Principle 1 - respect stakeholders beyond shareholders The first principle of the Caux Round Table addresses the need for Monsanto to implement responsible business practices for all stakeholders. According to SAID Business School and University of Oxford, “Companies need to look at what is in the long-term interest of the firm, community, and society” (2017, p.10). Monsanto must evaluate the firm’s international strategy and determine if the strategy is in the best interests of farmers, communities, and society on a global scale. In order to develop the strategy, Monsanto must form an oversight committee that represents the farmers, communities, and society in which Monsanto influences (Susskind & Field, 1996). Principle 2 – contribute to …show more content…
While legal guidelines are necessary, trust transcends the law, meaning that obtaining and building trusting relationships requires more than following legal guidelines. Monsanto must collaborate more closely with competitors and farmers who are disadvantaged from Monsanto’s legal patent victories (Ferrell, et al., 2016). First, Monsanto must consider the cultural aspects of their legal victories (Susskind & Field, 1996). For example, the legality in the United States may not apply to other nations. Thus, Monsanto must commit resources to establish a global collaboration with local farmers as well as localized competitors to build stronger relationships with …show more content…
Critics of globalization point out that the positive effects of globalization are not equal across all nations (Cuciureanu, 2013). Monsanto’s global dominance in the seed industry provides an opportunity to influence fair trade and regulatory reform. For instance, Monsanto can influence congressional laws in the United States that would allow small-scale farmers to keep their seeds from year to year, and scale back the Agricultural Appropriations Bill that protects Monsanto from legal action (Ferrell, 2016). Additionally, Monsanto could create a seed bank that maintains a collection of food crops to protect biodiversity and promote trade among farmers on a global
Monsanto positions itself as a relatively new agricultural company having formed in 2002, and focused on supporting local farmers around the world. They also promote themselves as a guardian of the environment with a mission “to produce more food while conserving more” (Monsanto.com). Today’s Monsanto conglomerate also promotes itself as the “New Merchants,” a leading research company in the field of agriculture-crop production, as well as a strong supporter of public and private research through its grant, donations and University scholarship programs.
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 farmers then give their products to the manufacturers, who represent the bottleneck of the food system (21). “The ten largest companies control half of the world’s seed supply. …Ten firms control 90% of the nearly $38.6 billion pesticide markets (111-112).” Monsanto, being one of the ten companies that controls the world’s seed supply, is a company that has patents on all of its seeds and products. It produces genetically modified crops that are resistant to its own pesticides and herbicides, so that when a pesticide or herbicide is sprayed and it destroys all plants, the Monsanto seed survives because of its resistance. The reason that Monsanto is able to stay in business is because of the economic benefit it poses for the farmers. They are able to produce their crops at a much higher yield because they are losing less of their crops to pests. This higher yield results in lower costs for the consumers as well (Planes). As discussed
When one company controls ninety-percent of a market, it is reasonable to open the doors to the possibility of a monopoly. This word is a board game to some, a boring econ principle to others, but a harsh reality for twenty-four million American farmers and their families. (Farmers Feed Us) Monsanto has taken control of the farming world and it is hitting farmers hard. The powerful company controls ninety-percent of the soybean market and much of other farming markers which are a lifeline for farmers across this country. It is clear to many that it is a monopoly, but nothing is being done to break up Monsanto. There is much controversy behind the issue on a political level and on what motifs there may be to keep the company together. Monsanto is hurting farmers by monopolizing the farming market and there are political ties behind the master plan to keep control.
Monsanto is controlling the farmers and manipulating organic farmers to use their patented seeds and artificial growth hormone to increase production. As, Troy Roush, VP of American Corn Growers Association explains “In the case of Monsanto their control is so dominant, if you want to be in production agriculture, you’re going to be in bed with Monsanto (Food Inc 1:15:40-1:15-48). Monsanto should not have the right to control what the farmers can and cannot do. Monsanto has induced politician and the government to abdicate their responsibility to protect consumers through funding their campaign and heavy lobbying. As Michael Pollan clarifies “For the last 25 years, our government has been dominated by the industries that it was meant to be regulating” (1:17:07-1:17:13). The consumers and farmers should be the ones deciding and voting on the farming practices, not congress or large seed industries. I believe the farmers should reject to use Monsanto’s seeds and have the right to save, clean and reuse the seeds from their harvests. It should be unacceptable and illegal for the government to change ancient agricultural farming; hence we would have a healthy food chain. Government and congress should focus on the interest of consumers and farmers and not be conquered by large companies. The government needs to revisit the seed patenting law and sign an agreement of the
Monsanto is involved in a variety of ways,“The company produces the herbicide RoundUp, and also seeds whose genes have been engineered to survive RoundUp's active plant-killing ingredient. Now the vast majority of this country's soybeans, corn, sugar beets and canola possess those engineered genes,”(Boyle). Initially, this seems quite innocent, however, there’s no telling what kind of chemicals are being introduced into the food supply in order to allow these plants to survive. Also, sugar and corn are contained within almost every non organic product Americans consume, which means virtually everyone is ingesting these potentially harmful chemicals. Monsanto’s RoundUp resistant seeds should seem to be a farmer’s best friend, but it’s not always so simple, “As Rinehart would recall, the man began verbally attacking him, saying he had proof that Rinehart had planted Monsanto’s genetically modified (G.M.) soybeans in violation of the company’s patent. Better come clean and settle with Monsanto, Rinehart says the man told him—or face the consequences,”(Barlett). Simply dogmatic in his manner, the mysterious Monsanto man would not take no for an answer, even though later in the article Mr. Rinehart states that he isn’t a farmer and they have the wrong guy. Commonly referred to as seed police, even gestapo or mafia, this elite force of Monsanto maniacs are lifeless and drone-like in the sense that they will stop at nothing in order to obtain a profit, and if it’s the wrong person they’ll still use scare tactics to weasel cash out of innocent civilians. Saying that Monsanto is heavily involved in the production and distribution of genetically modified crops and seeds is a massive understatement, to demonstrate this,“In 1996 when Monsanto introduced RoundUp Ready Soybeans, the company controlled only 2% of the U.S. soybean market. Now, over 90% of
Monsanto is notoriously known for partaking in the industrial production of herbicides and chemical warfare for militant use. Specifically, Monsanto is infamously known for the production of Agent Orange, a defoliant/herbicide used during the Vietnam War. Since its use, one of the many chemically adverse effects Agent Orange has been responsible for to this day are birth defects specifically among children related to veterans who have serviced in the Vietnamese and Korean military. Although Monsanto has moved away from the production of chemical warfare to the production of GMOs for human consumption, it is ethically debatable for Monsanto to be the leading industry to specialize in GMO production. The ethicality of Monsanto's contribution and influence in GMO production is also questionable due to Monsanto's economic position in domineering the seed market and GMO market, raising the possible risk of Monsanto's monopoly in both markets. Due to the intersectionality of GMO technology in socio-political private and public spheres, it is important to further research the credibility and ethicality of GM produces before its consumption and technology begin to raise problematic economic, environmental, and medical
Stakeholders are comprised of a multitude of people that have an interest in a company including employees, customers, special interest groups, board of directors, regulatory agencies, and investors (Ferrell, Fraedrich, Ferrell, 2015). Monsanto has an interesting history, and has impacted stakeholders in a negative manner throughout its beginnings in 1901. The current stakeholders that are impacted by Monsanto activities are all of the above listed. The company has had legal issues in the past with the widely known issue of the development of Agent Orange and the impact on our veterans. After settling for 180 million dollars, the company became a biotechnology company developing biotechnology products in the farming industry. Stakeholders on both sides of this issue have voiced positive and negative concerns. Positive
According to Natural Society, people like Hugh Grant, and Bill Gates who own millions of shares in Monsanto stock are not the real owners of Monsanto. The main owners of Monsanto are institutions. The leading institution for Monsanto is a company is called the Vanguard group. Vanguard owns 3 trillion dollars in investments in different companies like Monsanto. Additionally, they own such companies as Bank of America, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, and others. Employees of Monsanto seem to be interested in agriculture. Most of the employees are scientist, and agricultural experts. Employees enjoy working with farmers, and enjoy generating new ideas. Every project that is worked on inspires innovation allowing Monsanto, to stay on the cutting edge,
Monsanto has various stakeholder groups all across the globe. The key stakeholders are: members of the global financial community; farmers and other agricultural organizations; Monsanto employees; animal feed producers and distributors; insect/pest control organizations; federal, state and local agricultural, regulatory and environmental agencies; and the list goes on and on (Beyond the Rows, 2012). Monsanto states that their main goals is to provide stakeholders with better information regarding all of their activities and that they are committed to making meaningful strides to report on environmental sustainability performance throughout the world (Beyond the Rows, 2012).
It doesn’t help that Monsanto also has power in politics, one of the Monsanto chiefs for food safety, Michael Taylor was actually appointed by Barrack Obama himself. Barrack Obama also appointed his Supreme Court judge: Elena Kagan, who happens to be the chief defender of Monsanto and GMO’s. Whether Republican or Democratic, Monsanto wields a strong power within politics that helps give them an edge in keeping their company going. (Obama). There are good aspects of Monsanto, like the efficiency of cheap seeds, and crops that can withstand the harsh behaviors of weathers, and the ability the crops have to survive a longer time. But not even the cheapest crops can cover up Monsanto’s long history of evil, from polluting the environment with PCB’s, the chemical Agent Orange, and the weed killer “Round-Up Ready”, to Monopolizing itself to being the owner of 90% of the seed industry and shutting down small
Monsanto is a Saint Louis Chemical manufacturer that is a major player in the weed killing business. Monsanto has quite a portentous past. They developed and produced the notorious defoliant "Agent Orange" used in the Vietnam War, they invented the controversial recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), and they were the inventors and world’s main producer of
The objective of this report is to analyze the differences in Monsanto’s experiences in the United States and Europe and the reasons of opposition in Europe, despite that, why Monsanto pushed ahead so hard.
Monsanto is a company that some people may not be explicitly familiar with on a first name basis. However, the work that the company has done over the last century, with a larger emphasis on its most recent ventures, have been deeply engrained in our lives, our food, and our economy. Monsanto has those who advocate on their behalf in addition to their naysayers. While Monsanto has made huge strides in terms of biotechnology over the last couple of decades, their accomplishments, and the relevant methods, have not been free of criticism and controversy. In order to analyze Monsanto’s corporate environment, it is important to first explore their Strengths, Weaknesses,
Big businesses have a major influence towards American agriculture. Large capital investments have contributed to the success of American agriculture. Monsanto is the world’s leading agricultural biotechnology company that has used fundamentally changed the way many