Good marketing move, Monsanto has a very bad doppelganger.
If they continue with Monsanto ethic it will not take too long to have that doppelganger attached to Bayer.
If they continue with Monsanto ethic it will not take too long to have that doppelganger attached to Bayer.
I don't think it is a good PR move at all.
There is some litigation going on against Monsanto and probably a lot more to come. In the news you will read Bayer now instead of Monsanto which is going to hurt the Bayer brand.
This seems to say exactly the opposite of what you think it says. By your own admission, you're describing the actions of dead people. What does any of that have to do with the people running the company today?
But it's also the case that an organizations future is based in its past; even if the individual people who chose to act have long since died and there are none alive who know their face or name, if a group of people (an organization, a country, a corporation) has enriched itself through immoral acts in the past, even if it acts morally today, is it right to leave them with the fruits of its crimes? If a people has been impoverished by crimes committed against them in the past, even if no one today is still wronging them, is it right to leave them impoverished today?
Be careful what you wish for.
That's a fundamental difference.
Perhaps you mean "reputation"?