The efficiency of the company’s culture

The Cost-Benefits and Ethical Culture of Monsanto

The cost-benefits that result from the company’s products and how it manages any potential harm to other plants and animals determine how effective its culture is. Since its founding in 1901, Monsanto has built its culture into what it is today. The business operates a sustainable agriculture business organization that is built on entrepreneurship and cutting-edge technology. According to its website, its culture is primarily centered on empowering farmers, both small and large, to produce more while also preserving the resources that are accessible to them, such as water and energy. Since its establishment, Monsanto has undergone numerous changes. According to its mission statement, the company is committed to supporting research in conjunction with USDA scientists and academia to come up with complementary areas that can improve its production and areas of expertise (Monsanto, 2014).

Through its growth, it has diversified from just chemical products to agricultural products such as GMO production that has now become its main product. Its ethical culture has mainly centred on dealing with the more reluctant world that has been seen not to be ready for genetically modified organisms. In order to achieve this, it has engaged in numerous public relations campaigns aimed at improving the image of the company and shift the public perception of some of its controversial products. It has sought alliances from renowned scientists such as Kevin Folta and Richard Doll; both of whom have been participating in the company campaigns and answering questions even from a jointly-funded website (Lovell, 2011).

The Safety of GMOs for the Environment

In order to determine if GMOs are safe for the environment, one must establish how these products reproduce, multiply, and replicate in the environment after they are released. In essence, the genetic modifications could give micro-organisms, animals, and plants an advantage that would enable them to withstand various environmental effects such as weather, disease, and pests. Given this fact, GMO seeds have been known to contain pesticides and herbicides. This means that for the farmers it improves both cost-effectiveness and also the resilience of the plants. Therefore, they can maximize production and improve their revenue. However, this same provision is the reason why many people are against GMO seeds. According to numerous reports, given the number of components introduced in the modification process, the seeds could be harmful to human and animal consumption. Other researchers have also pointed out that the GMOs could pose a significant threat to the environment. As mentioned above, Monsanto has been trying to prove otherwise for quite a while now (Lull & Scheufele, 2017).

Harm and Risk Management Strategies of GMOs

Harm presented by GMOs varies depending on the; characteristics, modes, of interactions, the organism, the trait, and the environment to which the organism exists. A major challenge involving an uncontrolled use of the GMO is the fact that plants and animals can reproduce after release. Therefore, no one can know for sure the potential impacts if a gene is inserted into a species. In general, threats or potential risks arising from the use of GMOs can be managed through risk management strategies that involve a range of acceptable methods of use. For instance, developers can utilize confinement and monitoring strategies; this is where the term ’contained use’ comes into being. Controlling means that the modified organisms; use, storage, transport, and destructions need to be confined in order to prevent the organisms from contaminating the unmodified rest. Specially built laboratories can be used with sterilization procedures and limited access, especially for tests and experiments (Fairfield-Sonn, 2016).

The Role of Corporate Culture in Enron’s Bankruptcy

There are several through which the corporate culture at Enron could have contributed to its bankruptcy. The reason for this is that the company’s culture fostered unethical behaviour. The organisation did not question ethics as long as it resulted in a monetary gain. Enron’s corporate culture has been described to be of arrogance and that it led people into believing that the company could handle greater risk without succumbing to them. Moreover, the culture did not support or encourage the values of integrity and respect. Instead, it rewarded innovation while the weak employees suffered the wrath of the administration. It used a performance evaluation process that has been dubbed the ’rank and yank.’ The process entailed the utilization of peer evaluations whereby every division within the company was supposed to fire the lowest ranking employees at given instances. This brought about a cut-throat competition that was experienced within the organisation and against Enron’s external competitors. It was also established that the management was pitching employees against each other thus resulting in an internal rivalry and poor communication among the employees. Enron’s compensation plans were also seen to have enriched the company rather than generate profits for the shareholders (Abdel-Khalik, 2016).

The Roles of Various Parties in Enron’s Downfall

They facilitated various business moves but these were their main roles;

Bankers- their job was to facilitate Enron’s business transactions. They failed to do so and instead they participated in aiding fraudulence like in the case of the sale to Nigerian Barges. The move had enabled Enron to record over $12 million in earnings which led it to achieve its earnings goals it had projected for the end of 1999. However, this move was nothing but a sham. It was later established that the company had fraudulently manipulated its income statements by getting into a deal that saw Enrol purchase Merrill Lynch with a rate of return that was guaranteed at 15 percent.

Auditors- they were tasked with ensuring the accuracy of the internal booking and financials. Their decisions to temper with the details in order to attract investors under false pretence only worked to undermine the company in the long run. For instance, Arthur Andersen did not provide clear explanations of complex partnerships before certifying Enron’s financial statements.

Attorneys- they were responsible for ensuring that the company was getting into structured partnerships that were both legal and economically viable. Their ineffectiveness meant that the deals entered by Enron could have failed in both legality and viability.

As it had been established, Enron had been using questionable accounting practices. Andrew Fastow, the company’s CFO played a role by organising and getting into unconsolidated partnerships and special purpose entities like the LJM partnership and the SPE’S. The partnerships were aimed at enabling the partnering companies to raise money without necessarily having to report the debt on their balance sheets. He was also accused of setting up a web of off-balance sheets on the partnerships. This allowed him to hide huge amounts of money from Enron and the partners. After an investigation, it was found that he had made over $30 million from the partnerships (Abdullah, 2017).

References

Abdel-Khalik, A. R. (2016). How Enron used Accounting for Prepaid Commodity Swaps to Delay Bankruptcy for One Decade: The Shadowy Relationships with Big Banks.

Abdullah, D. F. (2017). The Enron-Andersen Regulatory Review to Strengthen Auditor Independence. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, 2(2).

Fairfield-Sonn, J. W. (2016). Political Economy of GMO Foods. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 17(1), 60.

Lovell, M. L. (2011). BADM 680-01, Ethics: Business and Society.

Lull, R. B., & Scheufele, D. A. (2017). Understanding and Overcoming Fear of the Unnatural in Discussion of GMOs. The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication, 409.