The idea of corporations being the embodiment of all evil seems to have worn out its welcome in the 21st century era of globalization, when expansion into the world market and the unceasing growth is welcomed by company owners and its employees. The numerous flaws of the ethical system, in accordance with which many corporations work, however, still raise a range of questions. One of the most notorious cases of the 20th century, discussed back and forth and mentioned in The Corporation as the company that produces “more of what we don’t need” (Educate Knowledge 00:31:40–00:31:50), the case of Monsanto milk serves as a perfect example of why bioethics must remain at the top of a corporation’s priorities list.
The key information about the case in point is quite simple. In 2000s, the company was working on the synthetic hormone known as recombinant bovine somototrophine; according to what the company claimed, the hormone was supposed to spur the process of milk production in cows. As soon as the hormone was injected into the cows, however, the latter started producing milk that, when consumed, caused a range of adversary effects, including heart, lung, kidney, spleen and reproductive system of the human body, to name a few (Educate Knowledge 00:31:09–00:31:13).
Apart from the fact that the company was clearly concealing the harmful effects of the hormone used in order to stimulate additional production of milk, the companies responsible for checks and audits were also “lying in people’s faces” (Educate Knowledge 00:31:14). “The cows get sicker when they are injected with RBGh” (Educate Knowledge 00:32:32–00:32:34); as a result, the need to inject the cows with antibiotic emerges. Therefore, the company supplied the milk retrieved from the sick cows knowing that people will consume the antibiotics through their food (Educate Knowledge 00:32:43), yet did not provide either the customers, or the FDA with the required information.
As far as the relevant values are concerned, the health and safety of the stakeholders, including customers, should be referred to as the key moral principle violated in the given case by the corporation. The details of the case show that the company was willingly supplying its clients with the milk that was hazardous to their health and never warned the customers about the possible issues. Not only was it a breach of business ethics, but also a serious violation of the law.
Taking a closer look at the moral concepts that the company was guided by and the actions that it undertook in order to attain the highest revenues possible, one must admit that the improper labeling of the milk and the provision of the food that was not approved by the FDA did not complied with the principles of the company’s ethics at all – at least, judging by what the officially published code of the company’s ethics: “We are resolved to foster a work environment that is free of safety hazards and promotes the health and safety of all employees, visitors and customers, as well as the communities where we work” (Monsanto 4). In other words, it seems that the ethical code of the company was not the key problem here; instead, the specifics of the company’s organizational behavior should have been analyzed closer. More to the point, seeing that the lack of coordination of the staff’s organizational behavior comes from the wrong choice of a leadership strategy the key concepts that the Monsanto Organization’s leadership was based on needed a thorough examination.
Speaking of the proper course of actions, which should have been taken in the scenario specified above, it would have been most reasonable to have the entire line of products be pulled out of the markets. Naturally, this would have caused the company a lot and required that an immediate strategy should be developed in order to retain its customers. However, such a noble move would have attracted a lot of attention to the company and, therefore, would have made its reputation even stronger compared to the other companies, which would have seem less honest with their customers by contrast. More importantly, the Monsanto Corporation should have revisited its corporate ethics, which obviously contained certain inconsistencies. It was necessary that the organization should reconsider its relationship with its key stakeholders, including its target customers.
Because of the threats that the breach of bioethics poses to both a company and the people exposed to the biohazard, the companies dealing with the provision of food and the related services to its customers must reconsider their policies and make them more stringent. In the era of globalization, it is imperative that companies should design very strict ethical codes for them to comply with. Monsanto’s case is one of the notorious examples of what happens once the ethics of a company does not involve the basics of bioethics into its vision. It is only after corporations start ensuring the safety of its every stakeholder that their influence will be recognized as positive.
Works Cited
Educate Knowledge. “The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power.” YouTube. 2013. Web.
Monsanto. “Monsanto Code of Business Conduct. “ Monsanto. 2013. Web.