Q1: Does Monsanto maintain an ethical culture that effectively responds to various stakeholders?
The definition of whether a company has an ethical culture is usually based on what they do, how they do it, and the structures put in place by the topmost leaders to ensure that all stakeholders are duly taken care of and excesses to them are cut.
In the first instance, the activities of Monsanto are inherently problematic and carry a high risk. This is because most people and most groups around the world have an issue with the creation of genetically modified seeds and plants. Many religious people have views against interbreeding of animals and plants and since most countries have roots to Abrahamic religions today, it follows logically that these cultures will frown on the activities of Monsanto.
Secondly, Monsanto manufactures chemicals that has direct impacts on the environment. This includes the fact that these chemicals – unlike natural fertilizers that work within a reasonable range can have far-reaching consequences. Therefore, there is a general problem that could create an unprecedented situation to the environment.
However, at the heart of its operations – Monsanto seeks to use technology to improve and enhance farming techniques and improve yield so that there is a better quality of life. These risks are inherent in the process. Therefore, it is impending on the leaders and management to ensure they set the right limits of reputational risks and create a framework to ensure responsible actions in what they do as a biotechnological and chemical entity. Being ethical will require dealing with these issues. Thus, the ethical challenge and dilemmas of Monsanto is inherent. And any attempts to deal with it have to do with the ability to deal with risks by setting parameters and dealing with those parameters.
Judging Monsanto by this standard, it can be said there are two competing interest groups that anyone in a managerial position in Monsanto will have to be weary of – stakeholders and stockholders. Monsanto has invested a lot of its capital base into biotechnological research. This is to create results that shareholders wish to commercialize and increase their stock of wealth in the company. However, stakeholders like responsible consumer groups, governments around the world and societies want them to have good relationships with the society, promote the health of people and save the environment. Thus, Monsanto in most of the case study, has been seeking dialog and reputational management processes. This is to give them a positive image and help them to have a sustained existence whilst they work to maximize their earnings to make their shareholders richer.
Some of the attempts and processes of maintaining their reputation have not been too great. They have been involved in bribery and legal scandals which give them a negative name and view. This shows the nature of their ethical culture. It seem to be a fire-fighting approach which is only responsive to problems and attempts to use various means to deal with problems as and how they come. The primary desire is to deal with the desire to make profits whilst they continue to find all possible ways to make money for the company.
Thus, it is conclusive that Monsanto’s ethical culture is poor and weak. In companies with strong ethical cultures, the directors and people charged with corporate governance set a framework of absolute standards and some utilitarian or flexible standards which are observed by all members at all levels. This ensures that in the case of an ethical dilemma, there is always a way the staff members define what is right and what is wrong. With time, this culture becomes institutionalized in the organization and the organization becomes ethical at all levels and they do things that are of the best interests to all and sundry.
Q2: Compare the benefits of growing GM seeds for crops with negative consequences of using them
A stakeholder is a person or entity that affects and is affected by the actions of a company. In this time in history, most stakeholder actions are judged as good or bad on the basis of how well they meet the best interest of stakeholders. However, a business is set up for the betterment of its owners because owners come together to pool resources and this leads to resources.
However, not all the research and studies they have done are good. Some of the products have been known to cause havoc and harm to the wider society. Some products are detrimental to the health of consumers because they have hormones and other things that causes challenges for consumers. Other products also have negative and dreaded impacts on the environment. Thus, one can mention a situation where some crops can act in many ways that could cause widespread havoc. For instance, a species of plant they produce might have that ability to dry up and become fuel which can in turn, cause bush fires to spread which can destroy thousands of acres of forests. This could open up the gate for major lawsuits to be filed against the company not today but in several decades in the future.
The nature of the risks relating to pioneering research into new plants also have to do with the problem of creating problems that cannot be forecast. This is a case that potentially opens up Monsanto to unlimited risks of legal tussles and problems that could render it bankrupt in the future. Therefore, it is necessary for them to draw some kind of balance.
On the other hand, business flourishes when products are sold at high prices and the markets are unlimited. Therefore, it might be wise to draw some kind of balance. In the case of GM seeds, the benefits are that Monsanto can increase yield for their clients and potential consumers. GM foods bring a lot of yield. And as such, consumers are able to harvest more, sell more and make more money. With that kind of situation, they are able to make more revenue and can pay Monsanto more money in exchange for their seeds.
In spite of the potential for more yield, there is the risk of legal and reputational risks. The legal issues have to do with regulations that will ban these products due to the risk they carry or bring to specific nations. In the process, Monsanto has tried to influence policies and there have been times where bribery has been reported and this creates the reputational problems. The lines between bribery and lobbying are blurred in some countries. Hence, they could fall into major problems and cases of bribery and corruption if they continue to lobby.
Thus, the solution is to draw a balance and set high standards that will ensure they develop responsible GM products. This means that there must be better and more enhanced measures to define the blueprints for product development and the responsible engagement with the media and stakeholders through dialog.
Q3: How should Monsanto manage the potential harm to animal and plant life from using products like Roundup?
Every company is responsible for injury that results from the use of their products and most jurisdictions recognize this in all dimensions. However, the obligation for injury caused by a firm’s products has two dimensions – a legal dimension and a moral dimension. Legal matters are often stated in the laws of the land and recognized by the constitution. Hence, people affected by the product can sue for changes and there could be criminal law that bars the use of such products. However, morality is about the social standards and perceptions of the people – the court of public opinion.
In this case, Monsanto’s products are open to risks of harm to both animals and plant life. For people who have already been affected by a product like Roundup, Monsanto will have to identify their injuries and pay full compensation and betterment for their challenges. This includes their losses in both comfort and life. This will be followed by various procedures in class action suits that will lead to major payments and major compensations. Aside that, Monsanto will have to play the role of a good corporate citizen with social ties to the community. Hence, they will have to take personal care and ensure that there is a responsible solution. Thus, in aspects like plant life and others which does not have stakeholders who can directly sue, they should do things like sharing parts of their profits with them and promoting the betterment of the people. This is a part of their corporate social responsibility.
For potential harm of future issues that could happen in future, Monsanto will have to take reasonable care to ensure that their products do not cause harm. Therefore, they must set standards for their research works so that anything they do and everything they start will be done in a way that will improve the products. Products that cannot be mild on the environment and on people in the society must be kept away from commercial sales. Those that meet certain predetermined standards of safety must be made available to consumers.
Concerning products that are on the market, there is the need for Monsanto to conduct thorough impact assessments on the products before they are made available to consumers. This is because there is the need for consumers’ potential risks to be known. And through this, reasonable care must be taken to ensure that the risks are minimized and there are efforts to improve the livelihoods of citizens in the society.
Also, any case or issue that comes up must be given the deepest and the strictest scrutiny. This must be traced to the root and source and evaluated in order to detect early signs of risks and deal with them. This way, Monsanto can achieve great rewards and ensure they do things in the best way without getting into so much problems and trouble.
Furthermore, Monsanto can and should have social programs that will enable them to give back to societies they work in. This way, they will be seen as good corporate citizens and as the products without issues are made available to consumers, they can be given a favorable view when issues come up in future.
References
Atherton, S. C. (2011). Fiduciary Principles: Corporate Responsibilities to Stakeholders. Journal of Religion and Business Ethics 2(2), 1-15.
Carroll, A., & Buchholtz, A. (2014). Business and Society: Ethics, Sustainability, and Stakeholder Management. Mason, OH: Cengage.
Ferrell, O. C., Ferrell, L., & Fraedrich, J. (2012). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases. Wadsworth: South-Western College.
Freeman, E., & Reed, D. (2013). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. Los Angeles: UCLA Extension Press.
Rae, S. (2012). Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics. New York: Zondervan Publishing.
Weiss, J. W. (2015). Business Ethics: A Stakeholder and Issues Management Approach. Oakland, CA: Berrett Kohler Publishing.
