Monsanto: Corporate Social Responsibility

or so many years our society has been thinking of forming new creative and innovative businesses, which would be more environmental and customer friendly. Nowadays a large number of different companies follow the social, ethical, as well as moral consequences when it comes to their decision making. One of the relatively new concepts involving economic and social concerns is Corporate Social Responsibility. Many of us apply this approach not only at work, but also in everyday life without even recognizing.

Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMO’s, are organisms that have had genes from a different organism implanted into their own genetic code in order to produce a new result (“Genetically engineered foods”). This practice has elicited polar responses across the globe, for a multitude of reasons. Besides the obvious reason, being the morality of changing an organism's DNA for human benefit, one frequently noted problem is the monopolization of GMO’s by the company Monsanto, whose name is nearly synonymous with GMO’s due to their involvement with these crops. Monsanto has been at the center of many controversies regarding GMO’s, and is even considered to be ranked third to last for reputation among all major American companies (Bennett). Most

The expectation that businesses behave responsibly and positively contribute to society all while pursuing their economic goals is one that holds firm through all generations. Stakeholders, both market and nonmarket, expect businesses to be socially responsible. Many companies have responded to this by including this growing expectation as part of their overall business operations. There are companies in existence today whose sole purpose is to socially benefit society alongside businesses who simply combine social benefits with their economic goals as their company mission. These changes in societal expectations and thus company purpose we’ve seen in the business community over time often blurs the line of what it means to be socially

Over the past decades, agriculture technology and productivity has been changing drastically to fit the needs of the world population. The largest agricultural production country, the United States, has been experiencing these changes more rapidly just to meet these agricultural demands. This in turn has lead to serious controversies over the ethics and morals of some agricultural practices, namely Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). With the US population increasing every year, US farmers had to develop some way to meet the high demands of the people, therefore, GMOs were developed to help increase crop yields while also helping farmers financially by using less pesticides and herbicides.

John Robbins, author of The Food Revolution states that “if genetically engineered plants were designed to reverse world hunger, you would expect them to bring higher yields. But there is increasing evidence that they do just the opposite”. Numerous studies have shown that GM crops do not have a higher yield production, but in fact have at times shown a lower outcome. In 2000, “research done by the University of Nebraska found the yields of GE soybeans were six to eleven percent lower than conventional plants” (Robbins). Evidence that GM foods are not the answer to world hunger continues to pile up. Former US EPA and US FDA biotech specialist Dr. Doug Gurian-Sherman acknowledges that GM crops are not beneficial to solving world hunger: “as of this year [2008], there are no commercialized GM crops that inherently increase yield. Similarly, there are no GM crops on the market that were engineered to resist drought, reduce fertilizer pollution or save soil. Not one” (“10 Reasons Why we don’t Need GM Foods”). Genetically modified corn is a product that has been modified to the extreme in recent years. Here, you can clearly see the physical differences between organic and GM corn. In response to Monsanto’s statement, eighteen African delegates clearly objected, noting that it would undermine their capacity to feed

In my opinion, we should be most concered about India's privitized agriculture and Indian farmers. I believe this because in the last decade more than 250,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide due to the expense put on Monsanto's seeds and pesticides. A problem with the seeds can also be so they are not bred for that area, so they fail more fequently, causing even more stress on farmers. The bigger organizations also use biotech cotton seeds which gives them a higher yeild but also requires higher amounts of water, which they have the funds for. However the smaller companies don't have acess to suitable irrigation and have mainly rain-fed crops, which means they fail more often and the farmers suffer even more. Monsanto's high cost of

Genetically engineered crops in the United States cover almost one quarter of all the cropland. Soybeans, cotton, and corn are the products that tend to be the most modified. GMOs do not only have the purpose of solving world hunger, but also to cure diseases and create vaccines. John and Cheryl talk about Monsanto and DuPont, another big company involved in the production of GMOs. These two companies claim that their products have the purpose of feed the world and at the same time reduce the use of pesticides and stop the production of erosion. Nonetheless, researches have shown that the claims of these companies have no support, since biotechnology has been improving quickly and the current study to prevent bigger mistakes in the future is

Take a good look at what you consume. You will soon realize that it is Monsanto’s creation of “frankenfood”. Frankenfood, also known as genetically modified muck, is extremely hazardous and detrimental to our health. Monsanto, the world’s largest agricultural and agrochemical biotechnology corporation is the modern day version of the worst villain and “the face of corporate evil” (Anderson e.p. 1). This company, made and run by humans, creates foods and other chemical infused products that cause adverse effects on both the environment and humanity. Instead of evolving and bringing about good changes to ourselves and the environment, we are doing the exact opposite. Humans always strive for better, but what we do not realize is that our careless

Monsanto is a very prominent business that utilizes leading edge technology to create products that are appealing to customers and his/ her everyday farming career. The company focuses on biotechnology in order to produce products that are higher in yields and that will produce better plants in order to create more solid crops around harvest season. Monsanto utilizes a variety of chemicals and technology to produce these elements, and many critics suggest that the technology and chemicals used by Monsanto are harmful to the customers and create more harm than good. With that being said, Monsanto has to reassure customers that the moral obligation to customers is being fulfilled in a positive way to promote the sale of their products. Moral obligation takes into consideration the customers set

Page enlightens the reader that we already know how to accomplish that task. One of the problems is that the poorer countries do not have the money to afford these better crops. Another issue is the resistance to genetically modified food. Page then argues that the lines are becoming more blurred between genetic engineering and conventional breeding, and that intentionally improving the DNA of crops is more practical than breeding two

As with anything in nature, modifying an organism’s intended or natural use can either bring beneficial uses or harmful ones. Monsanto has led the industry for genetically modified seeds, and because of this, is held under much scrutiny for what good or bad they may bring to society. The benefits of growing GMO seed are, on the surface, pretty obvious. They allow farmers to grow bigger and more stable crops, as resistance to insects and weeds plays a pivotal role in the yield farmers see each season. Furthermore, GMO seed can help areas that typically struggle to produce a harvest, such as Africa. Conner, Glare and Nap (Conner, T., & Nap, 2003) note that “the risk of not using GM crops, particularly in relation to developing countries where the technology may have most to offer, should be considered.” (pg.

For those perhaps unaware, Monsanto was founded in 1901 and ever since has been taking the agricultural world by storm. Monsanto was one of the very first corporations to successfully incorporate biotechnology into their business model. It is believed that the root of their controversy is surrounded by the company’s changes in direction, which shifted from pharmaceutical chemicals to applying biotechnology to crops. Since the corporation became involved with agriculture, we have seen a shift

Monsanto Case Study: Service to Humanity or Corporate Greed Kaitlynn Poston Slippery Rock University Abstract This case study examines the ethical dilemma of the agricultural company Monsanto and whether or not it is a service to humanity by supporting sustainable agriculture or if it is an unbridled ploy for corporate greed. Monsanto Case Study: Service to Humanity or Corporate Greed Monsanto: A Sustainable Agriculture Company When researching Monsanto’s website, they define themselves as a sustainable agriculture company that delivers agricultural products that support farmers across the globe. They believe that, as a company, they are focused on empowering farmers to produce more from their land

Corporate social responsibility has been one the key business buzz words of the 21st century. Consumers' discontent with the corporation has forced it to try and rectify its negative image by associating its name with good deeds. Social responsibility has become one of the corporation's most pressing issues, each company striving to outdo the next with its philanthropic image. People feel that the corporation has done great harm to both the environment and to society and that with all of its wealth and power, it should be leading the fight to save the Earth, to combat poverty and illness and etc. "Corporations are now expected to deliver the good, not just the goods; to pursue

I would like to start my essay with the definition of Corporate Social Responsibility and how I understand it. CSR that is a set of activities of the company that help to solve problems related to the ecology, society and economy, such activities help to improve people’s life. Frankly speaking, I knew that some companies help people and environment, but I never attach importance to this activities. But after two year of studying CSR I understood how it works and why company use it. I believe that company that provides activities that have great impact o society and environment has a competitive advantage over those companies that did not do it.