Monsanto Moral Obligation Paper

The social and environmental interests are not adequately accounted for. By putting patents on their seeds, farmers are forced to buy new seeds each year. In India most farmers have to take out loans to be able to afford seeds and they are not protected by government subsidies. The weather has a huge influence on their income and unpredictable weather can wipe out their entire crop, whereas in the past these farmers would save their seeds as an insurance policy against the weather but now Monsanto does not allow them to do this. The Indian government directly links the introduction of Monsanto’s GM seeds as the root cause behind the sharp increase in farmer suicides. The Indian farmers are figuring out that the biotechnology revolution has a huge effect on their crop lands and personal debt levels. This all started in 1998 when the World Bank underwent structural adjustments and changed some of their policies which forced India to open up its seed sector to global corporations like Monsanto, Cargill and Syngenta (www.counterpunch.org., 2016). These global corporations changed India’s agricultural economy because Monsanto’s seeds require Monsanto fertilizers and pesticides which adds costs on top of being unable to save seeds. Monsanto does not meet the characteristics of this paradigm with the lack of social and environmental responsibility due to the corporations’ business structure and board intentions.

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.

While I agree it is important to find a sustainable food source and way to produce such foods, people in this generation tend to be more concerned with organically and naturally grown foods. There are several companies that now offer 100% certified organic foods in which a number of people are now learning towards after hearing all of the derogatory statements involving Monsanto's genetically modified products. Many Monsanto stakeholders should already growing concerned of the safety implications of genetically modified foods. Biotech crops are completely unnatural and many are stating that Monsanto is "playing God" by creating these genetically modified seeds. Stakeholders are also concerned about destructive effects on those who ingest their products that are modified with the Roundup. It is a very valid and growing concern and because of this, Monsanto's stocks have continuously plummeted over the last few years; which is also where the stakeholder concerns lie. At this time there is no substantial evidence that has been produces to indicate that Monsanto's GM seeds will or can cause human harm, and it could very well be a long time until we can know for sure they won't. But in the meantime, as long as farmers are able to produce massive crops and save billions by using Monsanto's products, Monsanto will continue to produce these goods and service those willing to use them. I feel that there will come a day when they do discover that these GM products lead to harmful or fatal diseases and when they do, there will be a major shortage of food worldwide. It was stated back in September 2012 that French researchers had found a direct link between Monsanto corn and numerous cancers in lab rats. The two year study

Monopoly, generally known as a fun board game, but in the business world being a monopoly means power. They are illegal in the United States and there are laws and regulations that companies must follow in order to prevent a monopoly from occurring. Monopolies are prevented due to the fact that they have exclusive power of a good or service, allowing to hold on to their product and increase the prices to whatever is desired. It also makes it hard for entry of competitors into the specific market. Even though monopolies are generally prohibited, there have been claims that Monsanto is an monopoly in the GMO [Genetically modified organism] market because Monsanto is the leading power in the production of GMO

Things have been changing quickly in our world. GMOs have developed at an alarming pace, and are now being credited with being able to save millions from starvation. Seeds can be patented, when only a few years ago there were only public seed. The atomic bomb has been created and improved, and has the potency to wipe out all the life on our delicate planet. All these inventions and more can be attributed, in some way or another, to a chemical company called Monsanto. The Monsanto Company is an institution whose impact in the areas of chemicals and food has become a massive game-changer, but is also causing potentially dangerous side effects and consequences.

However, opponents argue that the uncertainty of the risks associated with increased consumption and marketing of GMOs can lead to severe health and environmental impacts in the future. Further, there is an ongoing debate as to whether or not multi-national corporations should be allowed to privatize and patent crop seeds on a global level. An example of this is the biotech corporation, Monsanto. Monsanto is opprobriously known for producing genetically-engineered products, and using Intellectual Property Rights to its advantage in order to monopolize crop seeds. Opponents view this as a way for industry to hijack a global common or a public good, which includes any type of food source or seed of a crop. This monopolization has led the

In the early 20th century, Monsanto began as a chemical company, producing hormones, fertilizers, pesticides, and toxins. In the 1980’s, their focus switched from chemical production to seed, bio-genetic research, and agricultural products (Anderson, 2014). It was only in trying to enter the British and European Union markets in the late 90’s that there was a significant backlash against the company, the effects of which can still be felt in a continued reticence towards Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in Europe to this day. From there, however, Monsanto has spread to almost every country and continent in the world, selling fast growing cotton to India

aTitle: A review of core issues relating to the global adoption of genetically modified foods.

Monsanto can best fulfill this moral obligation while also protecting society and the environment from the potential negative consequences of its products is by paying special attention to their social, economic, and their ethical responsibility. Social responsibility is adaption by a business of strategic focus for fulfilling the economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities expected of it by its stakeholders (Thorne, 2011). With Monsanto’s economic responsibility, the company has donated millions of dollars to help improve communities in developing countries. With sales over 8.6 billion which comes from mostly the biotechnology would satisfy any investors or stakeholder. Even though stocks had fallen 50% in 2003, Monsanto made

As a consultant for Monsanto the following recommendations are being made in order for this company to successfully be socially responsible. The first thing to understand is that the purpose for business is to serve society and when a business serves the society well then it is rewarded with profit. The first principal Monsanto will need to embrace is respecting stakeholders beyond shareholders. For this company to thrive owners will have to listen to outsiders such as employees, suppliers and the community. Stakeholders are not 100% on board with our products but if they see we listen and come to some kind of mutual agreement the uneasiness may dissipate. For example putting GM labels on our food to allow customers to make a quality decision

Also, the CEO of Monsanto should focus on the company’s moral obligations to each different government. For example, a major concern for many stakeholders are the safety features of their seeds (Ferrell & Hartline, 2014). As a CEO, performing more extensive testing and research would be beneficial to gaining stakeholders trust. Also, Monsanto should take all responsibility if one of their stakeholder’s customers became sick after eating a product of Monsanto’s seed. Monsanto’s CEO can create versions of their products to comply with the government regulated environment in other

The Monsanto Company policy is based upon invested technology which deserves a profitable return by the farmers that use and benefit from that technology. A company such as Monsanto deserves to be compensated when they develop and produce a product used by the public. The technologies used to produce the seeds are a patented source of the Monsanto Corporation. Thus, the seeds used by farmers or the general public will be seen as the technological property of the Monsanto Company. A statement made by one farmer shows the contractual understanding committed by those who use Monsanto products. James Birch, a California farmer, states, “If a company develops a product, does the research, and puts the money into it as an investment, they deserve

Monsanto’s corporate reputation is a shady as ever. It seems from the reading that the company has many good products, but has a trend of allowing serious health risks to be discovered when it is already too late. The company simply pays its way out of trouble every single time. International Business Times says the company’s “roundup resistant wheat has shown up in Oregon” (2013). This means that the company is doing nothing but continuing the trend of dishonesty from the chemical days. In terms of branding the company is fine. The company as far as business is concerned should continue to test the different genetics that they change and get some serious fact checks going. The company should set aside money and publish the results of testing

Imagine a future of fresh produce and large amounts of meat, being able to feed millions of americans. Now instead imagine widespread diseases and death among Americans, too. Monsanto has developed many products including Roundup to prevent crops from pests and other insects. The product and the GMO could cause problems in the long run with this pesticide being ingested with the crops. The GMO’s are also making things hard for the farmers because of the patent Monsanto put on their GMO seeds. Monsanto claims to be a sustainable agricultural company, but the chemicals and GMOs they are using to achieve that goal are affecting farmers and could be potentially harm humans. Is Monsanto a true sustainable agricultural company and how will the affect the world’s farmers and society in the long term? Well the main thing that makes Monsanto 's a sustainable agricultural company is their GMO crops and how they are non resistant to their other product Roundup. Roundup appears to be good for Sustainable agriculture and keeping products alive when there is no bee’s to pollinate them or when harmful weeds attack them (Hanzai, E). This could be good because the environment has been making it hard to produce crops naturally these days. This also includes, the high demand for produce in large quantities and big sizes, these gmos are the only thing keeping these big amounts of produce available for consumers. That’s great but these products are also known to be really dangerous for human

There is company itself that believes in the reinforcement of policies, even at such a drastic level. Next, there are the consumers who believe in what is right, but also believe that there are different and better ways to go about investigation than such intense confrontation. Thirdly, there is the group of people who are unquestionably against Monsanto. This, however, has more to do with long lasting effects of production rather than the investigator's approach. Monsanto’s effect on the planet has been a lot more than just some protected plants. In the 20th century, the company created and produced two of the most toxic substances ever known- polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxin. From 1929 to 1977, Monsanto produced PCBs as industrial coolants and insulating fluids for electrical equipment. While the chemical did have a use, excess amounts of it were disposed in extremely irresponsible ways, considering that the chemical causes serious illnesses such as chloracne, heart disease, and cancer. The problem with PCBs are that you really can’t dispose of them. They were dumped in landfills and