Monsanto Attempts to Balance Stakeholder Interests 1
SAINT PETER’S UNIVERSITY
CASE 1:
Monsanto Attempts to Balance Stakeholder Interests
Team 6
10-5-2017
This case discusses Monsanto; the world’s largest seed company and biotechnology specialist,
and its attempts to balance stakeholder interests. Having been founded in 1901, Monsanto has
faced a number of legal obstacles, as well as received scrutiny for their work on genetically
modified food. The criticism and lawsuits against the organization led to the company attempting
to become socially responsible and maintain an ethical culture. This case also highlights how
Monsanto has estblished itself as the world’s leader in the selling of GM seeds, the rebuilding of
their reputation, and the way Monsanto used its criticism attempt to change and become more
beneficial to its stakeholders and their interests.
Case Question:
Monsanto Attempts to Balance Stakeholder Interests 2
1. Does Monsanto maintain an ethical culture that effectively responds to various
stakeholders? (Jonathan)
In recent years, Monsanto; the world’s largest seed company, which specializes in
biotechnology, or the genetic manipulation of organisms, has begun to take steps towards
maintaining an ethical culture. Although they have tried and made a few of the steps necessary to
become a socially responsible corporation, they fail to efficiently maintain an ethical culture that
responds to its various stakeholders. Monsanto has tried to maximize its efficiency through the
incorporation of biotechnology, but still, faces criticism from a large number of consumers. For
instance, “critics accuse the multinational giant of attempting to take over the world’s food
supply and destroying biodiversity. Since biotechnology is relatively new, critics also express
concerns about the possibility of negative health and environmental effects from biotech food”
(Jolley, Sawayda, 2015, p. 382). This is in part due to Monsanto ruining its reputation through
its past unethical behavior.
In the 1970s Monsanto experienced a legal setback when it produced a chemical
named Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. The purpose of this chemical was to defrost
Vietnam’s thick jungles. However, “Agent Orange contained dioxin, a chemical that caused a
legal nightmare for Monsanto. Dioxin was found to be extremely carcinogenic, and in 1979 a
lawsuit was filed against Monsanto on behalf of hundreds of veterans who claimed they were
harmed by the chemical” (Jolley, Sawayda, 2015, p. 383). Monsanto should have known better
than to use such chemicals because “the first reported industrial dioxin poisoning occurred in
Nitro, West Virginia in 1949. The exposed workers complained of rash, nausea, headaches,
fatigue, and emotional instability” (Nass, n.d). A socially responsible and ethical company would
not have produced a chemical using dioxins knowing the possible side effects of dioxins.
Monsanto Attempts to Balance Stakeholder Interests 3
In addition, “new Monsanto was tainted by disturbing news about the company’s
conduct. For nearly 40 years the Monsanto Company had released toxic waste into a creek in the
Alabama town of Anniston” (Jolley, Sawayda, 2015, p.383). Monsanto had also been disposing
of polychlorinated biphenyls; a highly toxic chemical, in open-pit landfills even after finding out
in the 1960s of the pollution. “Today, parts of Anniston are so contaminated that the residents
have been told not grow vegetables in the soil, kick up dirt, eat food, chew gum or smoke
cigarettes while working in their yards” (Crean, 2002). Due to Monsanto’s unethical behavior,
there was a very high stakeholder uncertainty which caused a stock to fall by almost 50 percent.
Many of Monsanto’s stakeholders are concerned with the moral and safety
implications of GM (genetically modified) foods and for a good reason. Monsanto’s Roundup
herbicide contains a chemical called glyphosate. “According to an ecology center fact sheet,
