联系我们： 手动添加方式: 微信>添加朋友>企业微信联系人>13262280223 或者 QQ: 1483266981
King’s College London
School of Management & Business
Coversheet for submission of coursework
(Undergraduate)
DECLARATION BY STUDENT
This assignment is entirely my own work. Quotations from secondary literature are indicated by the
use of inverted commas around ALL such quotations AND by reference in the text or notes to the
author concerned. ALL primary and secondary literature used in this piece of work is indicated in
the bibliography placed at the end, and dependence upon ANY source used is indicated at the
appropriate point in the text. I confirm that no sources have been used other than those stated.
I understand what is meant by plagiarism and have signed at enrolment the declaration
concerning the avoidance of plagiarism.
I understand that plagiarism is a serious examinations offence that may result in disciplinary
action being taken.
I understand that I must submit work BEFORE the deadline, and that failure to do so will
result in capped marks.
Candidate no. Y 3 2 8 2 9
Module Title: Corporate Social Responsibility
Module Code: 6SSMN336
Assignment (e.g. coursework 1
/ group coursework etc.):
Coursework 1
Essay Title (where applicable):
Yara International and Monsanto: A Comparison of CSR
Strategies and Practices
Module Leader: Dr Gabriela Gutierrez-Huerter O
Deadline: 10.00 am 6th of April 2018
Word Count: 3,486
6SSMN336 Corporate Social Responsibility
Interactive Cover Sheet
Interactive cover sheets aim to enhance the dialogue between learners and tutors, support learners to
become more active contributors to the feedback process, and enable tutors ‘…to target their feedback
comments more effectively in order to support students’ understanding of their performance and thus to
support self-regulation’ (Bloxham & Campbell, 2010*: 292). This cover sheet provides an opportunity to
identify the feedback that you would like to receive on your assignment and encourages you to reflect
upon your work. When completing the cover sheet please refer to the 6SSMN336 CSR marking criteria
that contains the following key features: Understanding, depth of knowledge and structure. Please
submit your completed cover sheet with your assignment and completed plagiarism form.
Participant name: Y32829
Module title: 6SSMN336 – Corporate Social Responsibility
Assignment title: Coursework 1
Due date: 6th of April 10.00am Word count: 3,486
The key strengths of my assignment:
The aspects of my assignment that could be developed further:
I would like to receive feedback on the following aspects of my assignment:
Understanding and depth of knowledge, effective use of theories/frameworks.
1
Introduction
It has been predicted that population and consumption growth will accelerate in the coming
decades, creating a need to grow food production by at least 60% to feed future generations
(United Nations, 2014). The agriculture industry plays a pivotal role in reaching this objective,
alongside with being one of the most vital tools for reducing poverty and improving living
standards in developing countries. Contrastingly, it also accounts for roughly 24% of global
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2017), and
is the cause of increased competition for land, water and energy as well as deforestation across
the globe (WWF, 2017). Therefore, it should be no surprise that forming and operating
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategies is a challenging task in an industry that is both
a source of great social benefits and distinctive social and environmental costs. This is further
complicated by multinational agriculture firms operating across a vast variety of geopolitical
markets. This essay seeks to analyse how two of the biggest international players in the
agriculture industry, Yara International and Monsanto, operate their CSR strategies and
practices. Similarities and differences will be identified by applying frameworks such as
Stakeholder Theory (Freeman, 1984), Creating Shared Value (Porter and Kramer, 2011),
Market and Non-Market Strategies (Baron, 1995; Baron, 2013), Environmental Strategies
(Hart, 1995) and Strategic CSR (Burke and Logsdon, 1997). Due to word limitations, focus will
mostly be on environmental strategies related to the issue of sustainable food security, as well
as a brief discussion of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Analysis and Comparison of CSR Strategies
Yara and Monsanto both operate in the agrichemical industry (Appendix A). Yara is a
Norwegian-based, partly state-owned company, whereas Monsanto is a US-based, privately
held company with a differentiated portfolio of shareholders. In 2017, it was announced that
Bayer will acquire Monsanto, however, this essay will focus on the CSR policies of Monsanto
only as this process is yet to be completed (Monsanto, 2017a).
Both companies operate CSR strategies that are influenced by stakeholder recognition.
Freeman (1984, p.46) identify stakeholders as “any group or individual who can affect or is
affected by the achievement of the organisation’s objectives”. Yara identifies stakeholders as
employees, customers, investors, suppliers and influencers1
(Yara International, 2018), whereas
Monsanto identify stakeholders as consumers, government, public health organisations, the
food industry, research institutions, academia and NGOs (Monsanto, 2018).
Yara has a longstanding history of stakeholder engagement. The company has, among
other things, engaged with local communities in the global south, provided employee training
and partnered with industry associations and local governments (Yara International, 2004).
Prior to 2004, Yara was part of Hydro, which also has a tradition of community engagement
(Hydro, 2017). Monsanto, on the other hand, has historically mainly focused on three
stakeholder groups; investors, customers (mostly farmers) and employees, while neglecting
other important stakeholders such as activists and NGOs (The European PR Podcast, 2015).
This has paid off in terms of employee satisfaction, and Monsanto has repeatedly been ranked
amongst the top 25 global companies to work for (Fortune, 2016). Nevertheless, in 2007
Monsanto deemed it necessary to broaden their stakeholder engagement and initiated a re_xfffe_evaluation of their corporate strategy which resulted in a new strategic approach being
introduced (Rasche, Morsing and Moon, 2017). Monsanto’s inability to engage and interact
with a wider base of stakeholders at an earlier stage has been particularly harmful given the
massive activist group attention attracted over the years. Monsanto has been reluctant to engage
with stakeholders beyond those three groups previously mentioned as this has been perceived
1 National authorities, agencies, NGOs and activists
2
3
as risky, and due to management having a perception that “science could speak for itself” and
therefore there was little point in engaging with the public (The European PR Podcast, 2015).
Monsanto has been characterised by having high levels of complacency and inertia, which
allowed for anti-GMO movements and Monsanto-critical activist groups to gain legitimacy and
escalate over the years (The European PR Podcast, 2015). Hence, a wider stakeholder
recognition is a quite new approach that has been referred to as “a work in progress” (The
European PR Podcast, 2015).
Both companies address stakeholders’ demands by aligning social and economic value
creation (Porter and Kramer, 2011). Creating shared value (CSV) strategies can be identified
according to Porter and Kramer’s (2011) framework (Appendix B). Further CSR strategy
similarities can be found in how the companies determine potential areas for creating shared
value. Both companies use the 2015 Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs) as the basis of
their CSV strategies, and both companies have undertaken a materiality assessment of the goals
to identify those that are most significant for both their core business and society in general
(Appendix C). Many of these areas overlap, such as for example working towards zero hunger
by operating sustainable farming practices, however Monsanto has identified more of the goals
as material to their core business compared to Yara.
Hence, on the surface, the CSR strategies of the two companies appear to be quite
similar. Both companies operate CSV strategies based on materiality assessment of the SDGs.
Yara has been a more outspoken CSV actor, probably due to its continuous praise as a CSV
champion (Fortune, 2017). Both companies are members of the Shared Value Initiative, a global
community of industry leaders seeking to align economic and social value (Shared Value
Initiative, 2018). To undertake a more comprehensive comparison of CSR practices, Baron’s
1995 framework of Market and Non-Market components can be applied.
4
Baron (1995) argues that firms face both market and non-market components; economic
transactions undertaken in the market place, and interactions with a wider range of stakeholders
that might improve the firm’s overall performance. The non-market components can be
characterised by issues, institutions, interests and information that affect the social, political
and legal environment of the firms (Baron, 1995). Furthermore, Baron (1995) argues that
market and non-market components must be in synergy and must be operated as integrated
practices for a strategy to be effective. Hence, management must consider both market and non market components when designing their CSR strategy. The market components of Monsanto
and Yara involve providing agriculture products, agriculture solutions, biotechnology and
chemicals for an economic return. The need for effective non-market strategies is particularly
high in the agriculture industry, as there is a relatively high level of government intervention
and interest group attention (Baron, 1995).
As mentioned briefly in the introduction, one of the most pressing issues affecting the
very core business of both companies are to ensure food security in the future (Appendix D).
This must be done in a sustainable and environmentally friendly way, and the increase must
come from increased efficiency and productivity rather than from an increase in the use of
farmland (United Nations, 2014). This issue originates from the scientific predictions of
population growth, food security and the increased focus on the impacts of the food system on
the environment.
Interests can be defined as those who have a legitimate stake in this issue (Baron, 2013).
Yara and Monsanto face similar interests; firstly, farmers are affected as climate change makes
farming more challenging and harvests more unpredictable. Employees also have a stake in this
issue, as there is a pressure to develop new ideas and technologies to make farming more
sustainable and effective. Although somewhat controversial, most people would agree that
climate change and food security will influence society in general, and particularly the more
5
vulnerable markets in the south. Both companies have been the target of activist groups and
NGOs such as Global Justice Now which has accused Yara and Monsanto for representing “the
new scramble for Africa”, causing degradation of soil and dependence on chemical and
biotechnological products (Global Justice Now, n.a.).
Issues can be addressed both independently by the firm and through collaborative
efforts. The Norwegian Government has been a driving force for Yara to undertake a
collaborative approach to the issue. Furthermore, the Government is also expecting to see a
certain level of environmental and social considerations in Yara’s corporate strategy, beyond
simply adhering to minimum standards (The Norwegian Government, 2018). In 2006, Yara and
Bellona2
entered into a strategic partnership with the aim of solving environmental challenges
by working to establish political policies to promote the use of best available environmental
technology to curb NOx emissions (Yara International, 2018). Hence, compared to Monsanto,
Yara has chosen to work with – rather than solely against – activist groups.
Yara and Monsanto’s strategic approach to the issue can be grouped according to Hart’s
(1995) framework for environmentally sustainable economic activities (Appendix D). Hart
groups environmental practices in three groups of increasing commitment; pollution
prevention, stewardship and sustainable development strategies, respectively. Both Yara and
Monsanto operate pollution prevention strategies. Yara reduces and controls emissions by
operating NOx abatement practices (Yara International, 2017). Monsanto has, amongst other
things, changed all lights to LED and replaced the car fleet with Hybrid cars (America Adapts,
2017). Hart (1995) argues that pollution prevention by end-of-pipe control, such as Yara’s NOx
abatement sensor will not be economically rewardable, however, Yara has made this technology
commercially available and are benefiting from offering it to third parties.
2 Norwegian-based environmental NGO
6
Yara and Monsanto also have a wide range of stewardship practices, which seeks to
minimise the life-cycle environmental cost of their products (Hart, 1995). Yara has issued a
brochure for stewardship with detailed information on everything from correct handling and
storage of fertilizers to best practices for bagging to minimise the environmental footprint (Yara
International, 2015b). Furthermore, Yara is also taking part in a cutting-edge government funded project of carbon capture and storage (Bellona Europa, 2016). Monsanto has also set
out ambitious environmental stewardship policies, such as the goal to provide a carbon neutral
footprint by 2021 and reduce GHG emissions by 20% by 2020 (Monsanto, 2017b). However,
Monsanto struggles to move from stewardship practices towards more comprehensive
sustainable development strategies. For example, instead of allowing farmers to save and clean
seeds, a method of “recycling” seeds for re-use, Monsanto has pushed farmers to sign contracts
making this practice illegal. This has caused massive opposition by farmers and activist groups,
and Monsanto answered by suing farmers who cleaned their seeds in what has been described
as a one-sided legal battle (Modern Farmer, 2015; Kings Point Production, 2015).
Hart (1995) describes sustainable development strategies as those practices that take
account of how consumption in the west affects markets in the south, such as addressing the
bottom of the pyramid. Yara has a long history of engaging in the global south, and their
flagship program is a $26 million investment in the SAGCOT3
collaborative effort initiative
(Koigi, 2017). Monsanto is also part of this initiative, however they play a limited role
compared to Yara’s engagement. Furthermore, Monsanto also engages in the WEMA4
initiative, however, their engagement is best described as being a partner rather than a central
actor.
3 Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania
4 Water Efficient Maize for Africa
7
As identified by applying Hart’s (1995) framework, there are several similarities
between Yara and Monsanto’s environmental strategies, especially in terms of pollution
prevention and stewardship. However, Yara’s strategies are more comprehensive when it comes
to sustainable development. Furthermore, Hart and Dowell (2011) call for businesses to go
beyond the three previously mentioned approaches to address the global challenges of the 21st
century. Yara recently launched one of its most innovative projects so far; YARA Birkeland,
an autonomous zero-emission container ship developed in collaboration with Kongsbergruppen
(Yara International, 2018). This ship is predicted to present a disruptive change to the shipping
industry (Paris, 2017), and the heavy investment mirrors Yara’s commitment to long-run
environmentally friendly practices.
The differences in CSR commitment and practices, and Monsanto’s relative inability to
establish more comprehensive CSR practices, should be seen in light of each company’s
institutions and information (Baron, 1995). Baron (1995) defines institutions as those
organisations establishing the rules of the game for an issue, such as legislations on climate
change and emission controls in this case. Information relates to what information and
knowledge institutions have of the focal issue, which often results in conflicting preferences for
the resolution. The legal institutional environment faced by Yara includes the EU Common
Agricultural Policy, the European Environmental Agency and the Norwegian Climate Policy,
as well as international climate change initiatives (Appendix D). Scandinavia is commonly
perceived to be leaders on climate change policies (Stocks, 2017), which is likely to influence
Yara’s climate change engagement. There is consensus on climate change action in both the
current Norwegian Government and Parliament, with only minimal opposition from the
Progressive Party. Therefore, although most climate change legislations apply to Yara’s
Norwegian- and EU-based operations, and not those overseas, it is likely that the strong focus
on climate change in Yara’s home-market has a positive normative effect on their global
8
operations. Yara has set out to voluntarily apply the same legal framework to all its operations
regardless of location, however, this is yet a process in development.
Contrastingly, Monsanto faces less comprehensive institutions. Emissions are regulated
by the US 1970 Clean Air Act (Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions, n.a.), however this
legislative framework was not initially designed to address climate change. Legislations are
limited to mostly carbon pricing initiatives rather than more preventative approaches. There is
an inability (and unwillingness by certain actors) to establish a comprehensive federal approach
to climate change in the US government, and there has been a stand-still on the issue since
Congress failed to pass the Cap-and-Trade legislation5
in 2009 (Centre for Climate and Energy,
n.a.). Although most scientists agree on the reality of human-caused climate change, President
Trump has publicly criticised and denied this view, and one can question his ability and
willingness to objectively address climate change action. This reached a climax when the
president chose to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Agreement in 2017, resulting in the
US taking a major step backwards on climate change action. Furthermore, Trump’s cabinet is
largely influenced by representatives from the fossil fuel industry, who are outspoken critics of
human-caused climate change (Sidahmed, 2017). Hence, information regarding human-caused
climate change seems to be much more subjective in the US market.
Baron (2013) argues that non-market issues can be understood in terms of a life cycle.
The issue of ensuring sustainable food security in an environmentally friendly way is largely
influenced by the developments in climate change policies (Appendix E). This development
has not followed a linear path, and interest groups and legislation have emerged interchangeably
over the last decades. Europe has developed a quite comprehensive framework, starting from
the EU Common Agricultural Policy of 1962. As a result, Yara’s institutional environment has
5 Policy set out to reduce pollution in the atmosphere
9
developed from legislation towards enforcement. Given that CO2 emissions in Norway still are
above what is required to reach the 2030 goal, one can argue that the level of enforcement is
insufficient, however, it is moving in the right direction (Climate Action Tracker, 2017). The
US, on the other hand, has taken major steps backwards, and are struggling to move past the
legislation stage. This is reflected in the “critically insufficient” level of CO2 emissions (Climate
Action Tracker, 2017). The difference in life-cycle development in Monsanto and Yara’s home markets does not only lead to differences in legislations opposed on the firms, but is also affects
the normative pressures and industry standards. This should be considered when comparing
Monsanto’s lower level of environmental friendly CSR practices compared to Yara. Baron
(1995) argues that companies who operate product prevention, stewardship and sustainable
development strategies have pro-active CSR policies, however, when comparing CSR
strategies, there is little doubt that Monsanto’s CSR strategy are less pro-active compared to
that of Yara.
Besides the different strategies to ensure sustainable food security, there is particularly
one issue that differentiates the two companies. Monsanto has built their business-model on
providing genetically-engineered crops (Monsanto, 2018), whereas Yara focuses on
agrochemical solutions. The emergence of commercialised GMOs has led to massive
opposition by the public and activist groups, as there is scientific and public disagreement on
the effects of biotechnology. Monsanto has been the target of countless boycotts and
demonstrations, including the annual March Against Monsanto, which in 2013 attracted
millions of people across 382 countries (Stark, 2017). Contrastingly, Yara has publicly stated
that they do not engage in GMO research or investment, and that they believe the issue of
sustainable food security should be approached by improving existing methods, such as
precision farming and balanced fertilization (Yara International, 2015b).
10
The health effect of GMOs is a widely discussed debate with strong interests on both
sides. The scientific community is divided between those that believe GMOs have no effect on
human health, and those who are opposing this statement. Given that this issue has been such a
crucial factor for Monsanto’s brand image, it is striking how little attention is given to this in
Monsanto’s CSR policy. It can be argued that Monsanto sees the GMO strategy as part of their
social and environmental engagement – as they rigidly stand by their business model of
commercialising GMOs despite public pressure, arguing that GMOs allow farmers to
drastically increase the productivity of farming without increasing farmland. Monsanto’s
response to the public opposition to GMOs is close to non-existent. Monsanto aims to inform
and educate the public on GMOs through a direct Q&A conversation on their webpage.
Monsanto also offered donations of GMO crops to Haitian farmers following the earthquake in
2010, however this was met by furious famers burning the crops in protestation (Greenhalgh,
2010). Monsanto has opposed Obama’s GMO labelling act, stating that mandatory GMO
labelling on food can be “confusing” for consumers, as it might be interpreted as a “warning”
(Monsanto, 2018). Hence, for those that belong to the anti-GMO side, it is difficult to see
Monsanto’s GMO related CSR practices as anything else than defensive (Carroll, 1979) and
irresponsible.
A final comparison of CSR practices can be undertaken by applying Burke and
Logsdon’s (1996) framework of conditions6
that should be in place for CSR strategies to create
value and benefits beyond those readily measured in the economic bottom line (Appendix G).
The interesting findings from applying this framework are that Yara’s CSR policies are more
central to their business model compared to those of Monsanto. Yara’s social engagement is
designed to be part of their core business, whereas Monsanto operates several “unrelated”
donation practices. These unrelated philanthropy practices are likely to be a response to
6 Centrality, Specificity, Proactivity, Voluntarism and Visibility
lamentable actions in the past. Monsanto has for many years struggled with a poor brand-image,
and has been labelled as the “most hated company in the world” following their role as a
supplier of Agent-Orange during the Vietnam War (Anderson, 2014).
Moreover, Yara’s CSR focus is mostly targeted at internal visibility; affecting loyalty
and motivation of employees. Contrastingly, Monsanto focuses more on external visibility,
such as branding. Together with the massive attraction of interest groups, this increases the risk
of being perceived as “greenwashing”. External CSR visibility is likely to be part of rebranding
efforts following irresponsible actions in the past, however, differences can probably also be
explained by different preferences for implicit and explicit CSR communication between the
American and the Norwegian market (Catalao, Branca and Pimentel, 2016). Altogether, Yara’s
CSR strategy aligns better with Burke and Logsdon’s (1996) conditions, and is hence more
likely to create long-term value.
Conclusion
This analysis shows that there are several similarities in Monsanto and Yara’s CSR
strategies. Both companies operate CSV strategies based on the SDGs, and both companies
operate various environmentally friendly activities. The biggest difference can be found in the
different stand points on GMOs, and Yara’s relatively higher level of sustainable development
strategies because of a better institutional environment and more objective information. It can
be argued that CSR practices are path-dependent (Hart, 1995), hence Yara benefits from having
a longstanding social and environmental focus compared to Monsanto’s relatively new
stakeholder approach.
In terms of pollution prevention and stewardship, Monsanto is quite similar to Yara, and
it might be argued that Monsanto is somewhat undeserving of the heavy critics towards all
aspects of their business. It is likely that much of the opposition towards Monsanto is grounded
11
12
in the GMO issue, which might influence how society in general perceive other parts of their
CSR strategy.
It should be mentioned that the two companies in many ways represent the outer ends
of the spectre. Yara has by many been perceived as a front-runner in strategic CSR, while
Monsanto has been deemed as a force of evil. Monsanto is still struggling with establishing
“The New Monsanto”, a brand image not connected to the conglomerate producing Agent
Orange. Although Monsanto does have some innovative and environmental friendly CSR
practices, one cannot get around the fact that commercialising GMOs are at core of their
business, which remains controversial if the goal is to take their social, environmental and
ethical responsibility into account.
References
America Adapts, 2017. The Monsanto Episode: Corporate Agriculture Adapts to Climate
Change. [podcast] October 2017. Available at:
Anderson, L., 2014. Why Does Everyone Hate Monsanto Modern Farmer, [online] 4th of
March. Available at:
Baron, D.P., 1995. Integrated Strategy: Market and Nonmarket Components. California
Management Review, 37(2), pp.47-65.
Baron, P.D., 2013. Business and its Environment. 7
th edition. New Jersey: Pearson.
Bellona Europa, 2016. Norway to present CCS plan for three industries at Bellona event 13th
Oct. [online] Available at:
31.03.18].
Burke, L. and Logsdon, M.J., 1996. How Corporate Social Responsibility Pays Off. Long
Range Planning, 29(4), pp.495-502.
Carroll, A.B., 1979. A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social
Performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4). pp.497-505.
Catalao, L.M., Branca, A.S. and Pimentel, L.V., 2016. International Comparisons of
Corporate Social Responsibility. International Journal of Economics & Management
Sciences. 5(2).
Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions, n.a. Congress and Climate Change. [online]
Available at:
[Accessed 31.03.18].
Climate Action Tracker, 2017. Rating Countries. [online] Available at:
Fortune, 2016. The 25 Best Global Companies to Work For. [online] October 2016. Available
at:
Fortune, 2017. A Fertilizer Makes Helps Tanzania’s Subsistence Farmers Make the Most of
Their Land. [online] Available at:
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.
Global Justice Now, n.a. The New Scramble for Africa. [online] Available at:
13
Greenhalgh, M., 2010. Haitian Farmers Reject Monsanto Donation. Food Safety News,
[online] 7th of June. Available at:
Hart, S.L. and Dowell, G., 2011. A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm: Fifteen Years
After. Journal of Management, 37(5), pp.1464-1479.
Hart, S.L., 1995. A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm. Academy of Management
Review, 20(4), pp.986-1014.
Hydro, 2017. Hydro Online. [online] Available at:
29.03.18].
Kings Point Production, 2015. SEEDING FEAR – The Story of Michael White vs Monsanto.
Available at:
[Accessed 31.02.18].
Koigi, B., 2017. YARA Announces $26 Million Investment in Dar Port to Improve Supply of
Fertilizer. Africa Business Communities, [online] 29th of March. Available at:
Modern Farmer, 2015. Seeding Fear: The Story of a Farmer Who Took on Monsanto. [online]
Available at:
Monsanto, 2017a. Annual Report: Sharing Value, Sustaining Innovation. [pdf] Available at:
[Accessed 28.03.18].
Monsanto, 2017b. 2017 Sustainability Report: Growing Better Together. [pdf]. Available at:
31.03.18].
Monsanto, 2018. Monsanto Webpage. [online] Available at:
[Accessed 28.03.18].
Paris, C., 2017. Norway Takes Lead in Race to Build Autonomous Cargo Ships. The Wall
Street Journal, [online] 22nd of July. Available at:
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R., 2011. Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review,
89(1-2), pp.62-77.
Rasche, A., Morsing, M. and Moon, J., 2017. Corporate Social Responsibility – Strategy,
Communication, Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shared Value Initiative, 2018. Shared Value Initiative Members. [online] Available at:
14
Sidahmed, M., 2017. Climate Change Denial in the Trump Cabinet: Where do his Nominees
Stand The Guardian, [online] 15th of December. Available at:
Stark, H., 2017. GMOs and the March Against Monsanto. Huffpost, [online] 5th of March.
Available at:
Stocks, B., 2017. Environmental Policy in Scandinavia: An Analysis of Norway’s Rising CO2
Emissions. Department of Political Science, University of California.
The European PR Podcast, 2015. Inside Monsanto’s Stakeholder Management Strategy.
[podcast] November 2015. Available at:
The Norwegian Government, 2018. The Norwegian Government Online. [online] Available
at:
United Nations, 2014. Leaders at UN summit take steps to ensure food security for 9 billion
people by 2050. [online] Available at:
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2017. Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Data. [online] Available a
发表评论