Monsanto Controversy

Upon reviewing the history of Monsanto, one can see the transition of the corporate’s products from the artificial sweetener saccharine to one the most known herbicide, Roundup. Along the way, the company was involved in the production of other chemicals that destroyed the organization’s reputation and threatened in existence (Ferrell, Fraedrich & Ferrell, 2013, pp.382-395). Eventually, in order to survive turbulent times, the company made a strategic move to develop a seed that was resistant to its own product. Interestingly enough, the genetically modified seed contains Roundup. With this in mind, Monsanto continues to utilize substantial resources to convince its stakeholders that GMO(s) are safe and its organizational practices are ethical. In efforts to deal with the lists of complaints that plagued Monsanto such as:

bribery, strong-arm tactics, and lawsuits, the company has created a pledge to promote integrity and social responsibility.

First of all, Monsanto has been fined by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for its employee’s participation in bribing other countries’ officials. Even though bribery is illegal in the United States, in many developing countries bribing someone is allowed. Secondly, there are documented cases where Monsanto has employed investigators to use strong-arm tactics to “confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers”, so that Monsanto will have access their handwritten and computerized records (Barlett et.al, 2008). The purpose for this tactic is to prevent farmers from saving seeds from the previous harvest to plant in the upcoming spring, thereby, reducing the profits of Monsanto. Additionally, Monsanto has capitalized on the 1980 Supreme Court ruling that allowed seeds to be patent and requires its farmers to discontinue this century-old practice as well as preventing them from selling to other farmers. Consequently, many farmers have abandon old practices and if sued, they have settled rather than going to court. Finally, Monsanto has been the plaintiff in numerous

legal battles. While most of the cases are related to toxic chemicals that have infiltrated the communities where the buildings are located, others are related competitors and organizations that fear that GM seeds with affect the earth’s balance in the future.
Faced with grievances that contend that Monsanto uses bribery and violence, coupled with its propensity for legal complications, the company strives to maintain an ethical culture to combat the negative implications seen by the public and its competitors. In an attempt to persuade its stakeholders that the corporation is committed to being social responsible, the organization has given millions to fund educational and environmental foundations. In addition to generous donations, the company pledges in writing its integrity, transparency, and social responsibility, just to name a few, as a tool for accountability. The amount of donations or the written declaration of ethical principles may not be enough to contest the public debate about the “cultural acceptability of GM foods” in urbanized and emerging countries, therefore, depending on the audience, the strategy to be considered an ethical company is insignificant (Turner, B, 2011, p.9).