Monsanto Case Study: Soldiers on The Frontlines

Introduction

Can Duc Phat, a former Vietnam agriculture minister says, “people are scared of ghosts because they’ve never seen them; some are concerned about GMOs because they’ve never seen them;” however, a ghost continues to present itself in the face of many children affected from grandfathers who passed down mutations caused by Agent Orange—a deforesting chemical used during the Vietnamese War containing Dioxin, a carcinogenic causing harm to thousands of veterans. Monsanto’s jump back into the ring from 1979 to modernity can be described as a fight against consumer safety perturbation, environmental concerns, liabilities, and consumers’ philosophy of society’s best interests. The fight between Monsanto and ethicality continues to ponder in the minds of the world. Before first establishing a stance on the old Monsanto and its historical shocking detriment of Agent Orange and the new Monsanto focusing on biotechnology and world sustainability, one must consider the future of GMOs, i.e., a genetically modified organism. A GMO, according to Non GMO Project, “is a plant, animal, microorganism or other organism whose genetic makeup has been modified using recombinant DNA methods (also called gene splicing), gene modification or transgenic technology.” Monsanto patiently waits on the frontlines, eager to tackle the ever growing needs of everyday consumers, in spite of the governmental macabre war history between Monsanto’s faults and the affected Vietnamese people. Monsanto’s bleak past lingers in the minds of future driven activists. This essay will discuss the importance of Monsanto’s rebranding; offer solutions on how to balance the conflicting needs of the variety of stakeholder groups Monsanto must successfully engage while finding ways to alleviate stakeholder concerns; how to triumphantly fulfill the moral obligations to improve human lives by protecting society and the environment from potential negative consequences; and, lastly, determine how the competitive advantage of Monsanto’s patent-protected product producing superior seeds have negatively impacted the environment.

New Monsanto—An Analysis of its Biotechnology Branding Creation

Historical mishaps have forced Monsanto to consider branding alternatives to their preexisting chemical company branding. According to Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective (2018), a book by George E. Belch and Michael A. Belch, “building and maintaining brand identity and equity require the creation of well-known brands that have favorable, strong, and unique associations in the mind of consumers" (p. 16). Since advertising promotes ideas, one must use “seller-initiated efforts to set up channels of information and persuasion in order to sell goods and services or promote an idea.” Monsanto’s website uses their diction to create positive brand building with society at large, while showcasing their mission statement as their main focus point to perpetuate an idea of sustainability, higher profit gains for farmers, and enhanced products which produce mass sustainability for the high demands of the ever-growing human population.

Repositioning & Branding

Monsanto has repositioned itself from a chemical company to a biotechnology company. The instrumental importance of branding plays a key strategy in creating positive messages in the consumers’ mind. The rhetoric principle of connotation vs. denotation effects consumer understandings of products. The word chemical itself does not denote a negative image; however, paired with past life-changing events, e.g., Agent Orange, the word can connotatively create an image of the same human mutations found in the 2006 horror movie, The Hills Have Eyes. As one can see, the importance of diction and branding can vastly change customer perceptions of brands. Monsanto has had to alter their brand perception over the years due to their chemical mishap. 

Basic Advantages of Branding Decisions. Some advantages of branding include product identification, comparison shopping, shopping efficiency, risk reduction, product acceptance,enhanced self-image and enhanced product loyalty (Marketing Strategy, p. 204, 2014). Monsanto’s use of product identification has been their largest competitive advantage, as their products, e.g., Roundup, Asgrow, Channel, De Ruiter, Seminis, West Bred and Stewart, among others, are recognized by agricultural farmers across the world. “Monsanto offers farmers a wide range of corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, canola, sorghum and sugar cane seeds. [They] use [their] elite seed genetics and cutting-edge traits and technologies to create products that meet farmers’ wants and needs" (Monsanto, 2017). The Product Overview of Monsanto’s website (2017) has three categories: What We Do, Our Products, Our Customers and Product Safety. Each aims to solve the mission of Monsanto. The What We Do section makes use of the branding decision of enhanced product loyalty as they “are honored millions of farmers and their families decide to put their trust in [them] and buy [their] products" (Monsanto, 2017). In addition, Monsanto also makes use of risk reduction by “providing farmers the broadest choice of products and services that will help them produce more" (Monsanto, 2017).

Branding Through Management Philosophies. According to the sixth edition of MKTG by Lamb, Hair and McDaniel, there are four marketing management philosophies: product orientation, sales orientation, market orientation and societal marketing orientation. Monsanto seems to make use of two marketing management philosophies—market orientation and societal marketing orientation. The market orientation concept does not depend on aggressive sales tactics, because it relies on a customer’s decision to purchase a product; Monsanto’s problem arises when patenting forces customers to purchase more of their product— thus, “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" (Marketing Strategy, p. 345, 2014). Monsanto desires a marketing concept, which focuses on customers’ wants and needs, integrating production and other activities, and they wish to achieve long-term goals by satisfying customers wants, legally. However, Monsanto’s take on market orientation can be grim when critics claim Monsanto forces consumers to purchase more of their products through limited patent use that brings about legal interrogations. Societal marketing orientation philosophy states, “an organization exists not only to satisfy customer wants and needs and to meet organizational objectives but also to preserve or enhance individual’s and society’s long-term best interests" (MKTG, p. 6, 2013). Having said that, since the philosophy aims to better the lives of society at large, one cannot truly know the negative detriments of the new concept of biotechnology, such as the use of GMOs and its effects on society in the longterm if such product are new to the world. Monsanto says they take “product stewardship” seriously, “ensuring environmental standards are not only met, but [exceed] or [protect] the safety of [their] people and communities;” however, critics believe the ability to make such claims falsifies reality, as the relativity of reality can only be attained by future fact. Working with products that have unknown consequences may endanger human life and hurt society at large. The organizational benefits of branding cannot be overlooked when dealing with a hyper competitive market; however, many critics suggest Monsanto plays unfairly, breaking anticompetitive laws. Monsanto has been under fire with the Antitrust Institute for alleged anticompetitive activities, as they are forcing farmers to buy more seeds after a cycle expires. Farmers harvest seeds and reuse them, however Monsanto products are patented: under the terms of the patent, farmers using Monsanto seeds are not allowed to harvest seeds from the plants for use in upcoming seasons (Marketing Strategy, p. 345, 2014). Nevertheless, Monsanto does not follow the marketing orientation fairly or the societal marketing orientation, as they have created loopholes to abuse customers. When one considers this exploitation, the undeniable exasperation, fatigue, and distrust of stakeholders almost becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. When Monsanto does not balance the needs of their stakeholders, problems arise.

Balancing Stakeholder Needs and Strategies for Alleviation

Belch et al notes value to be the customer’s perception of all the benefits of a product or service weighed against all the costs of acquiring and consuming. Stakeholders consider value, as well as social and ethical responsibilities when making decisions. The Business Dictionary denotes a stakeholder as, “a person, group or organization that has interest or concern in an organization.” They can easily influence or affect an organization’s actions, objectives and policies. Suppliers, directors, creditors, the community, and the government are but a few to name of stakeholders. They make up the consumer which make purchases, and are immensely important in profit gain. Stakeholder orientation views all stakeholders as important. Companies must meet stakeholder demands, and these demands create a stakeholder oriented company. To be effective, Monsanto must follow three activities: (1) the organization-wide generation of data about stakeholder groups and assessment of the firm’s efforts of these groups, (2) the distribution of this information throughout the firm, and (3) the organization’s responsiveness as a whole to this intelligence (Marketing Strategy, p. 247). These activities ensure a company meets the demands of the consumer, not the other way around.

Steps to Balancing Stakeholder Needs and Alleviating Concerns

Monsanto must research the target market well to determine stakeholder relevant needs. “Stakeholder communities should be analyzed on the basis of the power that each enjoys as well as by the ties between them. Next, the firm should characterize the concerns about the business’s conduct that each relevant stakeholder group shares" (Marketing Strategy, p. 247). Monsanto has failed to understand their consumer on a personal level and has had many pitfalls when dealing with ethicality. Basic research and development strategies of surveys and focus groups can help understand stakeholder desires. To reach a Stakeholder Orientation mindset, Monsanto must be responsive to stakeholder and learn from the research to make better business decision of how to effectively exceed stakeholder expectations. This will determine what “has a positive impact on stakeholder issues" (Marketing Strategy, p. 247). Positive impacts often require ethicality and there are two models which companies can subscribe to when making ethical business decisions—the shareholder model and the stakeholder model. According to Study, “the shareholder model supports the belief that the only social responsibility a company has is to maximize profits.” One can see this model in finance. This model notes that one cannot “balance every shareholder’s interest and act as a moral agent" (Study). In contrast to the shareholder model the stakeholder model adopts the idea of balancing power ethically. “The primary stakeholders are shareholders, employees and customers because if one of the groups becomes unsatisfied, it would cause the failure of the company. (Study)” Imagine stakeholders and shareholders as business executives, each with the power to manage a company’s systematic thought process. If one of these executives does not agree with the other, it may cause financial burden on the company. A company must research each group to provide them both with sustainable happiness. Understanding the two models becomes instrumental in successfully engaging both balancing conflicting needs as each stakeholder group considers problem resolution differently—one considers financial gain, the other considers social responsibilities. The pinnacle solution is adaptability. Monsanto has tried to be responsible on a corporate level, “giving millions of dollars in programs to help improve communities in developing countries;” however, the problem Monsanto has been facing stems from internal factors altering external perception, e.g., bribery issues in multinational corporations (Marketing Strategy, p. 344). Patenting issues also deter the perception of the brand, as this internal factor makes Monsanto a bully. Marketing strategy confirms, “Farmers…[call] investigators the “seed police” and even [refer] to them with such harsh words as ‘Gestapo’ or ‘mafia.’” The internal problem of shareholders and stakeholders needs to be addressed, quickly to see a profit increases. Stakeholder concerns can be alleviated by providing stakeholders with more transparency. Monsanto’s responsibility is to convince stakeholders their products are safe, so research and development plays an important role in this fulfillment.

Human Life Fulfillment

As mentioned earlier, the societal marketing orientation focuses on focuses on ways to preserve society’s long-term best interests. Some may argue that Monsanto’s products are detrimental to society, as the products are harmful. However, studies prove the genetically engineered plants do not harm human life— “the FDA has declared biotech crops safe, critics say they have not been around long enough to gauge their long-tern effects.” There are three giant federal agencies regulating genetically engineered crops: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), The Food and Drug Administration(FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These agencies help Monsanto stay on track of their creations (National Geographic). Snow, a Plant Ecologist at Ohio University says, “one percent of USDA biotech research money goes to risk assessment,” which can be alarming when considering that risk is precisely the problem when dealing with unforeseen biotechnology consequences. Monsanto should be transparent and note the government’s role in biotechnology research and potential side effects—they should use the government to better promote safe products to their weary consumers. This strategy would help alleviate some tensions; however, the problem with monitoring seems to be an internal one with the U.S. government. There are internal problems which need to be addressed before Monsanto can reap the benefits of a watch-dog. Prakash says, “people say that this technology is just earning profit for big companies. This is true to some extent, but the knowledge that companies have developed in the production of profitable crops can easily be transferred and applied to help developing nations" (National Geographic). Oftentimes, human being ignore new ideas based on fear. Critics must become open-minded to the potential benefits of GMOs, however the risks associated with them should not be avoided. A company can only do so much to alter a consumer’s mind. The long-tail theory makes use of niche markets, and notes how being niche has more power for profit gain. Perhaps Monsanto is doing well in the eyes of the correct target consumer. A company cannot fulfill the needs of every consumer—that is unrealistic.

Environmental Impacts

Monsanto has been successful in their patented seeds, however speculation still exists about societal protections and the negative side effects of genetically modified seeds. The Federal Department of Agriculture upholds the integrity of the consumer buy providing them with tested products that are not only safe, but can vastly improve their lives. The world’s population has grown substantially, so food must be grown hastily to meet the demands of every consumer. Channapatna Prakash, an Indian Native and agricultural scientist at the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University says, “eight hundred million people on this planet are malnourished (National Geographic)” and, “genetic engineering can help address the urgent problems of food shortage and hunger" (National Geographic). The FDA has cleared Monsanto products and deemed them as safe for human consumption. Little critters, however need some attention. Monsanto’s environmental contamination has been shown to affect bumblebees, insects, birds, and amphibians (Marketing Strategy, p. 343). Moreover as wind carries the seeds, other Non-GMO farms are being modified. Farmers should not have to address problems brought unto them by Monsanto. National Geographic notes, “since gene flow usually takes place only between closely related species, and since most major U.S. crops don’t have close relatives growing nearby, it is extremely unlikely that gene flow will occur to create problem weeds,” which most critics naively believe. A successful marketing strategy can only be as good as the amount of transparency a customer believes they are receiving. Monsanto’s disregard for life, regardless of how small, has been noted by critics. As mentioned before, “[Snow]… and other environmental scientists worry that genetically engineered crops are being developed too quickly and released on millions of acres of farmland before they’ve been adequately tested for their possible long-term ecological impact" (National Geographic). However, high risk yields high return, and Monsanto has become a leader in agriculture by providing consumers with sustainable crops.

Conclusion

This essay has discussed the importance of Monsanto’s rebranding; offered solutions on how to balance the conflicting needs of the variety of stakeholder groups Monsanto must successfully engage while finding ways to alleviate stakeholder concerns; identified how to triumphantly fulfill the moral obligations to improve human lives by protecting society and the environment from potential negative consequences; and, lastly, determined how the competitive advantage of Monsanto’s patent-protected product producing superior seeds have negatively impacted the environment. The world has been expanding rapidly, and meeting the demands of consumers has been a bumpy road. Monsanto’s role in GMOs has played an important role in considering future societal problems, such as world malnourishment. As with any new concept, potential risks may occur, but the U.S. government has a stronghold on Monsanto, protecting human life. Although Monsanto has had a macabre past, mutating children and causing health problems, Monsanto has done an effective job through rebranding and other strategies which meet the demands of the stakeholders and the shareholders alike. Although the company may not be perfect, it is one step closer to being a giant in the ring.

References

(n.d.). Products. Retrieved March 12, 2017, from http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/monsanto-product-brands.aspx

Ackerman, J. (n.d.). Altered Food, GMOs, Genetically Modified Food. Retrieved March 12, 2017, from http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/food-howaltered/

Belch, G. E., & Belch, M. A. (2018). Advertising and promotion: an integrated marketing communications perspective. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Ferrell, O. C. (2016). Marketing strategy. S.l.: Engage Learning. How Companies Ethically Balance Owner, Stockholder & Stakeholder Interests - Video & Lesson Transcript. (n.d.). Retrieved March 12, 2017, from http://study.com/academy/lesson/howcompanies-ethically-balance-owner-stockholder-stakeholder-interests.html

Luong, D. (2016, August 30). 55 Years After Agent Orange Was Used In Vietnam, One Of Its Creators Is Thriving Here. Retrieved March 12, 2017, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/monsanto-vietnam-agentorange_us_57a9e002e4b0b770b1a445ba

What comes after those ellipses? (n.d.). Retrieved March 12, 2017, from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/stakeholder.html

What is GMO? (n.d.). Retrieved March 12, 2017, from https://www.nongmoproject.org/gmofacts/what-is-gmo/

Writer, L. G. (2011, August 15). How Do Stakeholders Influence Business Activities? Retrieved March 12, 2017, from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/stakeholders-influence-businessactivities-18754.html

0 Likes