Bulacan State University

College of Business Administration

Malolos, Bulacan

A Research Paper
Presented to the
Faculty of College Of Business Administration
Bulacan State University
Main Campus
Malolos, Bulacan, 3000

In Partial of Fulfillment
Of the Requirement In
Internal Auditing For the Degree
Bachelor of Science In
Accounting Technology

De Guzman, Mark Edgar

Santos, Ephraim
Marcelo, Justine Anne Mae
Dela Cruz, Mary Joy
Crisostomo, Shane Aurby

October 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. History of Monsanto Company

II. Social Responsibilities of the Monsanto Company

III. Economic Responsibilities

IV. Philanthropic Initiatives

V. Environmental Responsibilities

VI. Board Of Directors

VII. Seed Companies Owned by Monsanto and Its Subsidiaries:

VIII. Mission statement of the Monsanto Company

IX. Ethical Practices Of The Monsanto Company

X. Statement of the Problem

XI. Conclusion and Recommendation

XII. References and Links

I. History of Monsanto Company

Monsanto Company is a leading global supplier of herbicides and seeds. Monsanto leads the
world market for genetically modified (GM) seed; it produces GM varieties for corn,
soybeans, and cotton. Monsanto also makes the leading brand of herbicide, Roundup, and has
developed genetically engineered seeds for crops to resist Roundup. Monsanto owns one of
the world's top suppliers of fruit and vegetable seeds, Seminis, and has acquired a number of
regional seed producers through its American Seeds Inc. subsidiary.
The original Monsanto Company spun off its chemical business in 1997 and renamed itself
Pharmacia Corporation following a merger with Pharmacia & Upjohn Inc. in 2000. The old
Monsanto's agriculture business became the new Monsanto Company.

Early 20th-Century Origins

Monsanto traces its roots to John Francisco Queeny, a purchaser for a wholesale drug house,
who formed the Monsanto Chemical Works in St. Louis, Missouri, in order to produce the
artificial sweetener saccharin. By 1905 John Queeny's company was also producing caffeine
and vanillin and was beginning to turn a profit. In 1908 Queeny felt confident enough about
his firm's future to leave his part-time job with another drug house to work full time as
Monsanto's president. The company continued to grow, with sales surpassing the $1 million
mark for the first time in 1915.

While prior to World War I the United States relied heavily on foreign supplies of chemicals,
the increasing likelihood of U.S. intervention meant that the country would soon need its own
domestic producer of chemicals. Looking back on the significance of the war for Monsanto,
Queeny's son Edgar remarked, "There was no choice other than to improvise, to invent and to
find new ways of doing all the old things. The old dependence on Europe was, almost
overnight, a thing of the past." Monsanto was forced to rely on its own knowledge and
nascent technical ability. Among other problems, Monsanto researchers discovered that pages
describing German chemical processes had been ripped out of library books. Monsanto
developed several strategic products, including phenol as an antiseptic, in addition to
acetylsalicylic acid, or aspirin. Largely unknown by the public, Monsanto experienced
difficulties in attempting to market consumer goods. However, attempts to refine a low
quality detergent led to developments in grass fertilizer, an important consumer product since
the postwar housing boom had created a strong market of homeowners eager to perfect their
lawns. In the mid-1950s Monsanto began to produce urethane foam, which was flexible and
easy to use; it later became crucial in making automobile interiors. In 1955 Monsanto
acquired Lion Oil, increasing its assets by more than 50 percent. Stockholders during this time
numbered 43,000.
Legal Challenges in the 1970s and 1980s
During this time, public concern over the environment began to escalate. Ralph Nader's
activism and Rachel Carson's book The Silent Spring had been influential in increasing the
American public's awareness of activities within the chemical industry in the 1960s, and
Monsanto responded in several ways to the pressure. In 1964 the company introduced
biodegradable detergents, and in 1976, Monsanto announced plans to phase out production of
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB).
In 1979 a lawsuit was filed against Monsanto and other manufacturers of Agent Orange, a
defoliant used during the Vietnam War. Agent Orange contained a highly toxic chemical
known as dioxin, and the suit claimed that hundreds of veterans had suffered permanent
damage because of the chemical. In 1984 Monsanto and seven other manufacturers agreed to
a $180 million settlement just before the trial began. With the announcement of a settlement
Monsanto's share price, depressed because of the uncertainty over the outcome of the trial,
rose substantially.
Also in 1984, Monsanto lost a $10 million antitrust suit to Spray-Rite, a former distributor of
Monsanto agricultural herbicides. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the suit and award, finding
that Monsanto had acted to fix retail prices with other herbicide manufacturers
Furthermore, Monsanto expanded internationally, opening an office in Shanghai and a plant
in Beijing, China. The company also hoped to expand in Thailand, and entered into a joint
venture in Japan with Mitsubishi Chemical Co.

II. Social Responsibilities of the Monsanto Company

Monsanto Co. is a publicly traded multinational agrochemical and biotech corporation
founded in St. Louis Missouri in 1901 making it one of the largest, and most historied US
corporations. It operates around the world in around 69 countries. It has operating revenue of
around $15 billion with over 21,000 employees. A lot of farmers around the world depend on
their Roundup brand, utilising their genetically engineered seeds for better productivity and
pest resistance as well as their herbicide glyphosate to keep farm produce healthy. According
to Thorne, McAlister, Ferrell & Ferell (2005), social responsbility is, "the adoption by a
business of a strategic focus for fulfilling the economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic
responsibilities expected of it by its stakeholders. This definition encompasses a wide range of
objectives and activities, including both historical views of business and perceptions that have
emerged that involve action and measurement". Monsanto Co.'s activities in terms of these
types of social responsibility are as follows

III. Economic Responsibilities

Monsanto employs a number of workers so that through Monsanto, they have a living to
sustain themselves and their families. Their clients also benefit from Monsanto's work,
making a living through agriculture mitigated by Monsanto's products. The stakeholders of
Monsanto thus benefit from a healthy business and overall the company contributes positively
to the economy.

IV. Philanthropic Initiatives

Monsanto established 'Monsanto Fund' in 1964 as the charitable arm of the company. It states
that 'our philanthropic goal has been to bridge the gap between people’s needs and their
available resources. We want to help people realize their dreams, and hopefully inspire them
to enroll others in their vision.' (Duvvuru, 2009)
Monsanto has also Monsanto Fund Matching Gifts Program. This programme 'gives
permanent Monsanto employees and active members of the Monsanto Board of Directors an
opportunity to join Monsanto Fund’s support of not-for-profit institutions.' Monsanto makes it
candid that the request for support of an NGO is honoured 'if the recipient organization
adheres to the guidelines of the Matching Gifts Program.'
'Eligible organizations include, but are not limited to: Colleges and universities, private and
public elementary and secondary schools, organizations that serve youth, museums, libraries,
health and human service agencies, environmental, community and cultural organizations.'
World Vision is one of the recipients of the 'matching gifts'.
Monsanto’s philanthropic activities are meant to not only improve its image, but also provide
key relationships. It understands better than anyone that relationships, partnerships and
network are the key for success of the company.

V. Environmental Responsibilities
This is also not the first time that Monsanto has faced criticism for marketing products that
have the potential to cause serious environmental damage. For the last two decades Monsanto
has produced and marketed special seeds that can survive exposure to the company’s
Roundup herbicide, a powerful chemical with a strong reputation for being an effective weed-
killer.(Flunnery, 2011)
The problem is, these Roundup resistant seeds made it easy for farmers to plant crops and
then douse them with Monsanto pesticide, that many farms abandoned other techniques. Now,
according to a number of scientific reports, superweeds that are immune to Monsanto’s
pesticides have spread to millions of acres in more than 20 states the Midwestern United
States.
In a recent article in the New York Times, Bill Freese, a science policy analyst for the Center
for Food Safety in Washington explained that “the biotech industry is taking us into a more
pesticide-dependent agriculture… we need to be going in, the opposite direction.” The
challenge however, is that genetically modified crops are presenting their own set of
environmental risks.
These recent reports raise concerns about the negative environmental impacts of Monsanto’s
operations. Of further concern to socially-responsible or ESG-minded investors is the fact
that Monsanto has not adopted globally recognized best-practices when it terms to
environmental oversight and reporting. The company has not adopted an ISO 14001 certified
environmental management system and does not report its greenhouse gas (GHG) or carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions levels.

VI. Board Of Directors

Hugh Grant, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Pierre C. Courduroux, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Brett D. Begemann, President and Chief Operating Officer
Robert T. Fraley, Ph.D., Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer
David F. Snively, Executive Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel

VII. Seed Companies Owned by Monsanto and Its Subsidiaries:

Principal Subsidiaries
• Asgrow Seed Company LLC
• Channel Bio Corp.
• Corn States Hybrid Service L.L.C.
• DEKALB Genetics Corporation; Emergent Genetics, Inc.
• Holden's Foundation Seeds L.L.C.
• Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech Ltd. (India)
• Monsanto Ag Products LLC; Monsanto Argentina S.A.I.C.
• Monsanto Australia Ltd.
• Monsanto Canada, Inc.; Monsanto do Brasil Ltda. (Brazil)
• Monsanto Europe S.A./N.V. (Belgium)
• Monsanto India Limited; Monsanto Inter SARL (France)
• Monsanto Nordeste S.A. (Brazil)
• Monsanto SAS (France); Monsanto Seeds (Thailand) Ltd
• Monsanto Technology LLC
• Semillas y Agroproductos Monsanto, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)
• Seminis, Inc.

Seed companies
• Advanta Seeds (Canada)
• Agroceres (Brazil)
• Agroeste Sementes (Brazil)
• American Seeds, Inc.
• Asgrow (which previously purchased O's Gold Seed Co.)
• Bo-Ca Enterprises
• Bruinsma
• Campbell Seed (marketing and sales segment)
• Cargill Seeds International (Central/Latin America, Europe, Asia, Africa)
• Channel Bio (Wilson Seeds, Midwest Seed Genetics, Crows)
• Choong Ang Seed Company (Korea)
• CNDK (partnership with China National Seed Group) • Corn State Hybrid Services
• Cotton States
• De Ruiter Seeds
• DeKalb Genetics
• Delta & Pine Land Company
• Dieckmann Seeds (Germany)
• Diener Seeds
• Emergent Genetics (Mahendra, Indusem, Daehnfeldt, Paras)
• Fielder Choice Direct
• First Line Seeds (Canada)
• Fontanelle Hybrids (Nebraska Irrigated)
• Gold Country Seed
• Hawkeye Hybrids
• Heartland Hybrids
• Heritage Seeds
• Holden's Foundation Seeds
• Hubner Seed
• Hungnong Seed Company (Korea)
• ICORN Inc.
• Jacob Hartz Seed (Hybritech, AgriProWheat)
• Jung Seed
• Kruger Seed
• Lewis Hybrids
• June 2014 FOOD
• Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (joint venture in India)
• Marmot (Guatemala) • Moweaqua Seed
• NC+ Hybrids • Pannon Seeds (Hungary)
• Peotec • Petoseed Company
• Poloni Semences (France)
• Rea Hybrids
• Renessen (joint venture with Cargill)
• Royal Sluis (Holland) • Seminis Inc.
• Seminium (Argentina)
• Sensako and Carnia (South Africa)
• Sieben Hybrids
• Specialty Hybrids
• Stewart Seeds
• Stone Seeds
• Trelay Seeds
• Trisler Seed Farm
• WestBred
• Western Seed Authorized Seminis/Monsanto Seed Dealers7
• Ag-Seeds Unlimited • Anderson's Seed & Garden, Inc.
• Ball Horticultural Company
• Bunton Seed
• Corona Seed
• s • DeBruyn Seed Company, Inc.
• DeWitt Seed Company
• Dixondale Farms
• Earl May Seed & Nursery LLC
• Early's Farm & Garden Centre
• El Seed
• Farmer Seed & Nursery
• Fukuda Seed Store
• Garden Trends, Inc. dba Harris Seeds
• Germania Seed Company
• Gowan Seed Company, LLC
• Grimes Horticulture
• H.F. Michell Company
• Holmes Seed Company
• Hummert International
• Jordan Seeds, Inc.
• Keithly Williams Seeds, Inc.
• Kelly Seed Co.
• La Coop Uniforce
• Lockhart Seeds, Inc.
• Logan-Zenner
• Meyer Seed Co of Baltimore, Inc.
• Norseco, Inc.
• Ontario Seed
• Ornamental Edibles
• Osborne Seed Company, LLC
• Otis S. Twilley Seed Co., Inc.
• P.L. Rohrer & Bro., Inc.
• Rispens Seeds, Inc.
• Rupp Seeds, Inc.
 • Santa Maria Seeds, Inc.
• Scott Seed Company
• Seedway, Inc.
• Select Seed of Arizona, Inc.
• Siegers Seed Company
• Snow Seed Company
• Southern States Cooperative, Inc.
• Stokes Seeds Ltd.
• T&T Seeds Ltd.
• The Page Seed Company
• Tomato Growers Supply Co.
• TS&L Seed Company
• Vis Seed Company, Inc
• White Seed Company
• Willhite Seed, Inc.

VIII. Mission statement of the Monsanto Company

Monsanto is committed to supporting research with academic and USDA scientists who have
complementary areas of expertise. This program is designed to develop new collaborative research
projects with researchers who have expertise and interests in areas that will enhance our
fundamental understanding of corn rootworm that could lead to economical, practical, and
sustainable solutions for farmers.

Inclusion of growers in the process will ensure that the research is focused on discovering
information that could lead to future corn rootworm management solutions.

Involvement of the academic community as advisors and stakeholders, in addition to expert

reviewers, will enrich Monsanto’s understanding of corn rootworm resistance and strengthen
Monsanto’s internal programs.

IX. Ethical Practices Of The Monsanto Company

From all the different sources I’ve read through, a lack of transparency seems to be a common
problem. A lot of people do not really understand what the Monsanto mission is, or what goes
on behind closed doors. A lot of that is trade secrets, but some community involvement would
be nice. Offering after school programs where students can learn about nutrition and
gardening, sponsoring community gardens, or offering scholarships could help Monsanto’s
reputation with the general public and maybe take away some negative publicity. Putting out
more advertisements and social media posts about the Monsanto mission and values, and
educating people about what GMOs are would help their public image.

Improved public relations could also help diffuse the Monsanto crisis. By taking
responsibility for their past mistakes, like apologizing for the damages done by PCBs and
Agent Orange, or the Times Beach crisis, their reputation wouldn’t suffer as much. Oscar
Munoz (the United Airlines CEO) did not apologize or admit wrongdoing when the video first
surfaced of airport police forcibly removing a passenger from a plane. Instead he claimed that
United was simply following the law and that the protesting customer was a problem that
needed to be removed. But just because something is legal does not mean it is ethical. Just
like an individual, corporations have to take social responsibility, called corporate social
responsibility. This is responsibility that goes beyond economic and legal obligations and
instead encourages companies to contribute in a positive way to society. Trying to feed the
world is a noble goal, but forcing farmers to purchase new seeds each year when they could
replant the seeds they just harvested doesn’t seem to fit with the corporate social
responsibility model.

Without farms there would not be food., so treating farmers (their customers) more
respectfully and allowing them to replant seeds gives us more food and gives them more
freedom to run their own business.
They would save money from reusing seeds and invest that money into more land, which
would in turn allow them to purchase more Monsanto seeds.

That grows Monsanto profits, takes care of their people and is good for the planet because
food is not wasted. Although GMOs could be bad for our health, in the long run I think
Monsanto should continue to make GM seeds. They can feed more people, create plants that
can protect us from disease and create new jobs. An improvement just needs to be made in
their business practices. By increasing public relations, improving their treatment of farmers
and educating the public, Monsanto would become more socially responsible and better their
reputation.

For this situation I think that using a Teleological framework is the most practical
(particularly a Utilitarian approach) because it is easier to list out logical outcomes than it is to
identify the principles of the entire company. Principles that apply to me are not universal, so
therefore it is hard to speak for an entire organization. As is the case with most ethical issues,
people have a wide variety of opinions. These opinions take many forms, and it seems like
everyone from mainstream media to bloggers have taken an interest in the Monsanto issue.

Multiple blogs have been created to speak out against Monsanto, and there have been marches
and other forms of protest to raise awareness about the issues facing the agriculture giant.
 Anyway switching gears towards mainstream media, articles written in Forbes have an
interesting perspective on the Monsanto crisis. Forbes has rated Monsanto as number nine on
a list for the ten most innovative companies in America. Other corporations to grace that list
include Amazon, Red Hat and Salesforce.com just to name a few. Another interesting article
written in Forbes argues that most people do not understand what GMO and organically
grown foods.

X. Statement of the Problem

1. Health and Environmental concerns

2. Competitors in and out North America
3. Public relations

1. Health and environmental concerns

 Brand Roundup
 Genetically modified corn, NK 603
 Pesticide-resistant super- bugs
 Herbside Usage

Monsanto's Pesticide Problems Raise Awareness about Corporate Environmental

Responsibility
Monsanto, the world’s largest agriculture seed producer, is under fire after scientists in
the U.S. recently discovered what they believe to be a case of plant product that is grown by
the farmers are eating by the insect or other creeping or crawling small invertebrate such as
spider or centipede. Some researchers believe that the discovery validates concerns that
biotech crops could spawn new species of pesticide-resistant super-bugs.
Among Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) circles, reports of this phenomenon have
sparked discussions about the importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies
when it comes to environmental issues.

This is also not the first time that Monsanto has faced criticism for marketing products
that have the potential to cause serious environmental damage. For the last two decades
Monsanto has produced and marketed special seeds that can survive exposure to the
company’s chemical use to destroy plants or stop plant growth Roundup herbicide, a powerful
chemical with a strong reputation for being an effective weed-killer
The problem is, these Roundup resistant seeds made it easy for farmers to plant crops
and then douse them with Monsanto pesticide, that many farms abandoned other techniques.
Now, according to a number of scientific reports, super weeds that are immune to Monsanto’s
pesticides have spread to millions of acres in more than 20 states the Midwestern United
States.

In a recent article in the New York Times, Bill Freese, a science policy analyst for the Center
for Food Safety in Washington explained that “the biotech industry is taking us into a more
pesticide-dependent agriculture… we need to be going in, the opposite direction.” The
challenge however, is that genetically modified crops are presenting their own set of
environmental risks.

These recent reports raise concerns about the negative environmental impacts of Monsanto’s
operations. Of further concern to socially-responsible or ESG-minded investors is the fact
that Monsanto has not adopted globally recognized best-practices when it comes to
environmental oversight and reporting. The company has not adopted an ISO 14001 certified
environmental management system and does not report its greenhouse gas (GHG) or carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions levels.

Monsanto is already working on a new type of genetically modified crops that are designed to
help farmers move away from heavy pesticide use. In 2010 the company brought in over $10
billion in revenues and its products are extremely popular with many U.S. based farmers.
Over 90% percent of the U.S.-grown soybeans and 80% of U.S. corn and cotton crops are
grown with seeds containing Monsanto's technology. Still, the company faces serious long-
term environmental risks and its reputation suffers because of this. In 2002, for instance
Zambia, in the middle of a famine, rejected a cargo of donated corn out of fear that the
shipment might include genetically modified seeds.

In 2011 Monsanto has been fined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for
contaminating water supplies near one of its rural U.S. facilities and targeted for investigation
by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for making cash incentive payments to
farmers who use its herbicides. Clearly, Monsanto is becoming a fertile ground for discussion
of corporate environmental policies and responsibilities.

If the company wishes to improve its image when it comes to environmental issues, it might
want to start by adopting globally recognized best practices when it comes to environmental
management and reporting.

Over the past decade, Monsanto has become a pop cultural bogeyman, the face of corporate
evil. The company and its Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) seeds have been the
subject of apparent misconduct of a prominent individual or business documentaries.
Monsanto have global protests, and assaults by everybody from environmental activists to
 “The Colbert Report.” Facebook and other social media are awash in memes devoted to the
topic and hashtags like #monsantoevil. And it seems everyone, from your plumber to your
mother, has an opinion about the company. This past year, when Monsanto bought a weather
data company called the Climate Corporation. In short, you don’t need to have a degree in
marketing and communications to see that Monsanto has a PR problem.

Critics point to their role in GMOs, creating “frankenfood,” but Monsanto is not the only
company that produces Genetically Modified Organisms. And though it has a bad
environmental record, so do lots of companies. Also, unlike, say, other corporate villains like
General Motors.

Before Monsanto became the face of industrial agriculture, it courted controversy in other
ways — namely, as a chemical company. Founded in 1901, Monsanto was one of a handful of
companies that produced Agent Orange, and its main poison, Dioxin. It sold DDT, PCBs, the
controversial dairy cow hormone, rBGH, and the cancer-linked Aspartame sweetener.
Starting in the ‘80s, however, Monsanto shed its chemicals and plastics divisions, bought up
seed companies, invested in bio genetics research, and ultimately reincorporated itself as an
agricultural company. Its first GMO product, the patented Glyphosate-resistant, “Round-Up
Ready” soybean, was approved by the USDA in 1994. But most Americans hadn’t heard of
Monsanto until it tried to sell the seeds to Europe. That’s when things turned sour.

2. Competitors
 Law suit about technology for genetic modified seeds, 1.75 billion deals, 2012
 Dow Chemical on chemical industry, Syngenta, Fmc, and Mosaic
 Chinese seeds makers with same genetic technology 139 million fall in 2009
 Competitors in and out North America

Major competitors of Monsanto company in the seeds and genomics space include
multinational American giant Dow Chemical Company (DOW), agricultural genomics firm
Evogene Ltd., and seed and chemical supplier Syngenta (SYT), based in Switzerland.
Major competitors for Monsanto in the agricultural productivity division include retail
fertilizer and agricultural product supplier Agrium (AGU), insecticide and herbicide producer
American Vanguard (AVD); fertilizer producer CF Industries Holdings (CF); nitrogen
fertilizer producer CVR Partners (UAN), fertilizer and agricultural product producer Chinese
Green Agriculture, fertilizer and chemical product producer Israel Chemicals; bio-based pest
management product producer Marrone Bio Innovations; phosphate and potash miner The
Mosaic Company; potash miner Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan; nitrogen fertilizer
producer Rentech Nitrogen Partners; genomic company and herbicide producer Syngenta;
nitrogen producer Terra Nitrogen Company; Eastman Chemical; Dow Chemical; FMC
Corporation; and Honeywell International.
 The pitfalls of Monsanto’s approach are most glaringly evident in the case of Percy
Schmeiser, a rosy-cheeked Canadian farmer who was successfully sued by Monsanto in 1998
after he refused to pay the licensing fee for growing Round-up Ready Canola. Schmeiser
claimed that the GM canola seed had blown onto his farm by mistake, and he wasn’t
infringing on Monsanto’s patent agreement because he did not intend to use Round-Up on the
Canola. Some of the crucial facts of the case remain hotly disputed: how much of Schmeiser’s
farm was planted with the GM canola, whether he knew what exactly he was growing and
whether his claim that he wasn’t going to use Round-Up was truthful.

But these murky areas get lost in the broad brushstrokes that color public opinion. Schmeiser
was made into the poster child for the innocent farmer sued by big, bad Monsanto. For the
past several years, he’s been a regular on the ant-GMO lecture circuit and as the subject of the
documentary, “David Versus Monsanto” helped paint the company in an unflattering light.
Monsanto does not appear chastened by this Pyrrhic victory. A page on company’s web
site describes the Schmeiser case in defiant terms:
“The truth is Percy Schmeiser is not a hero. He’s simply a patent infringer who knows how to
tell a good story.”Monsanto is clearly a company that undervalues the power of storytelling

3.Public Relations
 Christopher Leonard, public enemy #1 by critics of biochemical industry
 Squeezing Competitors controlling smaller seeds companies
 Swiss research film covalence annual ranking of the overall ethical performance of
multinational corporations;

Environmental groups also capitalized on the public’s fear of the unknown, especially
as it related to big emotional triggers of personal health and safety. A typical example,
was Friends of the Earth’s 1999 mailing campaign, which read: “How Safe is the Food You
Eat?…The scary answer is no one really knows.” This set the pattern for our current debate
about GMOs: even as scientists argue in the New York Times and elsewhere that the
technology has not been shown to be bad to humans, it is hard to escape the notion that these
kinds of crops are too new to be properly vetted. Monster analogies graft nicely onto such
gray zones.

By not understanding, at least at first, the emotional dimensions of the debate, Monsanto has
been unable to shake its image. By its own admission Monsanto views its patented GM seeds
similarly to the way the software industry views its proprietary technology. Like somebody
buying a copy of Photoshop, Monsanto binds its customers to a terms-of-service agreement
when they buy their “technology.” (It includes stipulations such as the inability to save and
replant the seed.) In the past, if the company has learned those terms have been violated, they
have sued, or threatened to sue, farmers. Monsanto even has a hotline that people can call to
alert them to patent infringements.
In a New York Times poll conducted last July, almost a quarter of respondents said
that they believed that GMO foods were unsafe to eat or were toxic. And nearly 93 percent
supported a GM labeling law. (Monsanto’s position has been that there is a lack of scientific
evidence backing up those claims, and that mandatory labels would inaccurately put fear in
the heart of consumers. It has spent millions to defeat various state-level bills and ballot
proposals.)
Monsanto has made many attempts, since the initial launch of its GM seeds, to paint itself in a
better light through advertising. In a few campaigns, they’ve used language about
“sustainability,” and in others, they’ve taken the humanizing approach by showing pictures of
smiling farmers or Monsanto employees. They’re also attempting to spread the message of
new, non-GMO produce initiatives — a article was titled “Monsanto Is Going Organic in the
Quest for the Perfect Veggie.”
None of these seem to have made any difference, however, at least in the popular debate.
Eventually, probably, Monsanto will relinquish its villainous place in pop culture to another
corporation. It’s certainly trying: as Politico reported this past fall, they have shaken up their
internal public relations office and upped contracts with outside image consultants. (The story
also noted that Monsanto is still raking in money: it finished 2013 with a 25 percent increase
in sales, netting the company $2.5 billion in profit.) As the Climate Corporation’s
Friedberg noted in his all-staff email, tech companies have begun to assume the mantle of the
evil corporations — many see Google’s motto (“Don’t be evil”) as more ironic by the day.
For the time being, the relentless march of Monsanto Facebook memes (“Not sure if trying to
feed the world or poison it”) and anti-GMO sentiment only seems to be pushing Monsanto
farther into the evil camp: States have been legislating around GMO labeling and companies
like Chipotle are promising to drop GMO products. If Monsanto has any hope of shifting
public opinion towards a brighter future, it’s going to have to find a way to deal with its image
today. No one is lining up to live in the house Monsanto built.

They also become this – I don’t want to say scapegoat, but icons [representing] broader social
problems.” In Starbucks’ case, the company was blamed for mistreatment of farmers, bad
environmental practices and neighborhood gentrification, with varying degrees of fairness.
Similarly, says Arsel, Monsanto becomes “symbolically linked to a loss of small farming
practices, political alignments and other abstract concerns.”
Perhaps, also, it’s not surprising that Monsanto’s shift into agriculture has made it a target for
consumer rage. Food companies are particularly vulnerable to public relations headaches.
Historically, companies like Nestle, Coke, and McDonalds have been frequent targets of
consumer protests, boycotts and media floggings. (Remember “Super Size Me”?) Although
 Monsanto doesn’t sell breakfast cereal or hamburgers, it does sell the raw materials, in a
sense. And as compared to, say, worrying about the health of the ocean when BP spills oil
into it, people worry more about their own health and safety. The idea that our food might be
adulterated or cause harm is an easy thing to get worked up about.

Although this makes sense from a business perspective, it’s problematic from a public
relations perspective. The “technology” they’re selling is seeds, which have rich cultural and
even spiritual associations that Photoshop does not. Seeds have historically been a part of the
natural world that belongs to everybody and nobody, like dirt or the ocean. The customers at
liability risk aren’t corporate IT departments, but rather, farmers. (“The Daily Show” pilloried
this in a bit last year entitled: “AasifMandvi learns that greedy farmers have threatened the
livelihood of Monsanto’s heroic patent attorneys.”)

XI. Conclusion, Recommendation, Observation

Just as many hard work we have pressed on this study. Everything has been paid for it.
Now that we have complete our work, I there for conclude that the Monsanto company violates
many environmental issues that gives rise to the concerns of the consumers and even farmers that
buys their product. Although they aim for the best of the humanity, you can't still take away their
strange feeling about this case. They have develop a pesticide that is super resistant to bugs but
that strong chemicals may affect the food that will be eaten by us. The relation of the farmers and
the company have been a slightly contrary. They are forcing farmers to buy newly modified seed
every year. As a matter of fact, the farmers should have the right to choose on what seed they are
going to plant. Without farms there will be shortage of food for the country. And now that they
have been successfully modified corns for easy and faster harvesting, they have been very skilled
to make this. On the other hand, they are helping in producing foods that may supply the
consumers even though it is genetically modified. With this kind of modifications, many people
can not avoid to do the same thing. With the competitors around the globe, Monsanto have faced
many difficulties that lead them near the pitfall. And with some criticism about them, they find it
hard for them to just take a move and plan on something new. Even though they aim to help
farmers, they even make the farmers to buy their product. Farmers must have the independence
about on what they want to use or is it harmful for our consumers if we use this. Because farmers
need this kind of independence that may make them think for the success themselves. Not the
company. They suppose to help not to make them suffer of this. We recommend that every
product they produce needed to be approve first before endorsing it in the market. Although they
are approved, they must think first if this product of them has any flaws that may lead into
criticizing it. And of course, they seek on what might be helpful or harmful to the environment
especially to humans. Even though the purpose of their researches and genetic modification is
for the better of the world, still they must think first whether will it gain or destroy their
reputation. Nowadays, everything you do whether it is small or big achievement, people will
only criticize on what you have done wrong. And of course, being human doesn't mean that you
are prone to flaws. No one will be ever be a perfect person. But making something that changes
the quality of the food you produce because of chemicals on it. Another one is that they might
need some survey or interview their customers especially farmers, on what they think of the
product they have produce. Some might have positive suggestion but many will make negative
reactions. It is because that you've genetically modified a food or something, people will think
whether they are safe or harmful to the human civilization. Even that you're making something to
have a better world, you can't change the fact that every human in this world are concern if the
product will benefit the human world. Now that many competitors are coming in the market,
they must now consider decisions whether can this make my company a progressive one or it
may lead to the downfall of everything you've done. And after arriving on the conclusion and
recommendation, we observe that the Monsanto company aims product that helps the agriculture
department. But applying strong chemicals to the vegetables and herbs makes it a lot different to
the one that we have already known. and this genetically modified corns that they are producing
is just into the another level of the understanding of the humans. They are seeking on what they
might think it will help them succeed. And now that they succeed, they can not avoid being
criticize about on what they have done for the people. They must think that every people are
different from each other. Some may accept the fact that they have made for the purpose of
supplying food for the entire humanity. And others might think that the company have never
consider on what they are selling to the market. We are thinking if it will for the best of the
humanity to continue to produce GMO's or not? And of course it depends on the view of people
whether they will accept it or not.

Additional Details
Public Company
Incorporated: 2000 as Monsanto Ag Company
Employees: 12,600
Sales: $6.29 billion (2005)
Stock Exchanges: New York
Ticker Symbol: MON
NAIC: 325412 Pharmaceutical Preparations; 325311 Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing

XII. References and Links

https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/sites/default/files/fs_1802_1406-monsantoseedsupd_web.pdf
https://monsanto.com/products/learning-centers/mission-statement/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanielparishflannery/2011/09/03/monsantos-pesticide-
problems-raise-awareness-for-corporate-environmental-responsibility/#59deb470e3d0

https://modernfarmer.com/2014/03/monsantos-good-bad-pr-problem/

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1110783/000119312517375746/d448490ddef14a.htm

https://theecologist.org/2009/jun/26/monsantos-philanthropy (Duvvuru, 2009)

https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/nathanielparishflannery/2011/09/03/mons
antos-pesticide-problems-raise-awareness-for-corporate-environmental-responsibility/amp/ (Flannery,
2011)

http://naturalsociety.com/who-are-really-the-top-shareholders-of-monsanto/#ixzz5TF9M2r2u

Alessi, C. (2017, February 20). Investors heartened by Trump’s apparent support of a Bayer-
Monsanto merger. Retrieved February 20, 2017, from
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/investors-heartened-by-trumps-apparent-support-of-a-bayer-
monsanto-merger-2017-02-20

Who We Are.(n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2017, from

http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/pages/default.aspx

Langreth, R., &Herper, M. (2009, December 31). The Planet Versus Monsanto. Retrieved
February 20, 2017, from http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0118/americas-best-company-10-
gmos-dupont-planet-versus-monsanto.html

Bartlett, D., & Steele, J. (2015, January 31). Monsanto’s Cruel, and Dangerous, Monopolization
on American Farming. Retrieved February 20, 2017, from
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/05/monsanto200805

Kenner, R. (Director). (2009). Food, Inc. [Motion picture on Netflix]. United States: Magnolia
Home Entertainment