BUSI472 CASE ASSIGNMENT 1
2
The Monsanto Company specializes in biotechnology, or manipulating the genetics of
microorganisms to produce biological technology such as antibiotics, hormones, etc. They modify
crops and seeds to produce certain outcomes: resistance to insects, immunity to weeds, larger crop
yields, or the ability to survive in dire weather conditions. The nature of biotechnology makes
Monsanto a target company for potential unethical dealings and allegations. Through the
evaluation of Monsanto’s ethical culture, GM seed production, and environmental risk, this paper
will ascertain that Monsanto’s ethical culture is competent, the public’s concerns about GM seed
are environmental rather than personal, and Monsanto’s influence on the harm of plant and animal
life is unknown and can therefore not be managed.
Efficacy of Monsanto’s Ethical Culture
Ethical culture within an organization is measured by “the integrity of decisions
made” (Ferrell et al., 2017) within an organization. It is not easily definable, and “is a function of
many factors, including corporate policies, top management’s leadership on ethical issues, the
influence of coworkers and the opportunity for unethical behaviour” (Ferrell et al., 2017). To
determine whether or not Monsanto has maintained an ethical culture that effectively responds to
various stakeholders, we must look at several of Monsanto’s ethical cases and evaluate their initial
action, reaction, and response to stakeholders.
One of these cases is the concern of the environmental effects of come of Monsanto’s
products — Roundup herbicide and genetically modified seeds called “Roundup ready”. There
have been accusations that these products, used together, can be detrimental to birds, insects, and
particularly amphibians, such as tadpoles. Additionally, some studies suggest that the leading
ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, may have damaging effects on embryonic, umbilical, and
placental human cells. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has deemed glyphosate as not
BUSI472 CASE ASSIGNMENT 1
3
dangerous when taken in small doses. However, the World Health Organization (WHO) maintains
that it can potentially cause cancer.
While their shares have dropped 2 percent due to the accusations, they have responded to
shareholder concerns by challenging the methodology used in these studies and asking to meet
with WHO officials to discuss the findings. In this situation, Monsanto has maintained an ethical
and upright standard in addressing the issues and attempting to resolve them with both prosecutors
as well as other stakeholders.
Another large concern to stakeholders is the morality and safety of genetically modified
foods. Seeing biotechnological crops as unnatural, skeptics accuse Monsanto of overstepping
God’s creation and trying to control what goes into a seed. The Food and Drug Administration has
deemed GM food as safe, but it is too soon to determine their long-term effects. Future research
and effects may reveal GM food is toxic or the splicing of genes creates mutations. In response to
these concerns, in March 2013, President Barack Obama signed a new law providing protection for
GMOs and genetically engineered seeds from legal action concerning health risks. Because
Monsanto was the leading producer of GMOs and seeds, people have nicknamed this bill the
“Monsanto Protection Act”.
In this situation, it seems that while Monsanto does care about stakeholder health, they are
confident in the safety of the food they produce. They have chosen to protect their business legally
rather than take their product off the market because of this confidence. Whether or not this was a
fatal decision remains to be seen as GMOs are further developed and studied. As of the time of the
decision, there was little, if any, evidence of genetically modified foods being harmful.
A 2011 study determined six dimensions of ethical culture were significantly and directly
related to ethical or unethical organizational behaviour: “ethical role modelling of management,
ethical role modelling of supervisors, capability to behave ethically, commitment to behave
ethically, openness to discuss ethical issues, and reinforcement of ethical behaviour” (Kaptein,
BUSI472 CASE ASSIGNMENT 1
4
2011). In accordance with these parameters, it appears that Monsanto has demonstrated ethical
behaviour in these two situations and many more. They have endeavoured to have an ethical
culture and have not acted intentionally maliciously towards stakeholders. Rather, they have
responded to stakeholder concerns effectively and have maintained integrity in their ethical
dealings.
Costs and Benefits of Growing GMO Seed
Genetically modified seeds, as with all innovative products and technologies, have both
considerable drawbacks and worthwhile benefits. The stakeholders of GM seeds are abundant —
those who use the seeds, those who sell the food, and those who consume the food. No one is left
uninfluenced and thus, the trade offs must be considered.
Genetically modified seeds afford enormous benefits. “Genetically modified seeds offer
farmers dramatic new innovations that revolutionize how they grow crops” (Goldsmith, 2001). One
of the main goals of Monsanto Corporation is to “help farmers grow yield sustainably” (Monsanto,
2017) in both developing and developed countries. “Around 98 percent of the world’s
undernourished people live in developing countries” (United Nations, 2012) and they need a
solution to the food shortage problem quickly. On a trial basis, GM seeds were used in cotton
farms in India. The farmers using GM seeds earn approximately $176 more in revenues per acre
than their non-GM counterparts (Ferrell et al., 2017). GM seeds are one of the most viable
solutions to world hunger epidemic.
Additionally, the population of the world is growing at enormous rates and food scarcity in
developed countries is a prospect. GM seeds are undoubtedly a conceivable solution. “By 2050,
global agricultural production may need to be increase by 60-110% to meet these increasing
demands.” (Ray, Mueller, West, & Foley, 2013). Simultaneously, Monsanto has improved corn
yields from the average 70 bushels per acre in 1970 up to 150 bushels per acre in 2017 — an
BUSI472 CASE ASSIGNMENT 1
5
increase of roughly 114% (Ferrell et al., 2017). Those yields are predicted to be near 300 bushels
per acre by 2030. These numbers adequately reflect a food production increase by 100% in the next
few decades without taking up more of Earth’s ever-depleting land.
There is some plausible skepticism about genetically modified food as well. The potential
risks have resulted in both the European Union and China both banning many of Monsanto’s GM
food production. The foremost concerns of GM seeds are: safety of GM food ingestion for humans,
environmental consequences, harm to public health, and increasing dependency on big companies.
A 2006 study concluded that most of the public do not necessarily “feel that GM food is
particularly harmful to public health” (Poortinga & Pidgeon, 2006), but are most concerned about
the environmental risks as well as “big company dependency” (Poortinga & Pidgeon, 2006). 44%
of respondents had strong opinions on whether or not GM food should be promoted or opposed,
47% of respondents were unsure of their feelings towards it, and 9% did not care. However, almost
all participants agreed that GM food was a solution to world hunger.
It appears that environmental risks, such as herbicides used in conjunction with GM seeds,
killing of good insects like honeybees, and the general threat of contamination, are at the forefront
of people’s minds when it comes to GM seeds and uncertainty is what drives that fear. Monsanto
has been taking action to address these concerns and “maintains that the environmental impact of
everything it creates has been studied by the Environmental Protection Agency and
approved” (Ferrell et al., 2017). However, many know that it is too soon to accurately evaluate the
environmental danger involved with GM seeds.
Management of Harm to Plants and Animals
The requirement for environmental protection coupled with the need to grow crops makes
herbicide use a huge debate. Herbicides, such as RoundUp, are necessary for industrial farmers.
The fight should not be to ban herbicide use, but to promote responsible and safe herbicide use,
BUSI472 CASE ASSIGNMENT 1
6
which Monsanto is a proponent of. Monsanto officials claim that RoundUp chemicals “rarely end
up in ground water, and when it does contaminate ground water, it is soluble and will not have
much effect on aquatic species” (Ferrell et al., 2017).
In addition, Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready seeds have helped with the issue. When industrial
farmers use GM seeds, a significant difference is the volume (quantity) of pesticide that must be
applied. From 1996 to 2006, insecticide use dropped almost 20% on GM cotton crops — 95.5
million kg less. The environmental impact was reduced by 24.3% (Brookes and Barfoot, 2006).
Monsanto’s attempt to alter the genetics of seeds to be resistant to insects or weeds has resulted in
herbicide use being decreasing.
The implications of RoundUp herbicide on plant and animal life are a source of contention
for scientists and farmers. There have been countless studies whose results indicate an extreme
effect on the environment, and many that also deem the products safe. While harm to plant and
animal life should be effectively managed, it is not certain that any damage has been done at this
point. If further studies indicate substantial negative effects, Monsanto’s response must be effective
and efficient.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Monsanto has been under fire for many ethical dealings but has proved
responsible in responding to stakeholders and therefore creating an ethical culture within the
organization. The products that they develop have both considerable drawbacks and benefits for
the public, primarily with the environmental risks, yet the damage of those environmental risks is
undetermined and arguable. Monsanto has taken the necessary steps, precautions, and adjustments
to uphold an ethical organization.
BUSI472 CASE ASSIGNMENT 1
7
REFERENCES
Brookes, G. & Barfoot, P. (2006). Global impact of biotech crops: Socio-economic and
environmental effects in the first ten years of commercial use. AgBioForum, 9(3),
139-151. Retrieved from http://www.agbioforum.org/v9n3/v9n3a02-brookes.htm
Ferrell et al. (2017). Business ethics: Ethical decision making and cases: 2009 update (11th ed.).
Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Goldsmith, P. D. (2001). Innovation, Supply Chain Control, and the Welfare of Farmers.
American Behavioral Scientist, 44(8), 1302-1326. doi:10.1177/00027640121956836
Kaptein, M. (2011). Understanding unethical behavior by unraveling ethical culture. Human
Relations, 64(6), 843-869. doi:10.1177/0018726710390536
Monsanto Corporation. (2017). Corporate Responsibility. Retrieved February 8, 2019, from
https://www.monsanto-ag.co.uk/about-us/corporate-responsibility/
Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2006). Exploring the Structure of Attitudes Toward Genetically
Modified Food. Risk Analysis, 26(6), 1707-1719. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00828.x
Ray, D. K., Mueller, N. D., West, P. C., & Foley, J. A. (2013). Yield Trends Are Insufficient to
Double Global Crop Production by 2050. PLoS ONE, 8(6). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.
0066428
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2012). Poverty and Food Crisis.
Retrieved February 8, 2019, from https://stats.unctad.org/Dgff2012/chapter4/4.2.html
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
