Case Study: Monsanto Company

1585 Words4 Pages

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 This case analysis …show more content…

The Board is responsible for enforcing biological patents on Bt Cotton and reassuring through investigations that farmers are not defying their legal jurisdictions. Defiance of laws would result in litigation carried out by the board. Their monopolization in the Indian agricultural market bears power, which can be utilized to unjustly influence the Indian government. Their enforcements of biological patents yields them with great legitimacy. They are entitled to urgency as the effect of their patents on Indian farmers should be called to immediate attention, as it results in catastrophic impacts on human lives. The Board of Directors can be classified as a supportive stakeholder as their enforcement of patents maximizes revenue, which is acting in the best interest of Monsanto as a whole. The Board meets all the requirements of “Mitchell, Agle, and Wood’s Theory of Stakeholder Identification and …show more content…

With high interest and relatively low power, they oppose Monsanto and their genetically processed seeds. The organic suppliers virtually cannot compete with Monsanto, as the variety of supply is entirely different. Their legitimacy and power is derived from their capital, which can be used alongside the media, to lobby against Monsanto’s practices. By capitalizing on society’s negative view on genetically modified products, they can criticize and publicize the controversial actions taken by Monsanto. Bad publicity can lead to a declining share value and overall net income. Conclusively, Monsanto’s competitors represents an antagonistic stakeholder and therefore should be taken into account to minimize

Open Document