1. COMMUNICATION IN BUSINESS 100 (311353)
COMMUNICATION IN BUSINESS 100 (311353)MonsantoMonsanto is the world largest-
grossing seed company and the leader in biotechnology within the agriculture sector
(Emerging Leaders In Science 2014). It has had the most successful commercialisation and
penetration of genetically modified organisms (GMO) and is expected to lead the world in
its adoption of GMO within the next decade (History of GM Foods 2014). Monsanto’ s global
presence and its significant influence over the world’ s food sources have attracted a
multitude of different expectations from society. In the contemporary business world
companies are expected to perform well beyond the traditional economic measure of just
profit (Romani2013). Society & stakeholders at large, position expectations in regards to
improving the environment, being open and honest with consumers about practices, and
generally improving the world. This paper will examine and critique how Monsanto has
navigated its social expectations in regards to balancing the needs of its customers, owners
and the public. It will examine three areas, the first is its seeding business, the second its
history of chemical supplies in warfare and lastly Monsanto’ s direct advertising with the
public. By exploring these issues this paper will also discuss how Monsanto’ s actions have
directly impacted its own stakeholders and society at large.As a species, humans have
developed an innate need to ensure that they can gain required nutrients from food. Society
has, therefore, set expectations that are informal and formal on companies to produce high
quality products that are safe and reliable for consumption (Szabo,Laszlo and Tolnay2013).
Farmers are expected to produce the highest quality produce whilst innovating to feed a
growing population (Karp 1971). It has also been recognised that society must create more
sustainable ways of producing raw materials (Mouysset 2014). Monsanto’ s business is in
providing farmers with resources to “ make agriculture more productive and sustainable.
Monsanto’ s technologies enable farmers to get more from every acre of farmland.” (Our
Commitment 2014) The company has produced, amongst others, two products to achieve
this goal. The first product is Monsanto’ s herbicide Roundup that “ can be used as part of
an environmentally responsible weed control program.” (Roundup 2014) and the second is
a GMO seed that is“ tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup brand
herbicides” (Monsanto 2014). Together the two products help farmers reduce expensive
costs and “ fit with (Monsanto’ s) vision of sustainable agriculture and environmental
protection” (Roundup 2014). Society’ s expectations are that Monsanto’ s seeds produce
safe and reliable food for consumption. Within Australia, The Australian Office of the Gene
Technology Regulator (OGTR) and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)

2. evaluated 400 studies and approved many ‘ Roundup Ready’ GMO products. Other
independent studies, however, have shown glyphosate to be linked to toxicity amongst
specific fish causing concern amongst scientists about its effects on humans (Uren Webster,
2014). Over the course of GMO production, Monsanto has fulfilled many individuals’
expectations of innovation within farming. As many of Monsanto’ s products are raw
materials the impact and implications of GMO on stakeholders has had a multiplying effect
(Bucur 2013). Shareholders have seen the strongest growth of the company in the recent 5
years with shares increasing over 200 percent over that time (Monsanto Big Promises). For
consumers, the cost of production of input goods has decreased, allowing stakeholders to
purchase goods and services at lower prices (Ramasundaram 2014). With GMO adoption
increasing, society will continue to place a heavy burden on its expectations from the
company.Warfare has existed almost as long as society has; however, contemporary
ideologies of how other humans should be treated in a ‘ just war’ have evolved preceding
the end of World War II (Lee 2009). Expectations from society surrounding chemical
weapons were formally formed through the Geneva Protocol, whereby society limited both
the use and, in some cases, the development of chemical weapons (Bugnion 2000).
Monsanto attracts much of its criticism for its role in the Vietnam War (Gough 1991). Whilst
Monsanto distances itself as “ one of nine wartime government contractors,” (Agent Orange
Background 2014) the company developed a herbicide that was used as a chemical weapon
by the United States (U.S.) Military. The chemical was “ dumped over jungles to kill
vegetation and rout communist forces.” (Monsanto Returns to Vietnam 2012). Whilst yet to
be proven, Monsanto’ s product, Agent Orange, was especially harmful to the people of
Vietnam as it contaminated water supply and food sources that, according to victims,
caused deaths, birth defects and widespread chronic diseases including cancers seen to the
present day (Schecter 1995). Monsanto’ s researchers have argued against these lines of
thought but Gough refuted “ How paltry, self-serving, and churlish of chemical companies
and some scientists to argue that…the evidence for dioxin causing chronic diseases in
humans constantly weakens.” (Gough 1991). Monsanto’ s main claim to ethical standing is
on its website, where it claims it was working in the interests of the U.S. to “ protect and
save the lives of U.S. and allied soldiers.” (Agent Orange Background 2014). Monsanto may
not have fulfilled societies expectations to act in the interests of a just war, however, it did
assist in societies other expectations that wars are entered into to be won. Many would
argue that Monsanto’ s Agent Orange cost Vietnam greatly and assisted the U.S. in ways that
would not have been otherwise possible (Lipschutz 2010). Numerous stakeholders felt the
implications and impacts of Monsanto’ s actions. The U.S. as a stakeholder was provided a
weapon that was effective and mobilised their army, the Vietnam people as stakeholders
were impacted through the loss of lives, communities and vegetation that the Agent Orange
destroyed and, lastly, the United States civilians were affected through the association of a
ruthless, unforgiving and murderous people (Lipschutz 2010). Whilst Monsanto no longer
produces sells or distributes Agent Orange, it continues litigation to remain out of a liability
to its victims (Fawthorp 2004).Advertising is the primary medium companies use to
communicate their intellectual message to consumers and stakeholders (Luo and Pieter de
Jong 2012). In a growing trend for companies to increase their transparency (Anderberg

3. 2006), society is setting expectations on what they believe to be appropriate advertising.
Society’ s sets expectationson the company, the marketer and the media in their role in the
marketing message (Hong-Youl 2013). Primarily stakeholders require that the marketing
message is authentic and truthful in its content (Penaloza 1999). The company’ s role is to
provide relevant information to the marketer to be able to explain and build a selling point
for the organisation (Hong-Youl 2013). The expectations for the marketer can be a grey area
in that stakeholders expect a bias, however, spin is almost always not encouraged (Andrews
2006). The media and the expectations for them are set to be neutral and it is the media role
to report independently on their findings (Hong-Youl 2013). Within marketing, Monsanto
most notably did not meet societies expectations with its advertising of Roundup. The
product was originally sold to consumers and promoted as a product that was
‘ biodegradable.’ (Monsanto’ s Roundup 2013) In reality the product had traits that made
is almost completely not the case (Monsanto’ s Roundup 2013). BBC News reported that in
several courts around the world Monsanto was proven to have deliberately hidden its
findings in providing the marketer with insufficient evidence and even created illegitimate
research to back its biodegradable claim (Monsanto Guilty 2009). Monsanto argued that the
interpretation of the word was intended to be less literal and that all substances eventually
biodegrade. (Monsanto Guilty 2009) Lastly, it was obvious that they had also manipulated
the media to report positively on their products with Monsanto Public Relations
department writing articles that were later published by major newspapers (Corporate
Watch UK 2003). These actions did not meet societies expectations. Other expectations it
may have met were its responsibility to its shareholders to maximise its profits with some
analysts arguing that for the bottom line, it was economically smarter to market Roundup
incorrectly and then accept the fines and consumer backlash action for doing so then to
forfeit the income in the first place (Monsanto’ s Shameful Advertising 2012). The impact
and implications of these actions can be seen on two groups, consumers and shareholders.
Consumers were uninformed from Monsanto advertising and mislead in their buying
power. This resulted in income Monsanto may not otherwise have incurred. Shareholders
profited from this deceit and were the direct beneficiaries to Monsanto’ s actions. Monsanto
now markets its Roundup product without the biodegradable tag and it is the most
successful herbicide in the agricultural market (Roundup 2014).In conclusion, Monsanto’ s
corporate history has had a myriad of reasons that have contributed to consumers vividly
describing the organisation as, “ the most evil company is all of history” (Adams 2013). In
reality it seems apparent that Monsanto’ s primary goal, above all other ethics, is to benefit
its shareholders and influence its long-term profits. In an environment and economy that
requires corporations to develop a stronger corporate social responsibility Monsanto
resoundingly has a long way to go to meet these higher expectations. However, as a
company focused on profit and determined to chase success in each of its markets, it far
exceeds the expectations of its customers and its shareholders and therefore could be seen
as a company determined to do what is right for the stakeholders that matter most to its
survival.ReferencesAdams, Connor. 2013. Monsanto Named 2013’ s ‘ Most Evil
Corporation’ In New Poll. International Business Times.
http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-named-2013s-most-evil-corporation-new-poll-

4. 1300217Andrews, Leighton. 2006. “ Spin: From Tactic to Tabloid.” Journal of Public Affairs
6 (1): 31-45. http://search.proquest.com/docview/195800744?accountid=10382.Agent
Orange: Background on Monsanto’ s Involvement. 2014. Monsanto Company.
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/agent-orange-background-monsanto-
involvement.aspxBucur, Ion. 2013. “ Development of Sustainable Agriculture —a Key
Element for Romania’ s Progress.” Economic Insights – Trends & Challenges 65, no. 2: 104-
111. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed September 7, 2014).Corporate Watch
UK. Public relations and lobbying industry. 2003. Corporate Watch.
http://www.corporatewatch.org/content/corporate-watch-pr-industry-pr-and-
mediaEmerging Leaders in Science. 2014. Monsanto Company.
http://www.monsanto.com/careers/pages/emerging-leaders-in-science.aspxFawthrop,
Tom. Agent Orange Victims Sue Monsanto. 2004.
CorpWatchhttp://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11638Gough, Michael. 1991. “ Agent
Orange: Exposure and Policy.” American Journal Of Public Health 81, no. 3: 289-290.
Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed September 7, 2014).Hong-Youl Ha, J. D.
John, John Joby, and Kim Nam-Yun. 2013. “ The Critical Role of Marketer’ s Information
Provision in Temporal Changes of Expectations and Attitudes.” The Journal of Consumer
Marketing 30 (4): 355-365. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCM-02-2013-0459.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1398039067?accountid=10382.History of
Genetically Modified Foods. 2014. Global Change.
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/workspace/sect008/s8g5/hi
story.htmKarp, Herbert H. 1971. “ Migration and Functional Expansion: An Ecological
Analysis of Population Redistribution.” Land Economics 47, no. 4: 365. Business Source
Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed September 7, 2014).Lee, Brian Angelo. 2009. “ Preventive
War, Deterrent Retaliation, and Retrospective Disproportionality.” Brigham Young
University Law Review 2009, no. 2: 253-291. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost
(accessed September 7, 2014).Lipschutz, Ronnie D. 2010. “ The World According to
Monsanto.” Organization & Environment 23, no. 1: 99-100. Business Source Complete,
EBSCOhost (accessed September 7, 2014).Luo, Xueming and Pieter de Jong J. 2012. “ Does
Advertising Spending really Work? The Intermediate Role of Analysts in the Impact of
Advertising on Firm Value.” Academy of Marketing Science.Journal 40 (4): 605-624.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0240-3.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1013825696?accountid=10382.Monsanto, Agent
Orange Creator, Returns To Vietnam. 2012. Common Dreams.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2012/02/07/monsanto-agent-orange-creator-
returns-vietnamMonsanto. 2014. What is Roundup Ready canola? Monsanto Company.
http://www.monsanto.com/global/au/products/documents/what%20is%20roundup%20
ready%20canola_.pdfMonsanto guilty in ‘ false ad’ row. 2009. BBC News.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8308903.stmMonsanto is Burying Bad News Under Big
Promises. 2014. Bottarelli Research.
http://www.bottarelliresearch.com/charts/2014/06/25/monsanto-burying-bad-news-
under-big-promisesMonsanto’ s Roundup Herbicide May Be Most Important Factor in
Development of Autism and Other Chronic Disease. 2013. Mercola.

5. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/09/monsanto-roundup-
herbicide.aspxMonsanto’ s shameful record of false advertising. 2012. GMWatch.
http://www.gmwatch.org/news/13609Mouysset, L. “ Agricultural public policy: Green or
sustainable?.” Ecological Economics 102, (June 2014): 15-23. Business Source Complete,
EBSCOhost (accessed September 7, 2014).Our Commitment to Sustainable Agriculture.
2014. Monsanto Company. http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/pages/our-
commitment-to-sustainable-agriculture.aspxPenaloza, Lisa and Mary C. Gilly. 1999.
“ Marketer Acculturation: The Changer and the Changed.” Journal of Marketing 63 (3): 84-
104. http://search.proquest.com/docview/227831429?accountid=10382.Ramasundaram,
P., A. Suresh, Josily Samuel, and Shwetal Wankhade. 2014. “ Welfare Gains from Application
of First Generation Biotechnology in Indian Agriculture: The Case of Bt Cotton.”
Agricultural Economics Research Review 27, no. 1: 73-82. Business Source Complete,
EBSCOhost (accessed September 7, 2014).Romani, Simona, Silvia Grappi, and Richard
Bagozzi. 2013. “ Explaining Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility: The
Role of Gratitude and Altruistic Values.” Journal Of Business Ethics 114, no. 2: 193-206.
Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed September 7, 2014).Roundup. 2014.
Monsanto Company.
http://www.monsanto.com/global/au/products/pages/roundup.aspxSchecter, Arnold, Dai
Le Cao, Thuy Le Thi Bich, Quynh Hoang Trong, Minh Dinh Quang, Cau Hoang Dinh, and
Seppo Räisänen, et al. 1995. “ Agent Orange and the Vietnamese: The Persistence of
Elevated Dioxin Levels in Human Tissues.” American Journal Of Public Health 85, no. 4:
516-522. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed September 7, 2014).Sissell, Kara.
2012. “ Monsanto Agent Orange Lawsuit Goes to Trial.” Chemical Week 174, no. 1: 9.
Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed September 7, 2014).Szabo, A. S., Laszlo, P.,
& Tolnay, P. (2013). Importance of food physics, to fulfill the expectations of modern food
technologies. Journal of Food Science and Engineering, 3(4), 169. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1465374583?accountid=10382Uren Webster,
Tamsyn M., Lauren V. Laing, Hannah Florance, and Eduarda M. Santos. 2014. “ Effects of
Glyphosate and its Formulation, Roundup, on Reproduction in Zebrafish (Danio rerio).”
Environmental Science & Technology 48, no. 2: 1271-1279. Business Source Complete,
EBSCOhost (accessed September 7, 2014).