Case 12: Banned If You Do, Banned If You Don’t
1. The firm obviously needs to make a decision on the matter but at the same time they must try to appease both parties. As such, the firm should first take into effect both parties reasons and facts before going any further. After management has decided which party offers a stronger argument they should then try to make a decision that not only favors the stronger party but also takes into consideration the weaker party’s arguments and makes accommodations for the weaker party. 2. Chiquita seems to not benefit from socially responsible decisions because like the saying goes “no good deed goes unpunished” and people don’t forget the past very easily. Coming from a past of bribing officials, damaging the environment, and exploiting workers in the Latin American countries in which it operated. Just because the firm has suddenly changed its outlook on being socially responsible leaves some people a little apprehensive and weary. The fact that the firm is not benefiting from their new socially responsible decisions is simply because people believe history repeats itself. 3. Dole and Del Monte may not be following Chiquita’s lead in becoming socially responsible simply because they haven’t had a history of exploitation, bribing or damaging the environment. This simple fact has allowed Del Monte and Dole to continue operations the way they have been for quite some time. The lack of negative press has allowed them to operate under the radar while Chiquita takes the flak from unhappy ethical groups. 4. I would advise Mr. Oswald to take the option to not use Canadian tar sands fuel. This option will surely displease the folks over at EthicalOil.org but will grant Chiquita positive press for their advancement in becoming socially responsible. However, I wouldn’t just ignore EthicalOil.org’s argument but rather make accommodations for them. Possibly use minimal amounts of tar sands fuel for minor firm operations and not...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document