Monsanto Case Study
Liberty University
Business 472-D02

Introduction

Monsanto has a long and varied history having been founded in 1901. It started by selling the sweetener saccharine to Coca-Cola, transformed itself into a chemical manufacturer, plastics, rubbers, and packaging (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2013, p.382-383). Fast forward to the late 20th and early 21st century and Monsanto is the worldwide leader in genetically modified (GM) food seeds. Through these various incarnations Monsanto has run into its share of ethical problems that has cost it some hard earned trust of governing bodies and consumers worldwide, but continues to prosper none the less. Monsanto has a very fine line to walk in keeping the highest ethical standards, finding ways to continuously innovate products that help to feed the world, and do this causing the absolute minimum damage to the environment at large as well as animals. All this must be done and still produce a profit that shareholders demand.
Monsanto and the Culture of its Ethics Monsanto has a long history of ethical business violations that has resulted in fines from a multitude of American and International governmental agencies. The company has had issues with some of its products dating back to the 1940’s. Brian Tokar lists a string of products manufactured by Monsanto such as Dioxin, Agent Orange, Roundup, and others that has caused the company more than a headache or two. In reference to a train derailment and subsequent lawsuit involving Dioxin, Tokar writes “A three and a half year court case brought by railroad workers exposed to dioxin following a train derailment revealed a pattern of manipulated data and misleading experimental design in these studies” (1998, para. 11). Ferrell et al., (2013) also make note of a Monsanto manager instructing an Indonesian consulting firm to pay a $50,000 bribe to an environmental minister (p. 388). Clearly a company as large as Monsanto is going to have some of it employees be less than ethical, but is it epidemic with the company? Monsanto, though, also has a history of good corporate citizenship. Ferrell et al. write “in fact, Corporate Responsibility Magazine ranked Monsanto number 36 on its Best Corporate Citizens list of 2013” (2013, p. 390). Richard J. Mahoney CEO of Monsanto from 1982-1995 writes “Whatever we learn from the 1980s, one lesson is timeless: There's no right way to do a wrong thing” (1991, para. 2). All of the above referenced quotes paint a contrasting picture of Monsanto. Certainly when mishandled potentially dangerous chemicals are involved, corporate ethics will be called into question. Monsanto has a history of mostly good corporate citizenship, and more than likely that will continue into the future.
The Cost of Goodwill vs. the Benefits of Growing GMO Seeds What are the benefits of using Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) seeds in food production? GMO seeds labeled as Roundup Ready have the weed killer Roundup as part of their makeup. This means that the seeds are resistant to Roundup, or that they release Roundup and kill weeds surrounding the growing crop. These seeds can save farmers valuable time and money in weed control. Many other GMO seeds are modified to be disease resistant, better tolerate harsh weather, produce more product, etc. Larger crop yield usually equals larger income and profit. The benefits of stronger, hardier disease resistant seeds though come at a cost. The costs, real or imagined by many, are that the natural food process modified by GMO seed production does greater harm to people than the benefits of higher food production at possibly lower costs. The possibility of GMO seeds mixing with organic seeds is a nightmare prospect for organic farmers. Organic farmers stake their reputation on the fact that their seeds are 100% natural and untainted by any pesticide or man-made alteration. Sabrina Wilson writes “The landscape of modern organic farming changed drastically with the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Today's organic farmer must be constantly vigilant of the threat of GMO cross-contamination” (2014, para. 1). Monsanto is clearly not in the business of promoting organic farmers, but it is in the best interest of the company to not interfere with the organic farming movement, and to help farmers that use Monsanto products in the handling of GMO seeds to be a worldwide partner in food and product production.
Managing Potential Harm to Plants and Animals In a free economic society such as the United States and most of the European Union (EU) there are responsibilities for GMO seed users as well as organic farmers. The GMO seed producer (Monsanto) and the seed user (farmer) need to do its fiduciary duty of not contaminating neighboring organic farms. The organic farmer on the other side of the coin cannot impose their will of pesticide non-modified form of farming on the GMO farmer. Zoe Robaey (2014, p. 50) writes if we put the ownership of a thing in its context, the duty to prevent harm might pose boundary conditions on economic rights. For instance, the duty to prevent harm might limit how the right to manage is implemented in agriculture, i.e. which pesticides are to be used, etc. Secondly, the duty to prevent harm presents a duty to the owner directly.

Robaey’s point is that there is an ethical and economic responsibility of the GMO seed user to do no harm to a competing farmer’s crop, organic or not. Use of Monsanto products like Roundup and other pesticides needs to be done with great care with respect to the environment and the food chain. When it comes to animals fed GMO grown food, and in turn than used by humans for meat consumption, the standards for ethical use and treatment are just as high if not higher than for GMO and organically produced food crops. While there are not any conclusive studies done by neutral parties, great care needs to be taken in the feeding of livestock with GMO grown food. Animals have a different genetic makeup than humans, and their ability to fight off chemicals and other potential health hazards are not as great as humans especially when it comes to the food cycle.
Conclusion
When looking at Monsanto and what it produces in the way of animal feed products and food that is consumed by humans, it is clear that the company has high ethical standards it needs to meet when it comes to environmental sustainability and the foods that the world consumes. Monsanto has a moral and ethical duty to disclose to the consumer farmer and the eventual end user of its products what is in the product, and what if any are the negative consequences of using the product. If Monsanto does that, then the company has met the ethical and moral standards of truth and honesty. It then falls on the consumer (s) as to whether it is moral in their eyes to consume products that have been GMO manufactured. The costs and benefits of GMO seed produced food will continue to be debated well into the future. There is little doubt that GMO seeds produce larger crops at a faster rate and tolerate diseases or plagues much better, but at what cost to potential health problems. The studies on possible health concerns will continue as long as there is debate on the subject. What is clear is that Monsanto will continue to play a major role in how food is produced for decades to come, and the company must be ethical throughout.
References
Ferrell, O., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2015). Business ethics: Ethical decision making and cases. (10th ed.). Mason OH: South-Western Cengage Learning
Mahoney, R. J. (1991). Ethics: Doing the right thing at monsanto. Management Accounting, 72(12), 24. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/docview/229733391?pq-origsite=summon
Robaey, Z. (2014) Looking for moral responsibility in ownership: A way to deal with hazards of GMOs (28), 43-56. doi 10.1007/s10806-014-9517-8
Tokar, Brian. "Monsanto: a checkered history." The Ecologist 28.5 (1998): 254+.Academic OneFile Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=vic_libert y&id=GALE|A21269218&v=2.1&it=r&userGroup=vic_liberty
Wilson, S. (2014). Induced nuisance: holding patent owners liable for gmo cross-contamination. Emory Law Journal, 64(1), 169-199. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/docview/1616247294?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=12085