Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me
Something that makes this situation different than other ethical decisions involving individuals and corporations is that sponsorship of an FRC team is rarely a large net benefit to the sponsoring organization (at least short term). The extra press and attention the brand gets is not particularly notable, certainly not for the cost. It's a lot harder to argue that agreeing to be sponsored by an organization is a form of supporting that organization. Choosing not to be sponsored by a company you have deemed unethical for whatever reason doesn't hurt the company or prevent it from growing at all.
Buying company product, working with the company, working for the company, these are when ethical decisions obviously come to play. I don't necessarily see how they do here.
|
1.) There is almost always some measured net benefit to a corporation's sponsorship of FRC teams and/or events. It is up to each corporation to figure out how - some need more PR, some need better interns/employees and some want a combination of both plus tax incentives.
2.) The whole 'ethics' debate here is about Monsanto's intent vs. execution. They use technology to address a growing world problem (great intent) yet repeatedly hide or undermine attempts for transparency or to study the side effects (questionable execution). We can even supersede the GMO debate since drought-resistant GMO wheat is a key reason the Midwest survived the Dust Bowl in the 1930's.
3.) At this time, no one can claim 100% certainty about whether Monsanto's current practices have long-term detrimental effects on human health. The studies I've read make conclusions one way or the other and yet have glaring holes in the scientific method. Being "pretty sure it's safe" or "pretty sure it's bad" just isn't good enough.
4.) Here's the X Factor (to address Chris's statement): When was the last time you ate something grown from Monsanto seeds and/or used with other Monsanto products? Are you sure it was so long ago? It is increasingly difficult to avoid derivative food products from a given company, especially foods from publicly-traded companies with incentives to delay transparency to the consumer.
As an overall FIRST sponsorship - it's not like I'm going to Monsanto to sponsor my own hobbies, so it really isn't my concern who they sponsor. -0.02.
GMO vs non-GMO debate is healthy for these forums. Perhaps a FIRST alum will solve the problem Monsanto is trying to address, but without chemical baths. Comparing Monsanto to the Mafia is a little extreme, but I understand the point made.