Chiquita Bananas
Final Case Brief
Problem/Challenge Statement
Chiquita is blamed for the actions of two terrorist organizations that extorted money from the company. Victims and their families of the attacks performed by these two terrorist organizations are looking for compensation from Chiquita, claiming that the company is responsible for making those attacks happen. Chiquita has to make a decision whether or not to take the responsibility for the actions performed by the two organizations.
Key Facts/Background
FARC and AUC (two Colombian organizations currently designated by the U.S. as terrorist organizations) purportedly threatened Chiquita’s executives to hurt employees in the Colombian plant if the company failed to provide the payments for their “protection.” Chiquita continued to do so until two years after the U.S. designated AUC as a terrorist organization. The U.S. government fined Chiquita for giving “protection money” to FARC and AUC. Now the victims and families of FARC and AUC are coming forward to claim compensation for damages they incurred due to actions that were financed in part by the money provided by Chiquita. If the law that permits victims and their families to sue providers of support to the terrorist organizations passes, Chiquita may face multiple lawsuits for providing this support to FARC and AUC, which may amount to millions of dollars. The law is not yet in place but the problem that Chiquita is facing is already here.
Stakeholder Analysis
Based on the case one of the main stakeholders is Chiquita. Giving money to FARC and AUC in the first place was not only illegal (after 2001) but also not aligned with, what could be perceived as company’s dedication to protect its employees—giving money may have (and actually did) encourage the AUC to continue to threaten Chiquita just like FARC did.
The company did not show that they are constant and coherent in their vision of corporate and social responsibility. They did not care about the
Problem/Challenge Statement
Chiquita is blamed for the actions of two terrorist organizations that extorted money from the company. Victims and their families of the attacks performed by these two terrorist organizations are looking for compensation from Chiquita, claiming that the company is responsible for making those attacks happen. Chiquita has to make a decision whether or not to take the responsibility for the actions performed by the two organizations.
Key Facts/Background
FARC and AUC (two Colombian organizations currently designated by the U.S. as terrorist organizations) purportedly threatened Chiquita’s executives to hurt employees in the Colombian plant if the company failed to provide the payments for their “protection.” Chiquita continued to do so until two years after the U.S. designated AUC as a terrorist organization. The U.S. government fined Chiquita for giving “protection money” to FARC and AUC. Now the victims and families of FARC and AUC are coming forward to claim compensation for damages they incurred due to actions that were financed in part by the money provided by Chiquita. If the law that permits victims and their families to sue providers of support to the terrorist organizations passes, Chiquita may face multiple lawsuits for providing this support to FARC and AUC, which may amount to millions of dollars. The law is not yet in place but the problem that Chiquita is facing is already here.
Stakeholder Analysis
Based on the case one of the main stakeholders is Chiquita. Giving money to FARC and AUC in the first place was not only illegal (after 2001) but also not aligned with, what could be perceived as company’s dedication to protect its employees—giving money may have (and actually did) encourage the AUC to continue to threaten Chiquita just like FARC did.
The company did not show that they are constant and coherent in their vision of corporate and social responsibility. They did not care about the