Pick one product from the old or new Monsanto and discuss the ethical aspects and repercussions from the point of view of at least 3 different types of company stakeholders. The GM or genetically modified seeds are a product from the new Monsanto. Monsanto is the leader in the seed industry and employees thousands of people in 160 countries (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & 2018). Ethical misconduct can ruin a company’s reputation and loose both customers and investors. Stakeholders can be critical to a firm’s success or failure. This paper will discuss ethical aspects from three stakeholders in the company. They are the farmers, consumers, and investors. One ethical dilemma Monsanto caused, dealt with the group of stakeholders, the farmers. For …show more content…
GM seeds account for most of the cotton, canola, corn and soybean seeds around the globe. These plants are genetically modified to be able to kill weeds and bugs without chemicals. As a consumer, how healthy is it to eat food made from these plants. There FDA says any reaction to the seeds are mild and will not harm humans. Because the FDA deems Monsanto seeds harmless, they do not have to label packages with warnings for the public to read (Gregory, 2013). In researching this paper, no research evidence of any kind was found to prove these seeds are harmless to humans. The company also knew that it’s other chemicals were harmful to birds, fish, and humans and did nothing to prevent or protect anyone or anything. They wanted to make money by selling their product at any cost. This is an example of unethical business. Monsanto is not considering any to the social responsibly associated with ethical business practices. The third group of stakeholders are the investors. The investors have made millions because Monsanto has a monopoly on the seed industry. The company’s practices are unethical, but the company can only see the short-term opportunities and not the long-term risks (Bansal, 2017). The scary part is that their GM seeds and plants are in the foods we eat at every meal. Their plants produce more food, but is it harmful? This company could be endangering the world’s food supply, and no one seems to
With high interest and relatively low power, they oppose Monsanto and their genetically processed seeds. The organic suppliers virtually cannot compete with Monsanto, as the variety of supply is entirely different. Their legitimacy and power is derived from their capital, which can be used alongside the media, to lobby against Monsanto’s practices. By capitalizing on society’s negative view on genetically modified products, they can criticize and publicize the controversial actions taken by Monsanto. Bad publicity can lead to a declining share value and overall net income. Conclusively, Monsanto’s competitors represents an antagonistic stakeholder and therefore should be taken into account to minimize
Maintaining an ethical culture has been a struggle for the company for decades but when Hugh Grant took over as CEO, he the reformed the companies ethical culture. Before Grant, Monsanto was knowingly polluting a creek in Alabama with toxic waste, as a result, the polychlorinated biphenyls levels were outrageously high and many fish became deformed. The company had been doing this for forty years, “Once the cover-up was discovered, thousands of plaintiffs from the city filed a lawsuit against the company” (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2017, p. 383). Consequently, trust amongst stakeholders was broken, the companies stocks was impacted, dropping nearly by 50 percent. Grant worked to turn the company around and did just that by focusing on GM foods. “Today, Monsanto employs approxi- mately 22,000 people worldwide. It is recognized as one of the 100 best corporate citizens by Corporate Responsibility Magazine”. (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2017, p. 384) Despite all the legal battles the company has faced and ethical blunders, the company today now does maintain a better ethical
Monsanto is the world 's leader on bio-technology and was found in St. Louis Missouri. Monsanto was not known as an agriculture company at first as it is now rather a chemical company of the 20th century. They are also responsible for growing 90 percent of the world 's GMO’s. On Monsanto’s website it states their goal is to help farmers around the world to produce healthier foods, conserving more, and better animal feeds while reducing impact on our environment. Monsanto 's GMO has been effecting our environment for years but have not yet brought to justice according to this video. The question is why? According to this documentary Monsanto created many hazardous chemicals for example PCBs, Agent Orange and recombinant
Introduction Monsanto Company is a large multinational agricultural conglomerate that supplies genetically engineered products to the market. The enormity of its financial muscle makes it a strong market force. The company has been engaged in unscrupulous activities while receiving protection from the government and other government agencies in its undertakings. This analysis utilizes a heuristic approach to dissect the Monsanto’s relationship and performance in the market amidst ethical, social and legal odds. Monsanto company and government ties Challenges facing the Monsanto Company have been many.
...earch Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology sued Monsanto in the Supreme Court of India and Monsanto could not start the commercial sales of its Bt cotton seeds until 2002. And, after the damning report of India’s parliamentary committee on Bt crops in August 2012, the panel of technical experts appointed by the Supreme Court recommended a 10-year moratorium on field trials of all GM food and termination of all ongoing trials of transgenic crops. But it had changed Indian agriculture already. Monsanto’s seed, the destruction of alternatives, the collection of super profits in the form of royalties, and the increasing vulnerability of cultures has created a context for debt, suicides and distress which is driving the farmers’ suicide epidemic in India. This systemic control has been intensified with Bt cotton. That is why most suicides are in the cotton belt.
Monsanto is a multinational agricultural and agrochemical biotechnology corporation based in America and is the largest producer of genetically engineered seeds. Monsanto argues that using science and newfound research to create genetically modified food is necessary in order to save our world from starvation. Eduardo Blumwald, a professor of cell biology and employee for Monsanto, says that genetically modified food could be “the only viable solution we have for our future” (Ostrander 24) where it is predicted that the temperature and population will soar. Blumwald argues that without genetically engineering food to produce under high temperatures with little water, the world could potentially starve in this predicted future. Yet regardless of “biotech industry promises, none of the GMO traits currently on the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit” (“GMO Facts”). Instead, Monsanto genetically modifies food to resist RoundUp, a pesticide the company has created to kill any plants or bugs other than the genetically engineered crop. According to the World Health Organization, this pesticide “is a probable human carcinogen” (“GMOs”) due to glyphosate, a
Barlett and Steele, after arguing a clear case against Monsanto Company’s legal tactics, fail to provide adequate evidence to supplement the testimonies of extra-legal tactics, leaving readers in a position to vindicate Monsanto’s alleged conduct based on its legal aggression. Barlett and Steele’s decision to supplement their arguments with first person narratives from targeted victims added characters to an otherwise sound chronological observation and provide authentic testimony against faceless company representatives who may not represent the views and opinions of their employer(s). Barlett and Steele, who commented minimally on nonGMO/GMO product differences, criticize Monsanto’s aggressive and unorthodox expansion and misuse of the legal system to draw attention to the heavy handed company and to its
The company must discover new ways and ensure the disposal of hazards chemicals. In the past, Monsanto lacked active engagement with policy-makers and environmental groups (Keating, 2016). This could have a positive effect on both the corporate image and reputation. Taking on criticism rather than ignoring can help to promote the brand as being actively concerned for the environment and society. Bayer’s name behind the Monsanto GMO products could all help to convince and change the perception of GMO’s through the European Union.
Monsanto's goal is to modify seeds to help farmers grow and improve their crops while educating people on the process they use and why they do what they do. Those against GMO's claim that they are not "safe", but companies like Monsanto do not sell modified foods immediately after one trial. Once the desired change is identified and transferred to the plant seed, it is "rigorously tested" to be sure it is safe, not only for human consumption but as well as animals and the environment. In addition to foods being modified by humans, there is a certain "Agro bacterium" that genetically engineer's plants on
Monsanto is a company that specialized in producing seeds for farmers to plant to grow the nation’s food. Monsanto has experienced many health related criticisms because of what they use for their seeds. In 1970, Monsanto created a chemical that was used in the Vietnam War to kill trees or shrubs quickly (Ferrell & Hartline, 2014). However, like many companies, Monsanto had a moral obligation that they had to achieve to stay in business. Moral obligations for businesses range from environmental to the companies social impact (Gabaldon & Groschl, 2015).
This has created a large amount of debate on local, national, and international levels about the safety of genetically modified foods to human health. There are many angles that have been taken from different groups on this issue. Some believe it is harmful to our health, with one source stating that, “mice eating GMO corn had fewer and smaller babies (Jagelio 2013).” Without testing on humans how are we to know these harmful effects aren’t impacting our health and reproduction. Other groups see GMOs as being both beneficial and having no impact on human health.
Some of the big producers of GMOs are Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenth, and Dupont. Not only are these companies producing genetically
...ence of GM crops is that genetic modifications can develop proteins in plants which a consumer could be allergic to. For example, one of the most common allergies is with the peanut. What would happen if peanut proteins interlace into tomato seeds? Then people with peanut allergies would not be able to eat genetically modified tomatoes. There are many reasons to stop the production of GM food. It can produce serious long-term nature accidents, but there is no way to know much about it until is too late (“GM Food” 2).
Meanwhile, detrimental effects of GM seeds might outweigh their benefits. There is lack of researches that can gauge the long-term effects of GM seeds on humans and animals’ health. Critics blame glyphosate which is the main ingredient of Roundup herbicide for causing harm to farmers’ health and also the surroundings because of its lasting residues. In addition to the drawbacks of GM seeds, organic farmers stated that GM products will contaminate their conventional seeds and the combination between those seeds can create mutative one which poses a threat to the
Genetically modified (GM) foods have become omnipresent over the past decade. They are a technological breakthrough that allows humans to manipulate and add foreign genes to crops to enhance desired traits, but they have also evolved into a controversial issue, especially for Third World countries. Some people believe that GM foods not only provide larger yields to feed hungry citizens in Third World countries, but they can also be a source of great nutritional value. For example, researchers have developed a strain of golden rice containing high amounts of vitamin A and numerous other vitamins and minerals. Additionally, GM crops are laced with herbicides and pesticides, and therefore reduce the need for chemical consumption. Opponents of GM foods claim that they pose a threat to the health of consumers and that these crops could eventually cross-pollinate in an unregulated fashion or lead to the growth of superweeds and superbugs resistant to the herbicides and pesticides woven into the genetic fiber of the crops. Developed nations should promote research and monitoring from an ethical point of view and financial assistance through philanthropic ventures in order to limit environmental and health risks. They should also make sure that limited cultural displacement will result from the introduction of GM crops and that instead, a better livelihood and well-being through collaboration will emerge. Hence, GM crops should be introduced only provided that the developed nations assume the ethical and financial responsibilities for the environmental, health, and social consequences that attend this new innovation.