By [Name] Essay Example

  • Category:
  • Document type:
  • Level:
  • Page:
  • Words:

Analyzing Monsanto Using Global Management Model 4



Thecurrent world is turbulent and contradictory with few certainties and constant change (Steers, Nardon and Sanchez-Runde 2013, p. 2). Business cycles are turning unpredictable and more dynamic. Much of the turmoil results from economic forces, which are beyond individuals or corporations’ control. Many changes are outcomes from latest technological change waves, which resist pressures for predictability or stability. More changes also stem from the failure of people and corporations to comprehend the real situation on the ground whenever they pit themselves against competitors, local institutions, and cultures (Eden 2004, p. 565). Thus, with the increasing globalization and the interconnectedness between countries and cultures around the globe, it is increasingly significant for managers to comprehend the way state cultures influence societal norms, individual behaviours, interactions and business operations in an attempt to adapt their management model accordingly.

Nardon, Sanchez-Runde, and Steers (2013, p. 5) developed a Model for Global Management in a bid to understand better the way global managers can succeed when operating in different environments. The following assignment focusses on applying this model to the situation that involves the latest event that entails Monsanto’s problematic Agro-industrial model, which raises serious health and ethical concerns to individuals, groups, and societies. Whereas globalization has established tremendous opportunities for many companies around the world, Monsanto’s quest to exploit these opportunities through genetically engineered foods (popularly called GMOs); they have been criticized for producing unsafe products. Notwithstanding, the managers of the company have insisted that their products are safe are meeting individuals’ nutritional needs effectively (Spar and La Mure 2008, pg. 79). For the aims of this report, it will be assumed that the managers are poor decision makers and analysing their organizational, cultural, and environmental approaches as well as the global effects of GMOs on the individuals and the society in which they operate. Thus, the Global Management Model by Steers, Nardon, and Sanchez-Runde (2013) will help to assist in guiding decision making towards better global leadership.

Challenges Faced by Global Managers

Global managers encounter numerous decision-making problems in different countries (Yaziji and Doh 2009, pg. 26). It is critical that the managers understand the cultural dissimilarities between themselves, the groups they manage, their clients, the larger community among other stakeholders (Steers, Sanchez-Runde and Nardon 2010, pg. 34). Decision-making or engaging in practices, which clash with societal or cultural expectations could render serious repercussions (Steers, Nardon and Sanchez-Runde 2013, pg. 76). Based on the article concerning Monsanto’s promotion of GMOs, it is significant that the management of the company comprehend that their innovation and the commodities they produce are not necessarily safe for different people (Assadi 2000, pg. 3810). Although the company’s innovation has been said to improve agricultural efficiency by contributing to cheaper foodstuffs, enhanced land utility, and sustainable farming, their leadership has led to a deteriorated relationship between people and food (Robinson 2017, par. 3).

According to the judges of the Monsanto Tribunal, the activities of the form have culminated in adverse effects to biodiversity, individuals, and communities. The damning ruling by the Tribunal denounced the firm’s harmful effects on agricultural productivity, food sovereignty, accessibility to nutrition, climate change, seed diversity, traditional cultural practices, pollution, and the natural environment. The company faces the risk of losing its footing of “helping to feed the world” and promoting its GMOs crops and linked pesticides (Teegen, Doh and Vachani 2004, p. 464). According to the twenty-eight witnesses who testified at the Monsanto Tribunal last year in October, their livelihoods, and health had suffered from Monsanto’s activities and products.

With their repute for international law issues and human rights expertise, the judges determined that Monsanto had hampered the individuals and communities’ capacity to derive food directly from the productive land. Thus, the quest for the company’s globalization using new agricultural technology presents a global challenge across many different regions by causing damages to the water, soil and the general environment thus decreasing the productive potential for the production of sufficient food. Undoubtedly, Monsanto’s activities interfered with societal expectations, which rendered grave consequences across different geographical regions (Robinson 2017, par. 7). The affected people included consumers, farmers, indigenous people, scientists, and former governmental administrators from Africa, Asia, Australia South, and North America by poisoning the environment and devastating human health. The most damning verdict of the judge’s conclusion was that none of Monsanto’s developments is necessary because the world can still be fed through the agroecological methods.

Given the backlash from different witnesses in the community, the issues faced by Monsanto presents a delicate and complex situation that poses many challenges for a global manager (Doh and Teegen 2003, p. 42). In particular, the deceptive political influence and mounting control over the globe’s food and seeds by Monsanto and an emerging global agribusiness cartel introduce a catastrophic and indeed serious threat to humans, oceans, wetlands, climate, forests, watersheds, and soils (Spar and La Mure 2008, pg. 79).

The Cultural, Organisational and Situational Environments) that are Important to a Global Manager

Cultural Environment

Socialscientists and philosophers have noted for a long time that in the quest to understand why people including managers behave as they do, it is good to begin looking at the cultural environment in which they work. Culture often influences individuals’ perceptions of world events and thus changing their behaviour values and attitudes (Steers, Nardon and Sanchez-Runde 2013, p. 47). Culture defines what is permissible and what is not. Where cultures differ, people’s judgments, values, and perceptions also differ. What may be attractive, agreeable, or acceptable in a particular culture might not be in another.

Independent of individual’s customs and culture, dining remains an important aspect of various festivities across the globe. All people want a nutritious and healthy meal, but there always arises a question as to how safe the food they consume is. The enhancement of plants and food production as well as the use of various conservation methods has been practiced for a long time since human stopped migrating and thus depended on agricultural productivity for survival (Carvalho 2006, pg. 689). With the bid to grow better and more food to address the demand of the fast increasing population, Monsanto has undertaken genetic engineering of crops apart from plant breeding.

It is essential that global managers familiarize with the peoples, cultures, and attitudes towards agriculture because food choice is largely influenced by cultural and social factors (McMichael 2009, pg. 281). The global managers need to understand the moral concern, which is a significant aspect when it comes to the choice of GMO’s and foods eaten by other people. A pricking issue of concern is that Monsanto hardly cares whether people are objecting to the GMOs grounded on the supposed environmental risks of producing GM crops or the alleged toxicological risks of eating them.

The tribunal found out that Monsanto’s activities could comprise ecocide (Shiva 2017, p. 46). The potential environmental and food chains contamination should prompt swift action by global managers concerning making general considerations of the way such molecules and the crops that they produce can be isolated and contained effectively. One valid measure could be to evaluate the potential risks and benefits to the environment after they have developed the transgenic components. Such components should also be compared to those generated by traditional practices of agriculture.

Organizational Environment Factors

Organizations provide managers with a set of policies, rules, norms, and procedures of behaviour to guide practices in the form of standard methods of operating (Steers, Nardon and Sanchez-Runde 2013, pg. 85). Corporate culture (organizational environment) mirrors the values, approved behaviours, and divisions within a particular company. The organization may either reject or replicate national norms, culture, and values establishing a microenvironment in which state-wide standards are either reinforced or do not apply (Steers, Nardon and Sanchez-Runde 2013, pg. 115). Managers have a higher likelihood of succeeding to the extent that they focus on the particular aspects of every situation that concerns a cross-cultural experience (Steers, Nardon and Sanchez-Runde 2013, pg. 68). The impact of culture on behaviour happens within an organizational reality in which particular actors involved.

Monsanto failed to develop a healthy corporate environment that would ensure it establishes a better agro-industrial model. The managers of the company have systematically misrepresented the risks of the corporate’s products. Despite being in the agricultural industry for more than twenty-five years, Monsanto’s organizational environment and strategy to innovate has undermined food security instead of improving it (Robinson 2017, p. 9). Notwithstanding, the firm’s leadership has been one that empowers the people and culture, which encourages diversity, creativity, and respect for its business partners and associates. According to one of the judges at the tribunal, the organizational environment of the company is alleged to use intimidation tactics, which have destroyed the fabric of different communities and resulted in great mental affliction and anxiety mental affliction (Robinson 2017, p. 11). In a scorching attack of patents on seeds, the judges stated that these measures contradicted the human right principle to food that guarantees accessibility to nutrition and the primary necessity for the existence of every human. Monsanto’s organizational environment has frequently dismissed the risks posed by the consumption of GMOs and continues to manipulate farmers to abandon their traditional farming practices thus jeopardizing food sovereignty. Such tactics of innovation employed by Monsanto in producing genetically engineered plants also increases the exposure of individuals and communities to the dangers of increased herbicides and pesticides use as well as the contamination of water, soils, and plants biodiversity (Patel, Torres, and Rosset 2005, pg. 429). Thus, it is important for global leaders to comprehend the need of conserving biodiversity and better agro-industrial model to ensure that the people have food security. By comprehending this, a global manager can encourage mechanisms into the organizations to build an organizational environment, which supports the best agricultural practices (Houtart et al., 2010, pg. 47). For instance, it is feasible for the global managers to initiate organic farming practices with less or without herbicides, pesticides, as well as other dangerous chemicals (McMichael 2009, pg. 825). Studies demonstrate that agroecology can deliver enough produce to feed the entire global population and guarantee that people are sufficiently nourished.

In an attempt to facilitate greater productivity, the global managers of Monsanto must establish an organizational culture that comprises a diverse culture. The culture should be one that supports intellectual reasoning and input from all their workers and suppliers as well as a culture, which is pegged on providing the best quality and service to their customers internationally (McMichael and Schneider 2011, pg. 120). For this to happen under the environment, the global manager at Monsanto must be at the forefront in openly demonstrating the intention to change the organization’s approach to innovation and supporting the traditional farming practices which use less toxic chemicals.

Situational Environment

Global managers must comprehend the context in which their managerial practices occur. Under such situations, the global manager must understand the importance of the climate, environment, and biodiversity different communities and that ensuring the production of safe food is critical (Steers, Nardon and Sanchez-Runde 2013, pg. 17). Significantly, the business should coordinate its various units effectively for the entire organization to succeed.

By acting in the way it did, Monsanto interfered with individual’s right to produce food from the land, contaminated water, and soil thereby decreasing the potential for producing food. The corporate also undermined farmers’ accessibility to seeds by patenting and genetically modifying seeds, which could not be saved but which had to be bought afresh every year (Steers, Nardon and Sanchez-Runde 2013, pg. 17). The company ended up prompting the development of GMO monocultures that destroy biodiversity and weaken the pliability of domestic systems of food production. Given the situation, discouraging these activities would ensure more sustainable methods of agricultural productivity. Going into the future owing to the increasing demand for food and the prospects for globalization, Monsanto should place itself at the forefront in harnessing these situations. The company should bring the advantage to farmers through an enhanced supply chain that would allow the business to produce organic foods. The supply chain function can become a competitive advantage for the business moving into the future. The global managers of Monsanto should develop a global supply chain, which reflects the core values as a corporate.

Significantly, the global managers should comprehend the situational constraints facing the company because the current state of affairs is unpredictable and as such, there is a need for the company to come clean on the effects of its operations to the farmers, individuals, communities, and other stakeholders of the agriculture industry.

Global Management Skills Needed by a Global Manager for Success

After the local environment has been understood and choices made, global managers must develop appropriate global managerial skills to execute their actions. The skills include cross-cultural communication, leadership in global institutions, negotiating global agreements, managing ethical conflicts, managing work, and motivation, global teams and assignments management, among other issues (Steers, Nardon and Sanchez-Runde 2013, pg. 13).

Globalization presents many challenges, and thus, managers who expect to weather such storms will need adequate economic grounding, legal and political skills, as well as cultural awareness to decipher complexities, which attribute their surrounding contexts. On top of this, the management will need the skills of outperforming, outsmarting, and outlasting competition on a regular basis (Steers, Nardon and Sanchez-Runde 2013, pg. 138). Management experts are suggesting the need for developing perspectives, which transcend national borders. The concept is recognized in different ways comprising global leadership and cultural intelligence or merely multicultural competence

Ethical Implications

Ethical challenges are inherent attributes of many businesses. Globalization often raises opportunities as well as new constraints and ethical dilemmas. The main drivers of ethical behavior in business encompass local regulation, increasing societal pressure to act appropriately and the augmented complexity levels in managing business processes extended abroad (Ferrell and Fraedrich 2015, pg. 29). Monsanto faced similar ethical challenges as the Tribunal found the company as engaging in practices that negatively affected food accessibility for individuals and communities (Robinson 2017, par. 1). Indeed, the activities of the company have caused and are causing damage to the general environment, soil, and water thus decreasing the productive capacities for producing enough food (Robinson 2017, par. 5). Notwithstanding, the instrumental prompts that ground business ethics should not obstruct the fact that it also entails individual’s aspirations, real values, and efforts to cooperate in addressing ecological and social challenges.

Global businesses necessitate global ethics. A solid starting point is the globally agreed UN conventions that cover human rights, labor standards, and environmental security (Crane and Matten 2016, pg. 54). Beyond the global conventions is the abundance of private voluntary creativities undertaken by individual firms, corporate associations, and progressive partnerships comprising governments, businesses, NGOs, as well as intergovernmental and governmental agencies. The ethical issues generated by Monsanto’s activities led to the institution of the Monsanto tribunal, which was tasked to address the ethical challenges and to examine the legislations that pertain to problematic situations that affect directly and are of great concern to people, society, or groups in entirety. The tribunal alerted policy makers, public opinion, and stakeholders to events regarded as unethical and unjustifiable under the law and take part in advancing the national and global law. Therefore, the prospect for business ethics is providing a solid foundation for a competitive edge and addressing ecological and social challenges. These depend on persistent leadership by individual firms as well as the continuing evolution of complementary public regulation

Thus, globalization by Monsanto and the farming technology pegged on the GMOs generates critical questions that concern the most appropriate points of reference for the business in defining its approach to ecological and social issues comprising economic and financial matters as well as how the reference points might be established and their effectiveness.


Businesses are becoming unpredictable and more dynamic thanks to globalization. These changes are outcomes from the latest technological change waves. Monsanto has consistently fallen victim to bad reviews in its quest to exploit global opportunities with their genetically engineered foods. The products have also been considered as unsafe for consumption. From my standpoint, applying a Global Management Model could assist the corporates’ managers to go global and thereby succeed in their operations in different environments. My recommendation is that given the numerous decision-making challenges faced by Monsanto, it would be significant that the management of the company comprehends the cultural, organizational, and situational environments that are inherent in the global realm.Consequently, the global managers will need global management skills to execute their actions. Such skills include cross-cultural communication, leading global organizations, negotiating global partnerships, managing ethical conflicts, among others. Finally, global businesses necessitate global ethics, which cover human rights, labor standards, and environmental security. Thus, the global manager at Monsanto must be at the forefront in openly demonstrating ethical standards by changing the organization’s approach to innovation and supporting the traditional farming practices which use less toxic chemicals.

Reference list

Assadi, M., 2000. Seed Tribunal: Interrogating Farmers’ Suicides: Interrogating Farmers’ Suicides. Economic and Political Weekly, pp.3808-3810.

Carvalho, F.P., 2006. Agriculture, pesticides, food security and food safety. Environmental science & policy9(7), pp.685-692.

Crane, A. and Matten, D., 2016. Business Ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Doh, J.P., and Teegen, H. eds., 2003. Globalization and NGOs: Transforming business, government, and society. Greenwood Publishing Group.

Eden, L., 2004. Globalization and NGOs: Transforming business, government, and society. Journal of International Business Studies35(6), pp.564-566.

Ferrell, O.C., and Fraedrich, J., 2015. Business ethics: Ethical decision making & cases. New Jersey: Nelson Education.

Houtart, F., Bukassa, B.L., Geuens, G., and Mpozi, B.B., 2010. Agrofuels: big profits, ruined lives, and ecological destruction. London and New York: Pluto Press.

McMichael, P. and Schneider, M., 2011. Food security politics and the Millennium Development Goals. Third World Quarterly32(1), pp.119-139.

McMichael, P., 2009. A food regime analysis of the ‘world food crisis.’ Agriculture and human values26(4), p.281-316.

McMichael, P., 2009. The agrofuels project at large. Critical Sociology35(6), pp.825-839.

Patel, R., Torres, R.J., and Rosset, P., 2005. Genetic engineering in agriculture and corporate engineering in public debate: risk, public relations, and public debate over genetically modified crops. International Journal of occupational and environmental health11(4), pp.428-436.

Robinson, C. 2017. Tribunal judges: Monsanto isn’t feeding the world- it’s undermining food security. [ONLINE] Available at: [Accessed 31 May 2017]

Shiva, V., 2017. Ending a Century of Ecocide and Genocide, Seeding Earth. Indigenous Policy Journal27(3).pp. 35-79.

Spar, D.L. and La Mure, L.T., 2003. The power of activism: Assessing the impact of NGOs on global business. California Management Review45(3), pp.78-101.

Steers, R.M., Nardon, L. and Sanchez-Runde, C.J., 2013. Management across cultures: Developing global competencies. Cambridge University Press.

Steers, R.M., Sanchez-Runde, C.J. and Nardon, L., 2010. Management across cultures: Challenges and strategies. Cambridge University Press.

Teegen, H., Doh, J.P. and Vachani, S., 2004. The importance of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in global governance and value creation: An international business research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies35(6), pp.463-483.

Yaziji, M. and Doh, J., 2009. NGOs and Corporations: Conflict and collaboration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.