Parker Gross
MKTG 495
Case #3 – Monsanto

I: Situation Analysis
Monsanto is a company that some people may not be explicitly familiar with on a first name basis. However, the work that the company has done over the last century, with a larger emphasis on its most recent ventures, have been deeply engrained in our lives, our food, and our economy. Monsanto has those who advocate on their behalf in addition to their naysayers. While Monsanto has made huge strides in terms of biotechnology over the last couple of decades, their accomplishments, and the relevant methods, have not been free of criticism and controversy. In order to analyze Monsanto’s corporate environment, it is important to first explore their Strengths, Weaknesses,
If their products are actually harmful and they are covering up information that the general public deserves to know, then it is clear that Monsanto’s stake in keeping this information private is that it would hurt them from a profit standpoint.

IV: Development of Alternatives In order to address the problem of unethical business practices as a result of over-pursuit of profitability, Monsanto will need to take a new course of action. Some strategic alternatives would be to hold a seminar on business ethics, to further research all of the potential harms of their product and communicate the results in an honest manner, or to undertake a new marketing campaign in hopes of reestablishing the company image.

V: Evaluation of Alternatives and Recommendations Having someone from outside the company to lead a seminar on business ethics likely would be pretty affordable and could lead to a long-term increase in company goodwill. If effective, this step could likely mitigate most of the company’s ethical business issues. It is likely that the executives know what they are doing is unethical but continue to engage in these practices anyway, so a business ethics seminar is not guaranteed to be highly effective. Monsanto has already done a good amount of research on their products and the associated health and environmental costs. However, the public’s skepticism and the