All stakeholders are in an exchange relationship with an organization. Each stakeholder group supplies the organization with important resources, and in exchange each expects its interests to be satisfied. The most important stakeholder groups are stockholders and customers.
One can argue that, stockholder’s drove the company to expand to different parts of the world for more profits. The company also thought that the resulting profits would benefit shareholders through appreciation in the company’s stock price, as well as employees, who would have more secure employment. However, Monsanto failed to anticipate the adverse reaction from another important stakeholder group: the general public. Monsanto’s introduction of genetically modified crops has met stiff resistance from the general public in both Europe and Latin …show more content…
America.
Furthermore, because the company may be trying too hard to please share holder, pressure is mounted on the managers.
It is never a good thing when managers make the mistake of putting the claims of shareholders in front of all other claims. It is true that a business corporation should try to maximize the return associated with holding its stock but at the end of the day, managers might end up obsessing on short term goals and plunge the company’s long term future. Furthermore, the managers might take actions that not only run counter to the interests of other important stakeholder groups, but also are not in the best long-term interests of shareholders themselves.
Environmental and Societal variation in the rest of world explains why the general view of biotechnology is much more pessimistic than in the United States. Cultural differences drive overall customers’ attitude towards Monsanto. As a result, they simply can either accept and buy the provider’s products or refuse them. Certain parts of the world may tend towards a certain technological skepticism in favor of more ecological and sustainable
agriculture.
For continents like Africa one cannot help but ask if the risk is worth the reward. Yes they can fight hunger but do poor countries have the resources to fight the health risks associated with genetically modified foods. Americans are convinced that this is a good and useful technology. However, the rest of the world tends to differ for the most part. They mostly concerned about the food safety especially after the spreading of mad cow disease in Great Britain. In addition, politics plays a big part in the company’s marketing strategy. In Europe, they have demanded the labeling and separating of GM food from conventional food. Governments started to impose restrictions or even banned the import and sale of GM food as a response to the overwhelming concern of the European public. The concerns of food safety were especially due to the fear of an increase of allergy, the fear of GM food influencing the consumer’s genome, and the mistrust against potential monopoles that could get be established.
Public concern led to action by pressure groups such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. These pressure groups successfully lobbied governments in Europe and Latin America to prohibit the sale of certain genetically modified foods, which hurt Monsanto’s shareholders and employees. One of the most aggressive associations against any GM crop or product was and still is Greenpeace. Repetitively they tried to stop Monsanto of from producing and importing GM products in Europe.
In conclusion, on a global scale, the company has underestimated the complex relations and mechanisms that distinguish the Global market from the North-American market. They failed to appreciate the NGOs’ knowledge and to get in the lead of these mechanisms, notably of political and media channels, by which an opposition towards GMO crops as such has created a common frontline that united societies, governments and even customer groups in opposition towards Monsanto.