Monsanto’s pyramid of purposes
Pledge: “Growth for a better world”
=>“ensure that agriculture can meet
humanity’s needs in the future” 1)
Aims: We develop “modern agricultural practices and
crops” 1) in order to increase productivity
=> Increasing yields, fewer input of energy & pesticide
Objectives: 1) We create genetically modified plant material
2) We develop agricultural chemicals such as manure or pesticides
Our products are marketed through farmers, mostly in North America
“Germany is one of the top 5 importers of U.S. soybeans, and therefore a market that cannot
be ignored” 2) => We need to introduce our products to the European market.
1) www.monsato.com/who_we_are/our_pledge.asf
2)Greenpeace campaigns against altered soybeans, Journal of Commerce, November 7th, 1996

A very American company
2007 Fiscal Year Sales By Geographic Region by %

Monsanto’s Stakeholders
Environment
and Society Stockholders Religion
Suppliers
Monsanto Corporation
Customers
Saint Louis, MO
Politics
Employees: Cooperation with
BASF: R&D, marketing
18,800 worldwide

Environment Monsanto Europe
Far environment
European
Gouvernments Greenpeace
Near environment
Ethical
Media Suppliers US & EU values
farmers
Stockholders Seed
manufacturers
Internal environment eg. Pioneer Hybrid
International (no 2)
Employees
Syngenta (no 3)
Corporate culture
Managers

Customer Relations
 Important Distinction: Customers vs
Consumers
– little immediate end-consumer relation (exceptions: RoundUp!
herbicide)
– no immediate end-consumer relation concerning GMO foods
 Direct and Indirect Relations towards
European Customers
– Targeting the market directly and indirectly

Targeting the EU directly & indirectly
Food
Farmers
traders
Monsanto Corp.
Farmers
GM Seeds
Consumers
Food
“Ideal Progress” traders

Power of EU-Farmers as a Stakeholder group
 Customers belong to company’s „near environment“
 relatively homogenous group of customers
 Financial Power: generally not reliably high
– alternating high-yield and low-yield harvests
– individual farmers do not work with either exorbitant turnovers nor profits
 low individual bargaining power
– scattered into many small and disparate parcels among Europe (in contrast
to the big agroindustry of the US-Midwest)
– no functioning Europe-wide cooperative (due also to national economic
rivalries)
– Example: German milk price bargains of 2008

Porter’s Five Forces:
Bargaining power of customers
Threat of new
entrants
Bargaining power of
customers
• purchase in huge volumes: rather not (there are
Bargaining power
Industry structure many farmers)
of suppliers
• easy to buy alternatives from others: no
(RoundUp)
• financial power: rather low (might need debit for
buying from Monsanto)
• could make the product themselves: no
Threat of substitute
products/services

Customer’s Attitude
 cultural heterogeneity (e.g. UK vs. continental
Europe)
 rising concern in European societies led to a
changing customer attitude
 thus, customers were not causative for the
problems Monsanto encountered in the
European market

Society
 More pessimistic concerning green biotech
 High priority: consumer‘s benefit
 Food safety: fear of allergy
effect on genome
potential monopoles
 Monsanto: Informing = convincing

GM or no GM?

Influence of Opponents
 The press
 The World According to Monsanto
 Accusations: Manipulation
Lawsuit (PCB)
Bribery in Indonesia
 Europe‘s demand

Greenpeace, FOE
 Environmentalists
 Open dialog: failure
 Eco-warriors

Monsanto and Greenpeace

Society optimism

Regulatory process EU
 Application to the European Commission
 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
studies on health and ecological issues
 recommendation to the European parliament
 more than two thirds of the member states can
reject the admission
 If quorum not reached European Commission
decides
 member states can oppose in exceptional cases

The situation
 three powerful influents here: the public opinion,
industry and farmers.
 Communication channels:
media and lobbyism
(NGOs such as Greenpeace, industry and farmer
representatives and trade associations)
 no other breeding method is regulated labeling of
GMO products includes today even totally Gene-free
products

The development
 First weak regulation, positive politicians,
soy bean allowed in 1996
 pressure by the NGOs, shift in public
opinion.
 lack of communication of independent
scientists but also few lobbying of
Monsanto and the biotechnology industry

Porter’s Five Forces:
Industry structure
Threat of new
entrants
Industry structure
• competitors: few, market leader 30 % →
oligopole
Bargaining power • market growth: stable Bargaining power
of suppliers • industry size: 49.3 % of Germany used for of customers
agricultural issues
• similarity of products: low
• level of fixed costs/exit barriers: low, R&D
exists, just line extension
• range of products/services: small
Threat of substitute
products/services