The rise of genetic engineering (GE) has not only diminished the ability for farmers to practice their own methods of seed selection, but also turned another sector of agriculture into a business ...
heal
FYP presentationFull description
Wireless energy transfer is a very exciting technology which promises to radically change the way we perform any activity. In this report I like to explore the concept of transmitting power …Full description
FiCA presentation in MS Power PointFull description
oliverDescripción completa
Clarisse The Label Thesis Presentation by Clarisse Provido
OTIS GEN 2 COMFORT
Full description
Full description
Presentation Goodridge
Monsanto’s Monsanto’s pyramid of purposes Pled Pledge ge:: “Grow Growth th for for a bett better er worl world” d” =>“ensure that agriculture can meet human humanit ity’ y’ss need needss in the the futu future re”” 1)
Aims: We develop “modern agricultural practices and crops” 1) in orde orderr to incr increa ease se prod produc ucti tivi vity ty Increa easi sing ng yiel yields ds,, fewe fewerr inpu inputt of ener energy gy & pest pestic icid ide e => Incr
Object Objectiv ives: es: 1) We crea create te genet genetica ically lly modifi modified ed plant plant mater material ial 2) We deve develo lop p agri agricu cult ltur ural al chem chemic ical alss such such as manu manure re or pest pestic icid ides es Our Our prod produc ucts ts are are mark market eted ed thro throug ugh h farm farmer ers, s, most mostly ly in Nort North h Amer Americ ica a
“Germa erman ny is one one of the the top 5 impor mportters of U.S. .S. soyb oybeans, ans, and ther there efore ore a marke rket that hat cannot not be ignore ignored” d” 2) => We need need to intr introd oduc uce e our our prod produc ucts ts to the the Eur Europea opean n mark market et..
A very American company 2007 2007 Fisc Fiscal al Year ear Sale Saless By Geog Geogrraphi aphicc Regio egion n by %
Monsanto’s Stakeholders Environment and Society Suppliers
Politics
Stockholders
Monsanto Corporation Saint Louis, MO Employees: 18,800 worldwide
Religion
Customers
Cooperation with BASF: R&D, marketing
Environment Monsanto Europe Far environment
European Gouvernments
Greenpeace Near environment
Media
Suppliers Stockholders
US & EU farmers
Ethical values
Seed manufacturers
Internal environment
Employees Corporate culture Managers
eg. Pioneer Hybrid International (no 2) Syngenta (no 3)
Customer Relations
Important Distinction: Customers vs Consumers (exceptions: RoundUp! – little immediate end-consumer relation (exceptions: 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
Farmers
Food traders
Monsan Monsanto to Corp Corp.
Farmers
GM Se Seed edss
Consumers
“Ideal “Ideal Progress” Progress”
Food traders
Power of EU-Farmers as a Stakeholder group
Customers belong to company’s „near environment“ relatively relatively homogenous group of customers customers Financial Power: generally not reliably high – alternating alternating high-yield h igh-yield and low-yield harvests har vests – individual farmers do not work with either exorbitant 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 cooperative (due also to national economic rivalries) – Example: German milk price bargains of 2008
Porter’s Five Forces: Bargaining power of customers customers Threat of new entrants
Bargaining power of customers Bargaining power of suppliers
purchase in huge volumes: rather not (there are many farmers) easy to buy alternatives from others: no (RoundUp) financial power: rather low (might (might need debit for buying from Monsanto) could make the product themselves: no •
Industry structure
•
•
•
Threat of substitute
Customer’s Attitude
cultural heterogeneity 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 encountered in the European market
Society
More pessimistic concerning green biotech
High priority: consumer‘s benefit
Food safety:
Monsanto: Informing = convincing
fear of allergy effect on genome potential monopoles
GM or no GM?
Influence of Opponents
The press
The World According to Monsanto
Accusations:
Europe‘s demand
Manipulation Lawsuit (PCB) Bribery in Indonesia
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 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 •
Bargaining power of suppliers
• •
• •
•
competitors: few, market leader 30 % → oligopole market growth: stable industry size: 49.3 % of Germany used for agricultural issues similarity of products: low level of fixed costs/exit barriers: low, R&D exists, just line extension range of products/services: small
