Alexandra Giroux

First of all, the subject of this essay has to be introduced. Modern industry has provided us with a material prosperity unequaled in our history. It has also created unparalleled environmental threats to ourselves and to future generations. The very technology that has enabled us to manipulate and control nature has become as well a harm for environment and health. Monsanto is the world leader in genetically modified organisms (GMOs), as well as one of the most controversial corporations in industrial history. What are the obligations of firms such as Monsanto to preserve the environment and health and conserve our resources? Environmental issues are seen by some researchers as a problem that can be best framed in terms of our duty to recognize and preserve the ecological systems within which we live. Monsanto depends upon the natural environment for their business and that environment is affected by its commercial activities. “An ecological ethic is thus an ethic that claims that the welfare of at least some non-humans is intrinsically valuable and that because of this intrinsic value, we humans have a duty to respect and preserve them. (Velasquez, 1992, p.233). Environment is essential to the fulfillment of our human capacities. According to Blackstome, “a person has a moral right to a thing when possession of that thing is essential in permitting him to live a human life, that is, in permitting him to fulfill his capacities as a rational and free being” (quoted in Velasquez, 1992, p.235). It leads to the question whether environment has rights. I feel specially concerned with this subject since a law allowing OGM has been voted in France in may 2008. This text allows transgenic cultures but now farmers must declare that to the authorities. Before, it was volunteer. The question arises as to how one can localize the moral responsibilities corporations obviously can have and what then corporate responsibility mean precisely. The corporate responsibility refers to the responsibility of some people of the corporation: a corporation cannot be held morally responsible because the corporation cannot act. Monsanto was founded in 1901 as a chemical company. Its history is intimately linked to the production and promotion of highly toxic chemicals such as Agent Orange (used as a chemical weapon in the Vietnam war) and PCBs (widespread toxic pollutants). Robin’s movie reveals that Monsanto already knew about the “systematic toxic effects” of PCBs for decades, but instructed its salespeople to stay silent because, “we can’t afford to lose one dollar.”

In order to understand this issue, a short literature review is necessary. Thompson (2001) p.12 and Houlden (1988) suggest that business ethics encompasses the views of people throughout society concerning the morality of business, and not just the views of the particular business and the people who work in it. In its extreme form the statement “the end justifies the means” would be the claim that the consequences are the only important things, that if the end to be achieved is good, then anything necessary to achieve that end is good also. One can refer to the utilitarian theory, formulated by John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham and James Mill: this approach places the moral worth of an action in the action’s consequences and emphasizes the good of the total society, not the benefits accruing to a single individual or even a group of individual. In France, GMO are not popular: this is partly explainable by José Bové’s actions against GMO crops. Regularly, “volunteer reapers”, including José Bové, destroy fields of Monsanto maize, to show their opposition. Those actions are widely related in the medias. In 2008 a documentary was aired on French television (ARTE – French-German cultural tv channel) by French journalist and film maker Marie-Monique Robin, “Le monde selon Monsanto” (“The world according to Monsanto”). This film paints a grim picture of a company with a long track record of environmental crimes and health scandals. The story starts in the White House, where Monsanto often got its way by exerting disproportionate influence over policy-makers via the “revolving door”. One example is Michael Taylor, who worked for Monsanto as an attorney before being appointed as deputy commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1991. While at the FDA, the authority that deals with all US food approvals, Taylor made crucial decisions that led to the approval of GE foods and crops. Then he returned to Monsanto, becoming the company’s vice president for public policy. Thanks to these intimate links between Monsanto and government agencies, the US adopted GE foods and crops without proper testing, without consumer labeling and in spite of serious questions hanging over their safety. Not coincidentally, Monsanto supplies 90 percent of the GE seeds used by the US market. In June 2007, Monsanto acquired Delta & Pine Land Company, a company that had been involved with a seed technology nicknamed “Terminator”. This technology produces plants that have sterile seeds so they do not flower or grow fruit after the initial planting, requiring customers to purchase seed from Monsanto for every planting in which they use Monsanto seed varieties. Of course there is an ethical problem since farmers are dependent from the company.  Furthermore, it could even be stated that food is becoming a commodity owned by a private society. The other problem is that GM seeds contaminate natural seeds so natural plants are sometimes disappearing when organic fields are next to GM fields.  Monsanto is notable for its involvement in high profile lawsuits, as both plaintiff and defendant. It has been involved in a number of class action suits, where fines and damages have run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, usually over health issues related to its products. Monsanto has also made frequent use of the courts to defend its patents, particularly in the area of biotechnology. The non-profit Center for Food Safety listed 112 lawsuits by Monsanto against farmers for claims of seed patent violations. The Center for Food Safety’s analyst stated that many innocent farmers settle with Monsanto because they cannot afford a time consuming lawsuit. Monsanto is frequently described by farmers as “Gestapo” and “Mafia” both because of these lawsuits and because of the questionable means they use to collect evidence of patent infringement. The sudden ecological Monsanto and zeal of its “President for Sustainable Development”, Robert B. Horsch converge with the interests of sellers of rights to pollute, as these landowners in Montana, already assembled in a Coalition for the sale of emissions of carbon dioxide. Sinai (2001) questions the “transparency” displayed by Monsanto. The consumer is dependent on information supplied by the company. Each genetic construction is regarded as a patent, and there is no legal obligation for a society to provide testing to private laboratories to conduct tests of control. In France, the description of a genetic construction is filed with the DGCCRF, which alone can conduct tests. As it is not empowered to do so as a business, it can not be seized for that purpose by consumers or industry.
An analyze, a conclusion and some recommendations can be formulated, from the literature review. Contemporary Western thought is characterized by an increasingly heavy accent on efficiency and functionality. This is partly a consequence of the distinction between facts and values and the limiting of science to facts stripped of moral aspects. Ethical egoism says that all people must pursue their own self-interests. “The dirty hand dilemma within the corporate context arises because the corporate interest, as a derivative of the general interest, must be given an independent place next to and sometimes in opposition to the rights of individuals stakeholders” (Wempe, 1998, p.39). But based on civil law procedures, corporations as well as their representatives can be held liable for all the damaging effects of the corporation. In the corporate condition, an egoistical standpoint is often advanced: the functioning of corporations is purely and solely to be understood on the basis of egotistical motives (Wempe, 1998, p.8). According to the business ethics theorist H.J.L. van Luijk (quoted in Wempe, 1998, p.54), “the corporation is not normally seen as a party which does not have the (social) responsibility to voluntarily contribute to the achievement of a reasonable level of prosperity in society”. Integrity makes an organization defensible and stimulates enthusiasm for the organization. “Integrity is a real part of the identity and, thereby of the external image of an organization. Credibility and reliability are characteristics of an organization that are of decisive importance for most (potential) stakeholders and business partners when entering into business agreements” (Wempe, 1998, p.187). Monsanto should proceed to an integrity audit, including: an inventory of the stakeholders expectations and corporation efforts on behalf of the stakeholders and an inventory and evaluation of the rules, procedures and measures to safeguard the integrity of the organization. Black and Porter (2000,  p.123) explain that factors of moral intensity are social consensus, probability of effect, temporal immediacy, proximity, concentration of effect, magnitude of the consequences. Given the ethical dilemmas that managers face and the different approaches for evaluating ethical behavior, many firms have adopted code of ethics to guide their managers’ decision making. According to Press (1990) one can assess business philosophy by analyzing what is the focus of the corporation on: people focus, resource focus, shareholder focus or market focus. In the case of Monsanto it seems that there is a market focus which means an external perspective with outcome-driven performance measures (Thompson, 2001, p.195).  The problem is that Monsanto, according to a confidential report evoked in “Le monde selon Monsanto” does not want to loose one dollar. Money is for them more important than ethics. Making more profit profit remains more attractive than being less harmful for the environment.

The research has obviously shaped my own opinion about this subject. Monsanto’s aggressive litigation and political lobbying practices, have made the company controversial around the world and a primary target of the anti-globalization movement and environmental activists. The material that I have came across during this research emphasizes this idea. Now corporations have sometimes more power than governments. In “The Corporation”, Chomsky ask the following “what is the social responsibility of a building? and a corporation?”. So, it can be argued that Monsanto has no social responsibility. It might appear that we have an obligation to conserve resources for future generations because they have an equal right to the limited resources of this planet. And if future generations have an equal right to the world’s resources, then by depleting these resources, we are taking what is actually theirs and violating their equal right to these resources. According to the contract view of the business firm’s duties to its customers, the relationship between a business firm and its customers is essentially a contractual relationship, and the firm’s moral duties to the customer are those created by this contractual relationship (Velasquez, 1998, p.278). There is a kind of sales contract and the firm has a duty to provide a product with those characteristics. But sometimes, consumers may be exposed to GMO risks without even knowing it. For instance, it has been shown in the film “The Corporation” that when a cows taking Posilac (BST), a medicine created by Monsanto to rise milk production, they can develop diseases such as mastitis which is is a condition that causes the breast tissue to become inflamed. It means that some pus can eventually ends up in the milk and the bacteria level goes up. Monsanto said that there were no harm for human health and that they were producing milk that was even better than others because there were no antibiotics. But this was not true. Moreover, BSt results in unnecessary pain and distress for the cow which is not acceptable is the only purpose of this medicine is to increase profits. A firm should have the moral duty to provide a product whose use involves no greater risks than those the seller expressly communicates to the buyer or those the seller implicitly communicated by the implicit claim made when marketing the product for a use whose normal risk level is well known. Today, Monsanto likes to style itself as a “life sciences” company. The leader in genetically modified seeds, engineered to resist its herbicide Roundup, claims it wants to solve world hunger while protecting the environment. This is very hypocritical, especially on their website (“Monsanto is an agricultural company. We apply innovation and technology to help farmers around the world produce more while conserving more. We help farmers grow yield sustainably so they can be successful, produce healthier foods, better animal feeds and more fiber, while also reducing agriculture’s impact on our environment.”). Obviously Monsanto has an interest to sell GMO seeds that are Round-up ready since they produce Round-up as well. The current problem is that it is hard to find information for the consumer. Business ethics is arguably important when it comes to such serious issues and it is worthy of serious attention. However, a consideration of ethical issues in strategic decisions typically requires that a long-term perspective is required. The problem is that multinationals such as Monsanto have a big influence on some governments, on local infrastructures and on environment. Nowadays, Bill Gates is more powerful than George Bush on an economic level.  The company spent $3,640,000 for lobbying in 2006. $680,000 was to outside lobbying firms with the remainder being spent using in-house lobbyists. There should be more control on Monsanto, for instance a verification of its statements by accountants, a check of environmental standards and a control by unions and staff. I do not agree with the fact that the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. Accidental contamination become widespread. A health Lombardy recently announced the presence of GMOs in seed lots of soybean and corn Monsanto. Biodiversity is in danger because of a company that thinks that business is more important than ethics. Our lives are more important than their profits. Monsanto’s philosophy is unfortunately far from Amway’s corporate social responsibility.

Bibliography

Achbar, M and Abbott, J. (2003). The Corporation.
Black, S., Porter, L. (2000), Management: Meeting New Challenges, Prentice-Hall Publishers, New York, NY,
Burnes, B. (1992). Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organisational Development. and Renewal. London: Pitman Publishing.
De Geus, A. (1997). The Living Company: Habits for Survival in a Turbulent Environment. Cambridge: Harvard business school press.
El Kosheri, A (dir.). (2006). L’éthique dans les relations économiques internationales. Paris: Pedone.
Mesina. (2008). La responsabilité sociale d’entreprise (RSE) comme remède à la crise ? Une idée très Démocrate ! Retrieved 20 December 2008 from the website http://www.blogdudemocrate.org/2008/12/14/la-responsabilite-sociale-dentreprise-rse-comme-remede-a-la-crise-une-idee-tres-democrate/
Monsanto. Retrieved 20 December 2008 from http://www.monsanto.com/
Morin, H. (2008). Le désherbant le plus vendu au monde mis en accusation. Retrieved 5 January 2009 from Le Monde website: http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2009/01/09/le-desherbant-le-plus-vendu-au-monde-mis-en-accusation_1139824_3244.html#xtor=EPR-32280154
Stewart, D. (1996). Business ethics. United states of America: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
The times 100. (2007). Creating a corporate social responsibility strategy. Retrieved 20 December 2008 from the website http://www.thetimes100.co.uk/case-study–creating-corporate-social-responsibility-strategy–11-210-1.php
Robin, M.M. (2008). Le monde selon Monsanto.
Sinaï, A. (2001). Comment Monsanto vend les OGM. Retrieved 19 December 2008 from the website http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2001/07/SINAI/15435
Thompson, J. (2001). Strategic management. Fourth edition. London: Thompson learning.
Velasquez, M. (1992). Business ethics: concepts and cases. New-Jersey: Prentice hall.
Wempe, J. (1998), Market and Morality. Business Ethics and the Dirty and Many. Hands Dilemma (dissertation Rotterdam, Eburon)