chiquita bananas essay

Chiquita can be blamed to get the actions of two terrorist agencies that extorted money in the company. Subjects and their groups of the episodes performed by these two terrorist organizations are looking for compensation from Chiquita, proclaiming that the business is responsible for making those problems happen. Chiquita has to decide whether or not to adopt the responsibility intended for the activities performed by the two organizations.

Key Facts/Background FARC and AUC (two Colombian organizations currently specified by the U.

S. as terrorist organizations) purportedly endangered Chiquita’s business owners to damage employees inside the Colombian plant if the business failed to give the payments for their “protection.  Chiquita ongoing to do so until two years after the U. H. designated AUC as a terrorist organization. The U. T. government fined Chiquita for giving “protection money to FARC and AUC.

Today the patients and families of FARC and AUC will be coming toward claim compensation for damage they sustained due to actions that were financed in part by the money given by Chiquita.

If the regulation that permits victims and their households to drag into court providers of support for the terrorist organizations passes, Chiquita may face multiple law suits for featuring this support to FARC and AUC, which may total millions of dollars. Legislation is not yet in place nevertheless the problem that Chiquita is definitely facing is already here. Stakeholder Analysis

Depending on the case one of the main stakeholders is Chiquita. Supplying money to FARC and AUC in the first place was not simply illegal (after 2001) yet also not really aligned with, what could be perceived as provider’s dedication to guard its employees”giving money may have (and actually did) encourage the AUC to keep to threaten Chiquita exactly like FARC performed. The company would not show they are constant and coherent in their vision of corporate and social responsibility. They did not care about the communities that they operated in as much as they will cared of the own health.

The issue is the payments were already manufactured and the company admitted to it, which will ended using a plea arrangement with the U. S. authorities. Now, the challenge is whether or not to admit that Chiquita is responsible for activities of FARC and AUC because “extortion money has become paid. This could result in either lawsuits or settlements for all your damage received by the two terrorist organizations, which in turn will mean definite lowering of the important thing and losing credibility.

At the same time (just like with the Tylenol case) in the event that Chiquita acknowledges by itself the wrongdoing, it might recover it is image of socially responsible organization and show that it is aligned with the beliefs of protecting people (just because they protected their particular employees, they should protect every one of the people who are troubled by their actions). If Chiquita will possible until law can be passed after which fight within the responsibility, it will be costly, yet also the organization will loose all the reliability they constructed with the customers and shareholders in the decades. The U. H. judicial method is another main stakeholder.

If the law is passed, the courts in U. S. will be requested with making a decision of whether Chiquita is indeed liable for, what the company was believing to be, paying of the extortion and “protection funds to safeguard all their employees against harm by FARC or perhaps AUC. Here the courtroom may be in a dilemma, since the illegal activity that Chiquita engaged alone in was believed to be because it was aiming to protect lives of their personnel. Now, with one more regulation in place”to compensate individuals who suffered from FARC and AUC”the dilemma is going to boil down to determining in the event what Chiquita believed to be the reasoning lurking behind these obligations, was certainly it.

If yes, could we punish Chiquita for looking to protect their employees? The other primary stakeholders would be the victims (and their families) of FARC and AUC’s actions. They may be trying to provide for justice those who are responsible for all their suffering. Today, the challenge is they are trying to provide for justice a firm that had not been directly but instead indirectly doing harm to them. The reasoning at the rear of this is the opinion that the funds Chiquita paid was certainly used in harming those people. The victims and their families have got right to demand justice.

The question remains, of who basically should be delivered to justice. Choices Analysis Based upon the current circumstance (company currently admitted to paying the money, internal documents that the money did offer benefits exceeding the protecting of the employees were revealed, threat of lawsuits), Chiquita has couple limited alternatives, which are depending on justice and duty. First option should be to come out at this point and take the responsibility for the activities of FARC and AUC. The law may not be in place however, but this kind of decision may show that Chiquita is standing by the promise to shield people impacted by its activities.

This option definitely addresses the claims of victims and their families”they can get the compensation they are searching for. Chiquita will face multiple lawsuits and will be harmed financially, which influences shareholders from the company. In this case the reasoning behind the payments is usually brought in place”whether it was pertaining to corporate gain or safeguard of workers. Another option will be to refuse spending compensation to victims of FARC and AUC even though Chiquita performed nothing right to harm them. Moreover, these people were protecting persons by paying the terrorist.

In the event the law holding the company responsible for these activities is not really in place, the corporation and the U. S. proper rights system happen to be “off the hook as well as the victims and families cannot seek to have their claims happy. If the legislation holding the organization responsible is at place, after that Chiquita will likely be brought to proper rights and the justice program and the victims will have their very own legal claims fulfilled. Advice It comes down to determining whether or not the company tips in other techniques than guarding their employees from purchasing the “protection from FARC and AUC. From the information provided inside the internal files it seems like this did.

Even without the internal paperwork, Chiquita would benefit monetarily from being present for anyone years in Colombia (Chiquita in Republic of colombia Case, p. 4: in accordance to AUGURA, “productivity in Latin and Central American plantations had been three times greater than in the Caribbean, and costs to importance were fifty percent lower). The business had the direct benefit in paying the FARC and AUC for “protection.  Doing business in Colombia was lucrative and giving it up was (at that time) more damaging than paying terrorist. Therefore my advice to Chiquita is to come forward and admit to their wrongdoing and pay the claimants for their injuries.

It will be hard to run an organization with this kind of past, but this lessons will (hopefully) help steer clear of such problems in the future (not only for Chiquita but also other companies who also are doing business internationally in unstable political and secureness environments). Action Let’s say somebody is threatening to eliminate me except if I give him or her my car. I know he / she may eliminate someone else with it”I wouldn’t give it up regardless if I paid out with my very own life for it. If my loved ones is threatened”I give it up, seeing that I am responsible for more people.

In the event the situation repeats over years and every month I give up the car to protect myself and my family, increasing numbers of people are staying killed. Must i admit about what that somebody does? Am I responsible for this kind of? I would desire to think not. But if there is also a case of repeat activities like this, I would have to take that responsibility. And that’s why Chiquita should certainly act on their particular core cultural responsibility values they preach. Synopsis By giving money to FARC and AUC, Chiquita approved with the actions from the two companies. The solution is to now take those responsibility for these actions.

1