the second city before you need it
Competition for talent in Hyderabad and Bengaluru makes a second site likely within five years anyway.
What Decision-Makers Should Settle First
The life sciences GCCs doing best in 2026 were given ownership of R&D and clinical outcomes early. Centers set up only as a cheaper back office tend to plateau at enabling work. If you’re planning a new center or resetting an existing one, start by deciding which part of your pipeline you want run from India by 2028 and who in India will be accountable for it.
For any executive weighing this decision right now, the question isn’t really whether a GCC fits into the next strategic plan. Given where the market’s already headed, it’s how much ground gets lost by waiting.
References
Zinnov and nasscom, GCC Landscape in India 2026
zinnov.com/centers-of-excellence/zinnov-nasscom-india-gcc-landscape-2026-report
EY India, Reimagining Life Sciences Global Capability Centers
ey.com/en_in/newsroom/2025/09/india-emerges-as-life-sciences-gcc-hub-nearly-half-of-top-50-global-firms-establish-presence-with-significant-entries-in-past-5-years
Deloitte, The Growth and Evolution of Global Capability Centres (GCCs) in India, life sciences and health care edition
ANSR, State of Healthcare & Life Sciences GCCs in India
https://ansr.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Healthcare-Lifesciences-Industry-Trends-and-GCC-Landscape-in-India-2025.pdf
JLL, Healthcare and Life Sciences Drive GCC Growth in Hyderabad
https://www.jll.com/en-hk/insights/healthcare-and-life-sciences-drive-gcc-growth-in-hyderabad
Sanofi press release
sanofi.com/assets/countries/india/docs/Media/press-releases/2026/press-release-sanofi-expands-its-Hyderabad-GCC-to-grow-capabilities-and-drive-innovation.pdf
Eli Lilly GCC inauguration in Hyderabad
https://www.thenewsminute.com/telangana/us-pharma-giant-eli-lilly-to-invest-over-1-billion-in-telangana
Lonza, new Hyderabad GCC announcement
https://www.businesstoday.in/industry/pharma/story/lonza-to-set-up-india-global-capability-centre-519317-2026-03-05
Zinnov and Indiaspora, GCC AI Opportunity Report
zinnov.com/centers-of-excellence/zinnov-indiaspora-the-gcc-ai-opportunity-2026-report
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Digital Personal Data Protection Rules 2025
https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/specificdocs/documents/2025/nov/doc20251117695301.pdf
https://cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/corporate-news/india-now-a-lifesciences-gcc-hub-half-of-top-50-global-firms-present-ey/123646979
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What makes a GCC different from just outsourcing to a CRO?
A GCC is your own team working inside your SOPs. A CRO is a vendor serving multiple clients, with your standards mapped onto their process by contract rather than built in.
Which operating model should a company start with?
It comes down to internal experience. Companies with an existing shared-services setup can go straight to a captive build; most others start with a BOT or managed setup and convert later.
Is India still the obvious choice for a life sciences GCC?
For now, yes. No other location matches its combination of scientific talent, established CRO ecosystem, and government incentives at scale.
Is cost savings still the main reason to build one?
Less than it used to be. The stronger case now is cycle time, since shaving weeks off a submission timeline is worth more than the salary savings.
How fast can a GCC take on real R&D work?
It depends on the model, but the piece suggests two years is a reasonable target for handing the center full ownership of at least one process.
