CASE ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS   OVERVIEW The stude

1-1Introduction
When you think of Monsanto, the phrase genetically
modified likely comes to mind. The Monsanto Company is the
world’s largest seed company, with sales of over $15.9 billion. It
specializes in biotechnology, or the genetic manipulation of
organisms. Monsanto scientists have spent the last few decades
modifying crops—often by inserting new genes or adapting
existing genes within plant seeds—to meet certain aims, such as
higher crop yields or insect resistance. Monsanto develops
genetically-engineered seeds of plants that can survive weeks of
drought, ward off weeds, and kill invasive insects. Monsanto’s
genetically modified (GM) seeds have increased the quantity
and availability of crops, helping farmers worldwide increase
food production and revenues.

Today, 90 percent of the world’s GM seeds are sold by Monsanto
or companies that use Monsanto genes. Monsanto also holds a
70 to 100 percent market share on certain crops. Yet Monsanto
has met its share of criticism from sources as diverse as
governments, farmers, activists, and advocacy groups.
Monsanto supporters say the company creates solutions to
world hunger by generating higher crop yields and hardier
plants. 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. A Harris Poll shows
that Monsanto is considered to be the fourth most hated
company in the United States. However, these criticisms have
not kept Monsanto from becoming one of the world’s most
successful businesses.

This analysis first looks at the history of Monsanto as it
progressed from a chemical company to an organization
focused on biotechnology. It then examines Monsanto’s current
focus on developing GM seeds, including stakeholder concerns
regarding the safety and environmental effects of these seeds.
Next, we discuss key ethical concerns, including organizational
misconduct and patent issues. We also look at Monsanto’s

corporate responsibility initiatives. We conclude by examining
the challenges and opportunities that Monsanto may face in the
future.

1-2History: From Chemicals to
Food
Monsanto was founded by John F. Queeny in 1901 in St. Louis,
Missouri. He named the company after his wife, Olga Monsanto
Queeny. The company’s first product was the artificial
sweetener saccharine, which it sold to Coca-Cola. Monsanto also
sold Coca-Cola caffeine extract and vanillin, an artificial vanilla
flavoring. At the start of World War I, company leaders realized
the growth opportunities in the industrial chemicals industry
and renamed the company The Monsanto Chemical Company.
The company began specializing in plastics, its own agricultural
chemicals, and synthetic rubbers.

Due to its expanding product lines, the company’s name was
changed back to the Monsanto Company in 1964. By this time,
Monsanto was producing such diverse products as petroleum,
fibers, and packaging. A few years later, Monsanto created its
first Roundup herbicide, a successful product that propelled the
company even more into the spotlight.

However, during the 1970s Monsanto encountered a major legal
obstacle. The company had produced a chemical known as
Agent Orange, which was used during the Vietnam War to
quickly deforest the thick Vietnamese jungles. 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. Monsanto and several other manufacturers agreed to
settle for $180 million, but the repercussions of dioxin
continued to plague the company for decades.

In 1981 Monsanto leaders determined that biotechnology
would be the company’s new strategic focus. In 1986 Monsanto
successfully spliced bacterium DNA into a seed. The bacterium
was lethal to certain types of insects that feed on corn, potatoes,

and cotton. The quest for biotechnology was on, and in 1994
Monsanto introduced the first biotechnology product to win
regulatory approval. Soon the company was selling soybean,
cotton, and canola seeds engineered to be tolerant to
Monsanto’s Roundup Ready herbicide. Many other herbicides
killed good plants as well as the bad ones. Roundup Ready seeds
allowed farmers to use the herbicide to eliminate weeds while
sparing the crop.

In 1997 Monsanto spun off its chemical business as Solutia, and
in 2000 the company entered into a merger and changed its
name to the Pharmacia Corporation. Two years later, a new
Monsanto, focused entirely on agriculture, broke off from
Pharmacia, and the companies became two legally separate
entities. The company before 2000 is often referred to as “old
Monsanto,” while today’s company is known as “new
Monsanto.”

The emergence of 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. The company had also disposed of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), a highly toxic chemical, in
open-pit landfills in the area. The results were catastrophic. Fish
from the creek were deformed, and the population had elevated
PCB levels that astounded environmental health experts. A
paper trail showed that Monsanto leaders had known about the
pollution since the 1960s but had not stopped the dumping.
Once the cover-up was discovered, thousands of plaintiffs from
the city filed a lawsuit against the company. In 2003 Monsanto
and Solutia agreed to pay a settlement of $700 million to more
than 20,000 Anniston residents.

When current CEO Hugh Grant took over in 2003, scandals and
stakeholder uncertainty over Monsanto’s GM products had
tarnished the company’s reputation. The price of Monsanto’s
stock had fallen by almost 50 percent, down to $8 a share. The
company had lost $1.7 billion the previous year. Grant knew the
company was fragile and decided to shift its strategic focus.
Through a strong strategic focus on GM foods, the company has
recovered and is now prospering.

In spite of their controversial nature, GM foods have become
popular in developed and developing countries. Monsanto
became so successful with its GM seeds it acquired Seminis, Inc.,
a leader in the fruit and vegetable seed industry. The acquisition
transformed Monsanto into a global leader in the seed industry.
Today, Monsanto employs approximately 22,000 people
worldwide. It is recognized as one of the 100 best corporate
citizens by Corporate Responsibility Magazine.

1-3Monsanto’s Emphasis on
Biotechnology
While the original Monsanto made a name for itself through the
manufacturing of chemicals, the new Monsanto took quite a
different turn. It changed its emphasis from chemicals to food.
Today’s Monsanto owes its $15.9 billion in sales to
biotechnology, specifically to its sales of GM plant seeds. These
seeds have revolutionized the agriculture industry. Not content
with resting on its laurels, Monsanto continues to use its $1.5
billion research budget to investigate new methods of farming
at its 1.5-million-square-foot complex in Missouri.

Throughout history, weeds, insects, and drought have been the
bane of the farmer’s existence. In the twentieth century,
synthetic chemical herbicides and pesticides were invented to
ward off pests. Yet applying these chemicals to an entire crop
was both costly and time consuming. Then Monsanto scientists,
through their work in biotechnology, were able to implant seeds
with genes that make the plants themselves kill bugs. They also
created seeds containing the herbicide Roundup, an herbicide
that kills weeds but spares the crops. Since then Monsanto has
used technology to create many innovative products, such as
drought-tolerant seeds for dry areas like Africa.

The company utilizes its technological prowess to gain the
support of stakeholders. For example, Monsanto has a
laboratory in St. Louis that gives tours to farmers. One of the
technologies the company shows farmers is a machine known
as the corn chipper, which picks up seeds and removes genetic
material from them. That material is analyzed to see how well

the seed will grow if planted. The “best” seeds are the ones
Monsanto sells for planting. Monsanto is extending its reach
into the computing industry as well. The company offers
software and hardware that use big data to yield important
information to help farmers in the field. It even provides
recommendations on when and where to plant. Monsanto also
arranges tours for its critics to help them understand the
process of GM crops and their implications. Impressing farmers
with its technology is one way Monsanto attracts potential
customers.

However, GM crops are not without critics. Opponents believe
influencing the gene pools of the plants we eat could result in
negative health consequences. Others worry about the health
effects on beneficial insects and plants, fearing that pollinating
GM plants could affect nearby insects and non-GM plants. CEO
Hugh Grant decided to curtail the tide of criticism by focusing
biotechnology on products not directly placed on the dinner
plate but on seeds that produce goods like animal feed and corn
syrup. In this way, Grant reduced some of the opposition. The
company invests largely in four crops: corn, cotton, soybeans,
and canola. Monsanto owes much of its revenue to its work on
GM seeds, and today more than half of U.S. crops, including most
soybeans and 90 percent of corn, are genetically modified.

Farmers who purchase GM seeds can grow more crops on less
land and with less left to chance. GM crops have saved farmers
billions by preventing loss and increasing crop yields. For
example, in 1970 the average corn harvest yielded
approximately 70 bushels an acre. With the introduction of
biotech crops, the average corn harvest increased to roughly
150 bushels an acre. Monsanto predicts even higher yields in
the future, possibly up to 300 bushels an acre by 2030.
According to Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant, this increase in
productivity will increase crop yields without taking up more
land, helping to meet the world’s growing agricultural needs.

Monsanto’s GM seeds have not been accepted everywhere.
Attempts to introduce them into Europe met with consumer
backlash. The European Union banned most Monsanto crops
except for one variety of corn. Consumers have gone so far as to

destroy fields of GM crops and arrange sit-ins. Greenpeace has
fought Monsanto for years, especially in the company’s efforts
to promote GM crops in developing countries. Even China
placed bans on certain GM corn imports, although it has since
relaxed the ban and appears to be encouraging more acceptance
of GM crops among its citizens. This animosity toward
Monsanto’s products is generated by two main concerns: the
safety of GM food and the environmental effects of genetic
modification.

1-3aConcerns about the
Safety of GM Food

Of great concern to many stakeholders are the moral and safety
implications of GM food. Many skeptics see biotech crops as
unnatural, with the Monsanto scientist essentially “playing God”
by controlling what goes into the seed. Because GM crops are
relatively new, critics maintain that the health implications of
biotech food may not be known for years to come. They also
contend that effective standards have not been created to
determine the safety of biotech crops. Some geneticists believe
the splicing of these genes into seeds could create small changes
that might negatively impact the health of humans and animals
that eat them. Also, even though the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has declared biotech crops safe, critics
say they have not been around long enough to gauge their long-
term effects.

One concern is toxicity, particularly considering that many
Monsanto seeds are equipped with a gene to allow them to
produce their own Roundup herbicide. Could ingesting this
herbicide, even in small amounts, cause detrimental effects on
consumers? Some stakeholders say yes, and point to statistics
on glyphosate, Roundup’s chief ingredient, for support.
According to an ecology center fact sheet, glyphosate exposure
is the third most commonly reported illness among California
agriculture workers, and glyphosate residues can last for a year.
Yet the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists glyphosate
as having low skin and oral toxicity, and a study from the New

York Medical College states that Roundup does not create a
health risk for humans.

In March 2013 over 250,000 people signed a petition in
response to President Barack Obama’s signing of H.R. 933 into
law. The new law, called the Agricultural Appropriations Bill of
2013, contains a provision that protects GM organisms and
genetically engineered seeds from litigation concerning their
health risks. In other words, courts cannot bar the sale of GM
food even if future health risks are revealed. Critics of the
provision claim the provision was slipped in at the last moment
and that many members of Congress were not aware of it. For
consumers, questions pertaining to the health risks associated
with GM crops have gone unanswered and are the primary
reason the petition was started. Many people have called this
bill the “Monsanto Protection Act” and believe it will help
protect the survival of biotech corporations. Critics also say that
the continuing resolution spending bill will no longer allow the
court system to protect consumers, which could create a further
disconnect between consumers and producers.

Despite consumer concerns, the FDA and the American
Association for the Advancement of Science have proclaimed
that GM food is safe to consume. The European Commission
examined more than 130 studies and concluded that GM food
does not appear to be riskier than crops grown by conventional
methods. As a result of its research, the FDA has determined
that Americans do not need to know when they are consuming
GM products. Therefore, this information is not placed on labels
in most states, although other countries, notably those in the
European Union, do require GM food products to state this fact
in their labeling. Some states in the United States have also
entered the fight to have GM food labeled. For instance, a new
law in Vermont was passed that now makes it mandatory for
GM food to be labeled. Organizations who would be negatively
impacted by the law have sued Vermont, claiming that the law
creates burdensome costs for companies without any provable
advantages to the consumer. Hawaii also tried to curb types of
GM crops and require labeling, but a federal judge overturned
the law.

1-3bConcerns about
Environmental Effects of
Monsanto Products

Some studies have supported the premise that Roundup
herbicide, used in conjunction with the GM seeds called
“Roundup Ready,” can be harmful to birds, insects, and
particularly amphibians. Such studies revealed that small
concentrations of Roundup may be deadly to tadpoles. Other
studies suggest that Roundup might have a detrimental effect on
human cells, especially embryonic, umbilical, and placental cells.
Monsanto has countered these claims by questioning the
methodology used in the studies. The EPA maintains glyphosate
is not dangerous at recommended doses. On the other hand, the
World Health Organization (WHO) ruled that glyphosate
probably does have the potential to cause cancer in humans.
The finding caused Monsanto shares to drop 2 percent.
Monsanto has challenged this assertion and wants to meet with
WHO officials to discuss the findings.

As honeybees have begun to die off, critics are blaming
companies like Monsanto and Bayer. They believe the
companies’ pesticides are killing off the good insects as well as
the bad ones. While there is no definitive evidence that the
honeybees are dying off due to pesticide use, opposition against
Monsanto is rising as the honeybee population continues to
decline. One of the projects in which Monsanto has invested is
working with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) in developing mechanical bee-like drones that can be
used to pollinate crops. Nicknamed Robobees, these drones
could help with pollinating crops, which could lead to an
increase in food crops. Opponents, on the other hand, claim
Monsanto is killing the bees and will obtain even more power by
gaining control of their mechanical substitutes.

Another concern with GM seeds in general is the threat of
environmental contamination. Bees, other insects, and wind can

carry a crop’s seeds to other areas, sometimes to fields
containing non-GM crops. These seeds and pollens might then
mix with the farmer’s crops. Organic farmers have complained
that GM seeds from nearby farms have “contaminated” their
crops. This environmental contamination could pose a serious
threat. Some scientists fear that GM seeds spread to native
plants may cause those plants to adopt the GM trait, thus
creating new genetic variations of those plants that could
negatively influence (through genetic advantages) the
surrounding ecosystem. A major dispute has arisen between
vegetable farmers and Monsanto for just this reason. Monsanto
and its competitor Dow Chemical are developing seeds to be
resistant to stronger herbicides because plants are starting to
become resistant to Roundup. However, these stronger
herbicides have been known to drift to other farms after a
farmer sprays his or her crops. While the special interest group
Save Our Crops successfully convinced Dow to reformulate its
herbicide to decrease the likelihood of drift, Monsanto
maintains its resistant seeds will be able to coexist with other
crops without a contamination problem.

Another controversy involves the discovery of a field in Oregon
filled with an experimental form of Monsanto’s GM wheat. The
wheat was not approved by the United States Department of
Agriculture. The discovery of this wheat raised concern over
whether it could have contaminated U.S. wheat supplies. As a
result, Japan temporarily instituted a ban on U.S. wheat. Initial
investigations revealed that the wheat had been stored in a
Colorado facility but were unable to provide an explanation for
how it showed up in an Oregon field. Monsanto denied
involvement and stated that it suspected someone had covertly
obtained the GM wheat and planted it. The company also claims
that this incident was an isolated occurrence. The altered wheat
is not believed to have caused any damage, and Japan lifted the
ban. However, some farmers filed lawsuits against Monsanto
seeking class-action status.

Monsanto has taken action in addressing environmental and
health concerns. The company maintains that the
environmental impact of everything it creates has been studied
by the EPA and approved. Monsanto officials claim that

glyphosate in Roundup rarely ends up in ground water, and
when it does contaminate ground water, it is soluble and will
not have much effect on aquatic species. The firm has stated that
it will not file lawsuits against farmers if GM crops accidentally
mix with organic. Monsanto has also partnered with
Conservation International in an effort to conserve biodiversity.
Stakeholders are left to make their own decisions regarding GM
crops.

1-3cResistance to Pesticides
and Herbicides

Another environmental problem that has emerged is weed and
insect resistance to the herbicides and pesticides in Monsanto
crops. On the one hand, it is estimated that GM crops have
prevented the use of £965 million (approximately $1.5 billion)
of pesticide use. On the other hand, critics fear that continual
use of the chemicals could result in “super weeds” and “super
bugs,” much like the overuse of antibiotics in humans has
resulted in drug-resistant bacteria. The company’s Roundup
line, in particular, has come under attack. GM seeds labeled
Roundup Ready are engineered to withstand large doses of the
herbicide Roundup. Because Roundup is used more frequently,
weeds have started to develop a resistance to this popular
herbicide. Significant numbers of Roundup resistant weeds have
been found in the United States and Australia.

To combat “super bugs,” the government requires farmers using
Monsanto’s GM products to create “refuges,” in which they plant
20 percent of their fields with a non-GM crop. The theory is that
this allows nonresistant bugs to mate with those that are
resistant, preventing a new race of super bugs. To prevent
resistance to the Roundup herbicide, farmers are required to
vary herbicide use and practice crop rotations. However, since
Roundup is so easy to use, particularly in conjunction with
Roundup Ready seeds, some farmers do not take the time to
institute these preventative measures. When they do rotate
their crops, some will rotate one Roundup Ready crop with
another. As a result, agricultural pests such as rootworm are

becoming resistant to genes in GM crops intended to kill them.
This resistance is causing some farmers to turn toward more
traditional herbicides and pesticides. For the first time,
regulators in the United States are encouraging limits on certain
kinds of GM corn to prevent the spread of resistant bugs. The
EPA acknowledges that farmers and seed companies have not
done enough to curb resistance. It is recommending that 35
percent of fields be planted with another crop other than
biotech corn. Resistance is of particular concern in Latin
America, Africa, and Asia, where farmers may not be as
informed of the risks of herbicide and pesticide overuse.

1-4Dealing with Organizational
Ethical Issues
In addition to concerns over the safety of GM seeds and
environmental issues, Monsanto has dealt with concerns about
organizational conduct. Organizations face significant risks from
strategies and employees striving for high performance
standards. Such pressure sometimes encourages employees to
engage in illegal or unethical conduct. All firms have these
concerns. In the case of Monsanto, patents and other legal issues
have resulted in legal, ethical, and reputational consequences.

1-4aPatent Issues
As bioengineered creations of the Monsanto Company,
Monsanto’s seeds are protected under patent law. Under the
terms of the patent, farmers using Monsanto seeds are not
allowed to harvest seeds from the plants for use in upcoming
seasons. Instead, they must purchase new Monsanto seeds each
season. By issuing new seeds each year, Monsanto ensures it
secures a profit as well as maintains control over its property.
This patent protection has become a controversial subject
among farmers and has led to numerous litigation battles for
Monsanto.

Throughout agricultural history, farmers have collected and
saved seeds from previous harvests to plant the following year’s
crops. Critics argue that requiring farmers to suddenly purchase

new seeds year after year puts an undue financial burden on
them and gives Monsanto too much power. However, the law
protects Monsanto’s right to have exclusive control over its
creations, and farmers must abide by these laws. When they are
found guilty of using Monsanto seeds from previous seasons,
either deliberately or out of ignorance, they are often fined.

Since it is fairly easy for farmers to violate the patent, Monsanto
has found it necessary to employ investigators from law firms to
investigate suspected violations. The resulting investigations
are a source of contention between Monsanto and accused
farmers. According to Monsanto, investigators deal with
farmers in a respectful manner. They approach the farmers
suspected of patent infringement and ask them questions. The
company claims that investigators practice transparency with
the farmers and tell them why they are there and who they
represent. If after the initial interview is completed and
suspicions still exist, the investigators may pull the farmer’s
records. They may bring in a sampling team, with the farmer’s
permission, to test the farmer’s fields. If found guilty the farmer
must often pay Monsanto. However, some farmers tell a
different story about Monsanto and its seed investigators. They
claim that Monsanto investigators have used unethical practices
to get them to cooperate. They call the investigators the “seed
police” and say they behave like a “Gestapo” or “mafia.”

In 2007 Monsanto sued Vernon Bowman, an Indiana farmer
who Monsanto claims used second-generation Monsanto seeds
to plant soybeans. Monsanto claimed its patent protection
reaches past first-generation seeds and Mr. Bowman infringed
upon its patent. In 2009 the court ruled in favor of Monsanto
and ordered Bowman to pay $84,000 in damages. Mr. Bowman
did not accept defeat, and in 2013 brought his case before the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Monsanto,
representing a great victory for biotechnology companies.

Monsanto does not limit its investigations to farmers. It filed a
lawsuit against DuPont, the world’s second-largest seed maker,
for combining DuPont technology with Roundup Ready.
Monsanto won that lawsuit, but was countersued by DuPont for
anticompetitive practices. These accusations of anticompetitive

practices garnered the attention of federal antitrust lawyers.
With increased pressure coming from different areas, Monsanto
agreed to allow patents to expire on its seeds starting in 2014.
This will allow other companies to create less expensive
versions of Monsanto seeds. However, Monsanto announced it
would continue to strictly enforce patents for new versions of
its products, such as Roundup Ready 2 soybeans.

1-4bLegal Issues
Many major companies have government and legal forces to
deal with, and Monsanto is no exception. The government has
begun to examine Monsanto’s practices more closely. In 1980
the Supreme Court allowed living organisms to be patented for
the first time, giving Monsanto the ability to patent its seeds.
Despite this victory, Monsanto came to the attention of the
American Antitrust Institute for alleged anticompetitive
activities. The institute suggested that Monsanto hinders
competition, exerting too much power over the transgenic seed
industry and limiting seed innovation. When Monsanto acquired
DeKalb and Delta Land and Pine, it had to obtain the approval of
antitrust authorities, and gained that approval after agreeing to
certain concessions. As a result of complaints, the Department
of Justice (DOJ) began a civil investigation into Monsanto’s
practices. Although the DOJ eventually dropped the antitrust
probe, concerns over Monsanto’s power continue. Monsanto
must be careful to ensure that its activities cannot be seen as
anticompetitive.

In early 2013 Monsanto settled with local residents in Nitro,
West Virginia, after claims of health problems became
persistent in a now-closed Agent Orange plant. The company
agreed to spend up to $93 million on medical testing and local
cleanup of as many as 4,500 homes. It also agreed to establish a
medical monitoring program and will make additional money
available to continue the program’s operation for 30 years.

The most talked about litigation involving Monsanto is its
constant battle with competitor DuPont. In the past, DuPont has
filed multiple lawsuits against Monsanto. One lawsuit claimed
Monsanto used its power and licenses to block DuPont

products. In March 2013, the battle for dominance between
these two companies was settled. A patent-licensing deal was
reached and DuPont agreed to pay Monsanto at least $1.75
billion over the next 10 years. This payment enables DuPont to
have rights and access to technology for genetically engineered
soybeans that resist herbicides. DuPont will also obtain rights to
combine patented genes from Monsanto with other genes to
develop multiple crop traits. On the opposing side, Monsanto is
given access to DuPont patents for corn defoliation and crop-
disease resistance techniques. This settlement will hopefully
create positive results for farmers and enable the development
of technologies that will aid in higher crop yields for years to
come.

1-5Corporate Responsibility at
Monsanto
Despite criticisms levied against Monsanto, a study has
provided evidence that GM crops have greatly benefited
farming. The study estimated that farmers who adopted GM
crops have seen their profits increase to 69 percent higher than
those who did not. Today, the public generally expects
multinational corporations to advance the interests and well-
being of the people in the countries where they do business.
Monsanto has given millions of dollars in programs to improve
communities in developing countries. In fact, Corporate
Responsibility Magazine ranked Monsanto number 38 on its 100
Best Corporate Citizens list.

Monsanto created a Code of Business Conduct to provide
guidance on the firm’s ethical expectations and is concerned
with maintaining integrity among its many different
stakeholders. In 2003 the company adopted an additional Code
of Conduct for its chief executives and financial officers and a
Human Rights Policy in 2006 to ensure the rights of Monsanto
employees and those in its supply chain. The company’s
Business Conduct Office is responsible for investigating cases of
alleged misconduct as well as maintaining the company’s
anonymous hotline.

As part of Monsanto’s culture, the company wrote a pledge
informing stakeholders about what it sees as its ethical
commitments. According to Monsanto, the pledge “helps us to
convert our values into actions, and to make clear who we are
and what we champion.” Table 1 provides the values Monsanto
pledges to uphold, including integrity, dialogue, transparency,
sharing, benefits, respect, acting as owners to achieve results,
and creating a great place to work.

Table 1:

The Monsanto Pledge
Integrity

Integrity is the foundation for all that we do. Integrity includes
honesty, decency, consistency, and courage. Building on those
values, we are committed to:

Dialogue

We will listen carefully to diverse points of view and engage in
thoughtful dialogue. We will broaden our understanding of issues
in order to better address the needs and concerns of society and
each other.

Transparency

We will ensure that information is available, accessible, and
understandable.

Sharing

We will share knowledge and technology to advance scientific
understanding, to improve agriculture and the environment, to
improve crops, and to help farmers in developing countries.

Benefits

We will use sound and innovative science and thoughtful and
effective stewardship to deliver high-quality products that are
beneficial to our customers and to the environment.

Respect

We will respect the religious, cultural, and ethical concerns of
people throughout the world. The safety of our employees, the
communities where we operate, our customers, consumers, and
the environment will be our highest priorities.

Act as owners to achieve results

We will create clarity of direction, roles, and accountability; build
strong relationships with our customers and external partners;
make wise decisions; steward our company resources; and take
responsibility for achieving agreed-upon results.

Create a great place to work

We will ensure diversity of people and thought; foster innovation,
creativity, and learning; practice inclusive teamwork; and reward
and recognize our people.

Source: Monsanto Corporation, Monsanto Code of Business
Conduct, http://www.monsanto.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Code-of-Business-Conduct-
PDFs/code_of_conduct_english.pdf (accessed April 20, 2015).

As an agricultural company, Monsanto must address the grim
reality that the world’s population is increasing fast, and the
amount of land and water available for agriculture is decreasing.
Some experts believe our planet must produce more food in the
next 50 years to feed the world’s population than what has
grown in the past 10,000 years, requiring us to double our food
output. As a multinational corporation dedicated to agriculture,
Monsanto is expected to address these problems. The company
developed a three-tiered commitment policy:

• (1)

produce more yield in crops,
• (2)

conserve more resources, and
• (3)

improve the lives of farmers.
The company hopes to achieve these goals through initiatives in
sustainable agriculture.

1-5aSustainable Agriculture
Monsanto’s CEO Hugh Grant has said, “Agriculture intersects the
toughest challenges we all face on the planet. Together, we must
meet the needs for increased food, fiber, and energy while
protecting the environment. In short, the world needs to
produce more and conserve smarter.” Monsanto is quick to
point out that its biotech products added more than 100 million
tons to worldwide agricultural production in a 10-year period,
and the company estimates that this has increased farmers’
incomes by $33.8 billion. Monsanto also created partnerships
between nonprofit organizations across the world to enrich the
lives of farmers in developing countries. The company’s goal is
to double its core crop yields by 2030. Monsanto intends to
achieve this goal through new product innovations such as
drought-tolerant seeds and better technology. Two regions
Monsanto is now focusing on are India and Africa.

The need for better agriculture is apparent in India, where the
population is estimated to hit 1.3 billion by 2017. Biotech crops
have helped improve the size of yields in India, and Monsanto
has estimated that Indian cotton farmers using biotech crops
earn approximately $176 more in revenues per acre than their
non-biotech contemporaries. Monsanto launched Project
SHARE, a sustainable yield initiative created in conjunction with
the nonprofit Indian Society of Agribusiness, to improve the
lives of 10,000 cotton farmers in 1,050 villages.

In Africa Monsanto partnered with organizations, scientists, and
philanthropists to develop and introduce drought-tolerant and
virus-resistant seeds for African farmers. For instance, the

Monsanto Fund is working with scientists to develop cassava
plants that are resistant to two common types of viruses. The
cassava is an important food product for many African
communities. As CEO Hugh Grant writes, “This initiative isn’t
simply altruistic; we see it as a unique business proposition that
rewards farmers and shareowners.” But not all view Monsanto’s
presence in Africa as an outreach in corporate
responsibility. Some see it as another way for Monsanto to
improve its bottom line. Opponents see the company as trying
to take control of African agriculture and destroy African
agricultural practices that have lasted for thousands of years.

1-5bCharitable Giving
In 1964 the Monsanto Company established the Monsanto Fund.
This fund contributes to educational opportunities and the
needs of communities across the world. One recipient of the
Monsanto Fund is Nanmeng Village in China. The company is
helping to train farmers in the area about ways to improve
agricultural methods and infrastructure development. The
Monsanto Company also committed $10 million to provide
fellowship opportunities for Ph.D. students seeking to get their
degree in rice or wheat plant breeding.

Another program implemented by the company is the Matching
Gifts Program. This program matches employee contributions to
charitable and educational organizations, dollar-for-dollar, by
the Monsanto Fund. The program matches a maximum of
$5,000 per employee every year and includes organizations
supporting the environment, arts and culture, and disaster
relief, among many others.

In the first decade of the twenty-first century, Monsanto
supported youth programs and donated nearly $1.5 million in
scholarships to students wanting to pursue agriculture-related
degrees. The company supports 4-H programs and the program
Farm Safety 4 Just Kids, a program that teaches rural children
about safety while working on farms. Monsanto also partnered
with the organization Agriculture Future of America (AFA),
providing more than $100,000 in scholarships to youth in eight
states who want to pursue agricultural careers.

1-6Conclusion
Monsanto faces challenges that it must address, including
lingering concerns over the safety and the environmental
impact of its products. The company needs to enforce its code of
conduct effectively to avoid organizational misconduct.
Monsanto also faces increased competition from other
companies. The seed company Pioneer Hi-Bred International,
Inc. uses pricing strategies and seed sampling to attract price-
conscious customers. Chinese companies are formidable rivals
for Monsanto since their weed killers began eating into some of
Monsanto’s Roundup profits. As a result, Monsanto announced
plans to restructure the Roundup area of the business.

Yet despite the onslaught of criticism from Monsanto detractors
and the challenge of increased competition from other
companies, Monsanto has numerous opportunities to thrive in
the future. The company is currently working on new
innovations that could increase its competitive edge as well as
benefit farmers worldwide. Monsanto has teamed up with a
Danish biotechnology firm to develop microscopic organisms
that could be used to aid plant growth and ward off pests. These
microorganisms could be a possible alternative to GM seeds.
The company is also taking advantage of big data and its
potential uses for farming. Monsanto’s inroads into the
computing industry are likely to grow in the coming years.

Although Monsanto has made ethical errors in the past, it is
trying to portray itself as a socially responsible company
dedicated to improving agriculture. As noted, the company still
has problems. The predictions from Monsanto critics about
biotech food have not yet come true, but that has not eradicated
the fears among stakeholders. Non-GM food products are
becoming more popular, despite their increased costs. Sales of
non-GM food grew 28 percent in one year to about $3 billion in
sales. Faced with the increasing popularity of organic food and
staunch criticism from opponents, Monsanto needs to continue
working with stakeholders to promote its technological
innovations and eliminate fears concerning its industry.