Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Bayer group of companies
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Bayer group of companies
As CEO of Bayer-Monsanto the needs of the various stakeholders would need to be addressed and successfully engaged. Given the ethical issues that Monsanto has faced in the past, employees, customers, the environment, and society’s perception is not very favorable. Bayer-Monsanto can fulfill their moral obligations while also protecting society and the environment from potential negative consequences of its products by creating an ethical brand identity and a relative positive position through strategic brand alliance, CSR, and philanthropy. Bayer-Monsanto must focus on building an ethical brand identity, corporate image, and corporate reputation (Alwi, 2017). Monsanto has already completed the first step, brand alliance. Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto may take away focus from the negative image of Monsanto’s brand. Bayer should continue to use the name however, the use of the name Bayer-Monsanto could be used strategically to highlight the positives and erase the negative perception of consumers and society. The brand’s equity should be in a more positive light despite the similar criticism received by Bayer (Keating, 2016). …show more content…
The company must discover new ways and ensure the disposal of hazards chemicals. In the past, Monsanto lacked active engagement with policy-makers and environmental groups (Keating, 2016). This could have a positive effect on both the corporate image and reputation. Taking on criticism rather than ignoring can help to promote the brand as being actively concerned for the environment and society. Bayer’s name behind the Monsanto GMO products could all help to convince and change the perception of GMO’s through the European Union. Creating an ethical brand identity will be of the most importance so that Bayer-Monsanto can reposition itself an environmentally focused company (Ferrell & Hartline,
Barlett and Steele, after arguing a clear case against Monsanto Company’s legal tactics, fail to provide adequate evidence to supplement the testimonies of extra-legal tactics, leaving readers in a position to vindicate Monsanto’s alleged conduct based on its legal aggression. Barlett and Steele’s decision to supplement their arguments with first person narratives from targeted victims added characters to an otherwise sound chronological observation and provide authentic testimony against faceless company representatives who may not represent the views and opinions of their employer(s). Barlett and Steele, who commented minimally on nonGMO/GMO product differences, criticize Monsanto’s aggressive and unorthodox expansion and misuse of the legal system to draw attention to the heavy handed company and to its
In the case of Smucker, the environmental action campaign group was able to get about 35,000 signatures against what they termed as the company’s role in funding anti-labeling efforts. This issue touches on environmental factors because GMO foods are seen as a threat to the environment and many people think that GMO-based food companies are a threat to the environment.
The taste of the processed chicken from my elementary school cafeteria remains imbedded in my memory. I can still taste the chunks of chicken that could not be broken up by my teeth, and the tired, lazy feeling I had walking back to my next class. This is the exact situation organic farmer and producers are trying to avoid by making healthy products. The documentary, In Organic We Trust, attempts to persuade the viewers that organic products create a healthy lifestyle, and improve living conditions for people all over the world. Kip Pastor’s use of ethos and logos in his documentary are strong and provide supporting evidence, however, Pastor is lacking an abundant amount of pathos. Pastor incorporates logos into his documentary by allowing the audience to experience a multitude of facts and supporting evidence. Ethos is used in the film through Pastor’s interviews with professionals, and pathos is shown by the touching stories of individuals.
Monsanto Company are a public American multinational agricultural and agrochemical biotechnology corporation who leads in the production of genetically engineered seeds. Founded by John Queeny in 1901, the organization initially produced industrial chemicals such as sulphuric acid and plastics, including polystyrene and synthetic fibres. It was not until 1983, where the company was among the first to genetically modify a plant cell and conduct field trials of genetically modified crops. This scientific breakthrough shifted the company 's corporate focus towards the agricultural industry with the implementation of biotechnology. The company’s primary line of products consist of herbicides and genetically modified seeds.1
Monsanto employs over 20,000 employees dispersed throughout their facilities within 69 countries. John F. Queeny, founder of Monsanto, started the company in 1901, which at first manufactured saccharine. Later, John son Edward directed the companies into the agriculture industry. The company is best known producing Round up, an herbicide, and for developing genetically modified (GM) through biotechnology. “Monsanto developed G.M. seeds that would resist its own herbicide, Roundup, offering farmers a convenient way to spray fields with weed killer without affecting crops” (Barlett, D. L. & Steele, J. B, 2008). Since the start up the company has encounter several lawsuits, patent issues and critics. The company also faces many concerns about the
Now they know. They also know that for nearly 40 years, while producing the now-banned industrial coolants known as PCBs at a local factory, Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit landfills. And thousands of pages of Monsanto documents -- many emblazoned with warnings such as "CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy" -- show that for decades, the corporate giant concealed what it did and what it knew.
Monsanto is the world 's leader on bio-technology and was found in St. Louis Missouri. Monsanto was not known as an agriculture company at first as it is now rather a chemical company of the 20th century. They are also responsible for growing 90 percent of the world 's GMO’s. On Monsanto’s website it states their goal is to help farmers around the world to produce healthier foods, conserving more, and better animal feeds while reducing impact on our environment. Monsanto 's GMO has been effecting our environment for years but have not yet brought to justice according to this video. The question is why? According to this documentary Monsanto created many hazardous chemicals for example PCBs, Agent Orange and recombinant
These are only few examples of the many lawsuits that have been filed against Monsanto since its creation in
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 polychlorinated biphenols (PCB’s) which are now banned but still linger in our soil and water (Arax, 1997).
Challenges facing the Monsanto Company have been many. This company has been engaged in unscrupulous undertakings that have resulted in innumerable lawsuits against the company. In many countries, Monsanto Company’s products continue to be banned while others face law suits on their viability and safety of the public.
Monsanto is a multinational agricultural and agrochemical biotechnology corporation based in America and is the largest producer of genetically engineered seeds. Monsanto argues that using science and newfound research to create genetically modified food is necessary in order to save our world from starvation. Eduardo Blumwald, a professor of cell biology and employee for Monsanto, says that genetically modified food could be “the only viable solution we have for our future” (Ostrander 24) where it is predicted that the temperature and population will soar. Blumwald argues that without genetically engineering food to produce under high temperatures with little water, the world could potentially starve in this predicted future. Yet regardless of “biotech industry promises, none of the GMO traits currently on the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit” (“GMO Facts”). Instead, Monsanto genetically modifies food to resist RoundUp, a pesticide the company has created to kill any plants or bugs other than the genetically engineered crop. According to the World Health Organization, this pesticide “is a probable human carcinogen” (“GMOs”) due to glyphosate, a
Our attitudes toward GMO foods range from hostility to indifference. GMO foods, like pesticide-resistant Roundup Ready soybeans and fast-growing salmon, seem to exist primarily to pad corporate pockets. Most people are not aware that they are eating GMO foods. The greater percentage of the population is just looking at the price tag instead of what is in the food product. This technology has the potential to provide sustainable nutrient rich food sources throughout the ages if the science is not abused for the food industry’s
Although Monsanto Company took some social implications like charitable programs, it failed to uphold ethical culture many times over the years. Some of unethical practices the company had done so far were bribery, anticompetitive activities and harassing behavior towards infringer of patent. Notably, during the Vietnam War, Monsanto had been strongly criticized by producing toxic chemical named Agent Orange which had detrimental effects on not only human-beings but also the environment. Nowadays, genetically modified (GM) seeds produced by Monsanto remain controversial. Because of GM seeds’ unknown influences, it is
The organic movement began to become influenced by American corporations when organic agriculture became institutionalized (Johnston, Biro, & MacKendrick, 2009). The corporatization of organic food has influenced the movement by re-defining the word organic itself. Now that larger corporations need approval and certification of their products, the term organic has begun to shift from a word that was once loaded with environmental ideals to a simple label signifying that the products met the standards of the regulations set forth by the USDA. The increase of interest in larger corporations has also influenced the movement as it has caused certification processes to become more costly, so costly that smaller suppliers cannot manage and consequently get pushed out of the market. While the buy-outs by larger corporations may deter members of the organic movement from making purchases from their company, a lack advertisement may hide the fact that the smaller companies have been bought out especially as larger corporations keep the original name without publically announcing that they have bought out the company. In fact, in the “Lost in the Supermarket: The Corporate-Organic Foodscape and the Struggle for Food Democracy” study, it was reported that only 56% of corporations list their affiliation with the smaller organic company that they buy out. In order to maintain the guise of staying true to the origins of the organic movement, many corporations who have bought out smaller companies advertise to the public in a way that projects images of small and humble beginnings of family owned farms. In other words, though corporations use large scale farms in several different areas, they still portray their company in a light that depicts them as small, family farms—truly humanizing
Young, D. (2012). Green Marketing & Marketing Ethics, Room 009, Block 17, Middlesex University Dubai. (25th March, 2012)