Case Studies Of Monsanto And Cvs

The first question asks about Monsanto’s ethical culture and whether it responds to the various stakeholders. I believe to answer this question we need to know exactly who the stakeholders are. The stakeholders are anyone who has an interest or something to gain from this company and its products. The stakeholders are the owners, employees, customers, investors, competitors and governments to name a few. I believe that in the nearly 120 years since the beginning of Monsanto, they have given many examples of ethical behavior as well as unethical behavior. Early on, they had some unethical behaviors like toxic waste dumping and subsequently covering up the release of toxic chemicals into rivers. But over time the company has adopted a much more ethical stance with its employees and management. Introducing programs to ensure ethical behaviors and community outreach. They have invested millions of dollars to foreign regions to educated and train farmers on better techniques for growing crops. They have made agreements with competitors to share information to allow for the study and development of better seeds which will allow for better products for farmers. I do believe that these examples show that Monsanto does respond ethically to its stakeholders.

The second question asks us to compare the benefits of using GM seeds with the potential negative impact from using them. When you look at the data listed in the case study it shows a huge advantage to using GM seeds. They produce a higher yield of crops and reduces the cost of herbicides and insecticides on the farmer. But are there negative effects on the environment or health of those who consume these products? There is a potential there for negative impacts, but there have been a lot of studies that show very low or no impact. These GM seeds are still new to the market so yes, there is a potential for issues to arise in the future, but in the short term with the data placed in front of us, the benefit greatly outweighs the potential negative impact.

The third question asks how Monsanto should manage the potential harm to plant and animal life from using Roundup. Current studies listed within the case study stated that they are very minimal if any harmful effects on plant and animal life from using Roundup. But, there are several groups who claim negative effects on wildlife and plants but have not been able to scientifically prove those claims. As the manufacturer of these chemicals, Monsanto has a responsibility to investigate and research all claimed effects of their products and take any necessary actions to rectify of prevent any future harm to plants and wildlife.

CVS Case Study

The first question asks how CVS handled its ethical challenges. There have been many ethical challenges along the way but each time they were able to accept responsibility for the problem and create process and procedures to correct and prevent the issue from happening again in the future. Several of their ethical challenges dealt with over filling of controlled substances or not being able to account for missing medications. Each of these instances we investigated by the DEA and were ultimately not at the fault of CVS its self but their employees. CVS was still held responsible because they did not have policies or procedures in place to prevent the issues from occurring.

The second question asks to evaluate CVS’s decision to no longer sell tobacco products. This is one of the first occurrences of a major company deciding to be proactive and help prevent a major health problem. Tobacco use in the United States is a one of the leading causes of mouth, throat and lung cancer. CVS took a stance against these diseases and said that they would not contribute to their increase. They took a huge risk losing a two billion dollar a year revenue, but the decision came with high praise and many healthcare professions. This decision showed that CVS cared about its customers more than revenue. It was a true act of social responsibility.

The last question asks how CVS is positioning its future as a healthcare company by deciding to be more socially responsible. By making the decision to no longer sale tobacco products, but they have started community outreach and philanthropic programs to give back to the communities in which their stores are located. This has brought in more customers and made current customers more loyal. They have worked with suppliers to ensure safer working environments and quality control of products. They have made energy conservation a priority for the company to help reduce carbon intensity and help the environment. By taking all these steps as well as many more has made CVS a very socially responsible company and set themselves up for a very long and profitable future.