Content area
Full Text
Articles
"If we grow by using more stuff, I'm afraid we better start looking for a new planet."1Those were the ominous words of Robert Shapiro, Monsanto's chief executive officer in 1997. Since taking over the reins of the St. Louis-based firm in April 1995, Shapiro had helped oversee a radical transformation of the chemical corporation into a biotechnology business. True, Monsanto had begun this corporate restructuring in the 1980s, but it was Shapiro who witnessed the company's first real success in biotechnology. At that time, Monsanto announced that it would no longer generate profits by selling toxic chemicals. As Shapiro explained, Monsanto was now making money by replacing "stuff with information."2In what some have called the "Microsofting" of Monsanto, a chemical giant known for such toxic compounds as Agent Orange and PCBs was now promising to sell genetic software that could restore life on earth. Smaller was better for this new Monsanto. The firm would attract shareholders not by expanding commodity chemical production but by promoting ecological sustainability through trade in microscopic genetic codes.3
Monsanto's corporate transformation was unprecedented. No chemical company its size had wholly rebranded itself in such a fashion. It was a dangerous move. So why did Monsanto embark on such a risky venture?4
This question is related to one that has spurred recent business history scholarship. Over the past several decades, historians interested in the evolution of American capitalism have sought to explain why so many companies have abandoned commodity production ("making stuff") as a primary means of generating profits. After all, the winners at the top of the U.S. corporate economy in 2016 looked very different than the business titans of 1955. Certainly, some time-tested vertically integrated commodity producers, such as the Big Oil empire of ExxonMobil, remained at the top of Fortune magazine's most profitable firms list, but many others had chosen to follow a new path to big money. Four of the top ten most profitable firms in 2016--JP Morgan Chase (2), Wells Fargo (4), Citigroup (7), and Bank of America (10)--generated substantial revenue by selling intangible products, such as securities, insurance, and mortgages. Atop the list was Apple, which made most of its revenue from premium-priced iPhones manufactured by third-party...