Monsanto demonstrates a strong commitment to ethical values and effectively addresses the concerns of different stakeholders. The company reported instances of bribery in Indonesia to the Department of Justice during the late 1990s/early 2000s, showcasing their dedication to corporate governance. Unlike many large corporations, Monsanto places great importance on the well-being of its main stakeholders – the farmers who purchase their seed. Through innovation in seed varieties, farmers can achieve higher crop yields per acre while minimizing risks associated with weeds, diseases, or insects.
In response to consumer demands, Monsanto has also shifted its focus from genetically modified corn intended for direct human consumption to applications such as feed corn, ethanol production, and corn syrup.
In the current age of increasing favor for organic consumption, the subject of genetically modified (GM) food becomes captivating. While those in stable economic conditions may question the need for GM food, it is crucial to recognize the global situation. With the world population steadily growing and farmland acreage dwindling each year since 1999 – a remarkable event unprecedented throughout history – it becomes clear that this issue requires careful consideration.
The global population has been rapidly increasing, rising from 3.0 billion in 1960 to 6.5 billion in 2005, and is projected to reach approximately 8.3 billion by 2030. This growth presents a significant challenge in meeting the food demands of this expanding population, particularly considering the decreasing amount of farmland per person. In 2005, there was an average of 2,200m² (2,630 square yards) of farmland available per capita; however, it is expected to decrease to 1,800m² (2,150 square yards) by 2030.
The need to increase food production on limited land requires the use of genetically modified (GM) food or alternative methods. Currently, GM foods appear to be the most efficient way to accomplish this objective.
GM food relies on the capability to spray non-selective herbicides without harming GM plants. Nevertheless, there are worries about the added pesticide usage due to the potential risks it brings: unwanted environmental exposure for those who consume the food, development of weed resistance, and damage to beneficial organisms.
Question 3: How should Monsanto address the potential harm to plant and animal life resulting from the use of products like Roundup?
It is crucial to make efforts in improving GM seed/Roundup application practices and providing education for farmers. The combination of non GM seeds with GM seeds helps prevent insect resistance. Moreover, it is essential to educate farmers about the benefits of using non GM crops for crop rotation. Since this issue has global implications, Monsanto must collaborate internationally and focus on countries where farmers may lack awareness or misuse pesticides and fail to understand the advantages of crop rotation.
BP:
Q1. What elements of BP’s code of ethics may have played a role in the occurrence of the Gulf Coast oil spill catastrophe?
The past behavior indicates a lack of regard for safety and a failure to promptly address maintenance issues that could have prevented the 2005 Texas explosion and the 2006 Alaskan Pipeline leaks. It appears that safety was not a top priority in the corporate culture, as demonstrated by these incidents.
Did BP purposefully avoid engaging in risk management? If so, why? If not, why not?
BP seems to have neglected both required and optional risk management practices. The less severe violations are those that were voluntary, such as the absence of a remote shut-off for emergencies to close a well. The most concerning violations, however, are those that were mandated. In the Texas case, BP acknowledged multiple procedure failures, and in the Alaskan Pipeline case, there were basic preventative measures recommended that could have averted the accident. In the Deepwater case, there are allegations made by an employee of the rig company regarding significant violations.
In order to rebuild its reputation and effectively manage the risks associated with offshore drilling activities, BP should take certain actions in the future.
Rebuilding BP’s reputation requires a multi-level approach. One aspect is investing in cleaner fuels, which helps portray them as an environmentally-friendly company, something consumers view positively. It is also crucial for BP to respond ethically to the ongoing cleanup effort, ensuring fair compensation for those affected economically by the Gulf spill. Moreover, BP needs to prioritize changing its corporate culture by emphasizing safety and integrity above all else. This involves implementing measures such as remote shut-off switches, conducting inspections with greater accountability, and showing a stronger sense of urgency in addressing violations. It is essential for BP to utilize any available technology that can prevent or detect potential issues. Ultimately, avoiding any future spills, explosions, or bribery scandals is the most effective method for restoring their public image.
Professors Questions:
Q1. Provide your analysis of the ethical issues present in each case, taking into consideration the knowledge you have gained throughout the course.
Social responsibility was not properly practiced by BP, resulting in a significant potential and actual negative impact.
Both BP and ExxonMobil have clear responsibilities towards their primary and secondary stakeholders. However, BP neglected the needs and concerns of secondary stakeholders, specifically those living in coastal areas near offshore drilling sites.
According to Monsanto, the previous management of the company had major issues in terms of corporate governance and citizenship demonstrated by their actions of disposing hazardous chemicals in an Alabama landfill. Additionally, one can also include lack of honesty and integrity as notable shortcomings.
BP faced ethical problems involving bribery and also experienced multiple instances of negligence that resulted in significant environmental repercussions.
Both the previous version of Monsanto and the current BP company faced problems with their core values and failed to adhere to both voluntary and mandated boundaries. This was evident in the activities of Monsanto Chemical and BP in Texas, Alaska, and the Gulf region.
Both companies, BP and Monsanto, engage in philanthropy by making donations. Additionally, BP focuses on sustainability by investing in sustainable fuels, while Monsanto focuses on sustainable farming practices.
Some farmers have accused “New Monsanto” of engaging in abusive and intimidating behavior during their investigation into farmers’ seed saving practices, which is illegal when it involves patent-protected plants.
Q2. What steps can Monsanto and BP take to enhance their companies’ business ethics?
The foundation for it all must begin at the highest level, prioritizing corporate governance policies that surpass mandated requirements. These policies should undergo regular review and monitoring, with strict enforcement of accountability measures for any violations. Additionally, a corporate culture that upholds the utmost standards is essential.
What is the current status for both companies in 2013 and are there any newsworthy ethical issues?
Both Monsanto and Roundup, as major players in the industry with significant resources, have been able to withstand challenges like the Deepwater well disaster. Despite ongoing battles concerning genetically modified (GM) food, Monsanto’s GM plants seem to have spread to other fields. Consequently, farmers have initiated lawsuits claiming that their fields have been contaminated with GM plants. Additionally, the emergence of Roundup resistant weeds has compelled farmers to revert back to tilling their lands, leading to erosion and a return to pesticides they had initially moved away from due to the introduction of GM plants. [source: http://rt.com/usa/gmo-corn-fails-against-pests-863/]
Despite surpassing their initial projections, BP is still responsible for funding the restoration of the Gulf. They will also continue to compensate those impacted by the incident and focus on long-term endeavors to revive the Gulf. For additional details, please refer to this article from The New York Times.
