ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 พ.ค. 2024
- It’s been described as one of the worst corporate acquisitions in history. When German company Bayer bought US seed-maker Monsanto for $63 billion in 2018, it inherited billions of dollars worth of lawsuits from farmers who claimed its weedkiller, Roundup had caused their cancer. Today Bayer’s entire market value is less than half of what it spent to buy Monsanto. DW Business sat down with Bayer CEO Bill Anderson to ask him how he plans to turn his company’s fortunes around and how it felt to face shareholders for the first time. The discussion covers Bayer`s struggles to deal with the litigation costs linked to Roundup, the looming loss of patents on two of its best-selling drugs, accusations about its operations in South America and the company`s dealings with China. Bill Anderson also describes his new “Dynamic Shared Ownership” model, with which he is hoping to drive innovation, bring down costs and speed up processes within the company.
#bayer #monsanto #takeover
Subscribe: th-cam.com/users/deutsche...
For more news go to: www.dw.com/en/
Follow DW on social media:
►Facebook: / deutschewellenews
►Twitter: / dwnews
►Instagram: / dwnews
►Twitch: / dwnews_hangout
Für Videos in deutscher Sprache besuchen Sie: / dwdeutsch
Not having a conscience must be awesome.
Conscience is a weakness
@@dimamatat5548 evolutionsbremse
It was madness buying them with all those lawsuits pending. Someone should go to prison for that decision.
I'm no fan of big pharma however carrying over these lawsuits is a protection mechanism for the litigants. Companies don't get to dismiss pending lawsuits just because owners change.
@@deadmanprodinc I agree but why would you buy them knowing the lawsuits they were facing. It wasn’t a secret.
@@Kodakcompactdisc Well, considering the general interests and motivation of big corporation, I would guess buying into a monopoly is a factor, the greed factor, and lastly attaining ultimate power and control. This is enough rationale for a corporation to take on a little bit of baggage with the purchase. This CAO has already stated that "Round-up" is not linked to the various cancers in the claim, however when asked what else could be attributed to "farmers" only targeted with these cancers, he skirts the question. Bayer will fight these claims until the claimant are financially exhausted. So it may take billions to save 100's of billions but in my view that answers the last part of Bayer's stated adage, "where we were, where we are now and where are we going"
Stupidity is not illegal even it comes adorned with an MBA degree!
is this interview a big advertisement for Bayer or what?!
I came for evil Corporate talk I got evil Corporate talk
Wow, DW is stooping really low to be shilling in this bare-faced manner for Bayer. Really soft-ball questions with no follow-ups.
And why are we being asked to empathize with a CEO who could easily stuff his pillows with more money than any of us will see in our lifetimes?
Don’t be heartless: They need more ivory back scratchers.
Wow this is really not up to usual DW editorial standards. This was more of an advertisement than an incisive interview. Very disappointing.
Well DW is German based, Bayer is a German based corporation, and German economy is in the toilet at the moment... I guess it's a win-win for these two
My favorite is when he says it would be chaos if they followed rules.
It would be at some level, thankfully regulations are written by those who are fully aligned with the grand "innovation" of keeping everything the same. The power these companies wield over us all should terrify everyone who follows rules, break them up.
You are in denial re: Roundup. It’s a lose lose dude.
They should write a book: How to loose money.
They're The Biggest Evil On Earth!
why?
What are you Smoking?
Well companies shouldn't be hurting/killing people while wanting immunity from lawsuits/crimes for harmful products, also big pharma funds most of the scientific papers and government drug admins..
When will people with no conscience be stopped?
Last time it took a world war…
He is very well versed in US-like corporate double speak. That's my only compliment.
Did he just say “for eaters?”
"that's all of us.". *nods wisely*
Haha yeah not humans just eaters 😂
"...at some point, we have to ask, "Do facts matter?' and if they do, we have to act on them." This guy must work for donald j rump. Do facts matter.... classic cover it up with confusing words so you're not actually answering any questions and are deflecting in a way that leaves people not understanding they're being duped.
Bayer: let's buy this company that once helped develop Agent Orange
Someone: well, your country once helped gas people... might not be a good look. And, there's a huge chance their current product cause cancer
Bayer: trivialities. Also, the laws suck.
And what about all the lobbying both Monsanto and Bayer do in the US. And which party was in power when Monsanto was granted that label?
What a load of egotistical verbal diarrhoea and corporate speak. Not a great surprise that Bayer are in trouble.
Just follow the money people
They try to save a big sinking ship with desperate attempts.
With his leadership and vision, I do not see any brighter future for Bayer.
I am speaking of 20 years of experience in global pharmaceutical industry.
101 on how to get rid of toxic assets and move money from Germany to our US "friends"
How much did they pay you for this piece ?
How did Monsanto manage cases all this while? How did the cases come on the horizon all of a sudden
I am a subscriber to DW as I enjoy your incisive interviews and analyses.However, this interview and its lack of inciseveness on key issues was outstandingly below standard as it didn't delve deeper into his superficial, brazen answers that did not address the questions asked. He was left off the hook easily. Destroying the Amazonian forest, the Planet's lungs in order to feed the population, Bayers priority, according to the CEO, is as short sighted a strategy as it is, respectfully, nonsensical, if not dumb. The interviewer carried on with her questions..
What a softball interview. What purpose does this actually serve the viewer, if I wanted to I could just go on the company website and read all the pr releases that are posted there to get the same information that was released in this interview. I understand things shouldn't always be confrontational but if you're just going to act as another corporate mouthpiece than you shouldn't even bothering interviewing these executives.
Aiming for the lowest bar
Mr. Anderson seems to be very well spoken dude. In most ceo interviews I've seen, the ceo always appeared terrified to answer questions, but Bill has some energy.
The R&D recoupment argument does make sense - after all, why would anyone take risks losing money in R&D for giving it all away to the competitors?
If people aren't happy about this, they should push for goverments to do the R&D and take the risks associated with it itself rather than proxying through the private sector.
As far as I know, all basic research is done on government dime. Corporations only do some innovations (i.e. some tricks to turn known science into "money"). Take rockets or internet for instance. government spent billions of $$$ to research the stuff. Now SpaceX and tech giants are reaping the benefits.
CEO: "the world is pink and great, and laws and courts are giving us trouble in our quest to save the world "
Slimey fellow
You reap what you sow. Greed made them pursue companies that had all kinds of red flags and sirens surrounding them.
He has a fair point at 6:00. The US system is broken. Many companies legally sepatate US from global business for exactly that reason.
Their definition of broken is that it is not profitable enough for them. I am fine with a "broken" system that protects the regular citizen from rapacious oligarchs.
maybe they can sell the football team
Gaslighter.
The overabundance of many, many chemicals (of which glyphosate is one) in our food systems and environments is a problem. However, I urge folks to look at the efficacy and toxicity of the chemicals that would be used in its stead, including many "organic" alternatives for both the user and environment. With widespread dependency on these chemicals for right on time, yields based ag profits, producers are often left to just look for the next thing. Without more widespread adoption of farming practices that require far less or zero of these chems, the problem chemical will shift like a game of musical chairs. Toxicity = dose x frequency of exposure. It is the later that is more troubling when one takes into account the ubiquity of use of glyphosate and other widely used agrichemicals. Instances of herbicide resistance simply compound the problem. To complicate things further these chems are a huge help in selectively targetting invasive plant species where a workforce can't be found or funded to continuously manage large expanses of land. This is an economic and land use issue combined with corporate spin, categorical thinking on the part of proponents and opponents of chems, and using the wrong tools in the wrong ways, in the wrong places (blanket management practices). There isn't a one size fits all answer to these issues while at the same time the highest level of scrutiny needs to persist until solutions are found.
I think she’s a great journalist.
I get trying, but I think there was pretty much no information gained by the interview in the end. It should have used in parts for a proper documentation instead. Well, guess that would lead into an access question. Doubt there would have been an interview agreed to in an investigative journalism context.
Money's a helluva drug
1) If you are worth 100 and buy X for 100, you're then not worth 200, but still 100.
2) Now, why did you merge with claims hanging?
Now they are not 100 they are at 30
@@vkchaitanya2003 I understand that. But the premise was "Today Bayer’s entire market value is less than half of what it spent to buy Monsanto." And that comparison is meaningless.
There is always more to it than the size of the acquisition. This could just be another one.
I think it was very hard to get this interview with these critical, well phrased and researched questions through!
The compromise was obviously to give as much time as needed to the answers.
What came out feels kind of truthful:
The substantial questions could not be substantially answered. There is little said besides corporate blabla. If you have nothing to say you can speak as long as you want I guess …
It should be pretty clear that Bayer needs a miracle right now, and how this CEO envisions the future of Bayer is hardly how I would see a responsible and innovative biotech company of the future. Acquiring Monsanto in the first place tells more than thousand words. Imo this is well deserved, sorry not sorry
Why would someone buy a company that has a bunch of lawsuits on their heels? How can somebody justify this? What is really behind?
Patents
@@mariokajin I did some reading. My conclusion is there can be only one single reason: His task is to bring Bayer down, or at least get it split up. End of Bayer.
BTW. The Monsanto deal was not done by him, but by his predecessor.
hog at the trough
I worked for Roche, he made a fool of himself moving to Bayer. What a loser company
Big whoop! No one cares about corporations
Great interview
Feeding the world? I can grow more food on 1/3 of the land that they use... and i am doing it sustainably while supporting wildlife and diversity
What an immoral person.
Bayer did win Bundesliga..😮
Personally me thinks that he is lying.
I haven't had anything to do with bear or any of its conglomerates since I found out they were supplying Dr mangala with tons of aspirin trials
Bayer?
Didn't Bayer buy Monsanto?
Kinda the point of this discussion
Lotta hate in the comments, i dunno i think this guy was pretty honest and correct about how this sort of innovating chemical giant HAS to run to serve the world
Deus Ex, its called Consolidation.
Nice try for a dog and pony show, but I DO NOT BUY IT !!
Oh it’s so sad . So many nice questions and none of them answered . You know that the world is in decadence when the people that rule are too small and tiny . Exactly the opposite of the role model. Sad .
@13:00 he's not wrong.
And "grass-fed beef" became an euphemism for a horrible cattle business model.
Civilization has entered late-stage capitalism.
Capitalism is an insatiable hunger, one which is inherently incapable of expressing the concept of "enough" - it's a system that must chronically engorge (without pause).
Poverty is the mother of necessity; the comfort of the rich, depends upon an abundant supply of the poor.
the Alchemist
-Ø1
The comment section is full of small kids, who are incapable to comprehend adult talks.
Don’t try doing cnbc 😢 german ceos are somewhat boring 😅
❤️💜💙💐
🤓🤣😎👍👏💪
Greed
🤓🤣😎
🙏🕌📯🛐💔😭🤲
🥷👌👍👏