Ethical Dilemmas - Creative Commons - Case Study

...

The goals of the company are not hard to recognize. As any other given firm, the company wanted to keep up the sales and make profit. In this case, sell the product under false assumptions and keep up the healthy image. As previously stated, the company faced lawsuits which led the sales to drop between the years 2012 and 2013 by over a quarter (Ross, 2015)

In this case there are several stakeholders to take into count. Looking from the decision makers point of view, the main value is to maintain the picture the consumers are expecting. When observing the consumers side, the value lies in the righteous marketing and getting the relevant information about the given product. CSPI, being the party that first launched the lawsuit has in interest to protect the customers as far as labelling and marketing is considered. Taking a social perspective, the norm that is mutual for the last two stakeholders mentioned is the value of honesty.

One of the major factors influencing company level behaviour is the over-all strive of healthier living that consumers are aiming for. Therefore, marketing the brand as such, is helping the consumers achieve these goals while the company is gaining profit.

As in the other cases, the company could have chosen a different path: to label their product in a truthful way from the beginning. By doing so, they could have avoided the lawsuits made against them and not been accused of false marketing. In another scenario, Coca-Cola could have changed their marketing tactics. Instead of using phrases that indicated the health benefits of the drink, they could have used different statements that targeted another group of people. Although these two options might seem like less profitable alternatives, these could have saved the company the contaminated image.

Case 3 – Chiqiuta Brands International and AUC

Since 1899 Chiqiuta Brands International has been conducting business in Colombia, with a well-established banana production. As the company got a new board of directors in 2002, replacing the old one after nearly going bankrupt, it was soon revealed to the board what was going on behind the scenes. On the 3rd of April, the General Counsel exposed the protection payments made to the notorious paramilitary group, AUC (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia) to the new board. The board summoned a meeting with assistant attorney general in charge of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and relevant staff on the 24 of April 2003 to discuss the issue. The problems were thoroughly debated and the decision to secure the workers by continuing these payments was made (White et al., 2012).

According to the Guardian, the first suspicion aroused in 2001 when former general counsel noticed some unusual payments done by the company to a third party. The payments were not acknowledged within the company before that time. This started an investigation and soon the truth was out. Prosecutors stated that Chiquita had made payments worth almost 1 million dollars to AUC between the years 1997 up until 2004. After confessing that these payments were indeed made, the US department of justice set up a deal, making the Chiquita Brands International to pay a fine of 25 million dollars (The Guardian, 2007).

When looking at the events that have occurred in this case, it is logical to note that the ethical dilemmas and issues are highly complex. Not only because there are human lives at stake, which makes the problems extremely serious but also because it involves two nations and a huge international corporation. Should the company keep up their involvement with this guerrilla military group, although it is against laws of the United States, and in that way keep employees safe. At the same time, United States had agreed to help the Colombian government to disarm the paramilitary group in question. As stated in the case study, ‘Hills had thought the DOJ understood Chiquita’s position and its concern for employee safety should the payments stop; however, complicating political circumstances surrounding the payments provided numerous additional challenges’ (White et al, 2012, p. 6).

It is important to note that not only the workers, the company, the governments of the given countries are stakeholders, but also consumers of the product. Consumers are making ethical decisions every day, like choosing to buy Chiqiuta bananas, regardless of the ongoing cooperation with AUC. Looking from the United States governments point of view, their values lies within the frames of justice and safety. As stated by White et al (2012, p. 5), since September 10th 2001, AUC has been considered as a foreign terrorist organization, ´thus making it illegal for the United States or any U.S.-based companies or representatives thereof to conduct business with AUC or any such labelled organizations.’ The company itself and their board members’ (both new and old) assumingly had the company’s image and profitability in interest while dealing with the given ethical dilemmas. At the same time the workers of Chiquita Brands International, facing the everyday reality of the working environment, surely had their own safety at high interest. As stated by Crane and Mattens, the employees of a company should have the right to healthy and safe working conditions (Crane & Mattens, 2010, p. 293).

There were several different factors influencing the behaviour of the company. First of all, it is necessary to note that Colombia, being the place of the enterprise since 1899 (White et al., 2012), has gone through a rough history, especially with the AUC right-wing paramilitary that has been active since 1980’s (BBC, 2013). The consequences of stopping these protection payments, might have been dangerous and ended up in sacrificing lives and causing trauma for the families involved. Although the decision made by Chiquita Brands International was in conflict with one of the most crucial and obvious social norms, not breaking the law, it is not impossible to see why the company decided to act like they did. Secondly, the potential loss of customers and therefore profit, if the truth would have been set out earlier is certainly a big factor influencing the behaviour of the company. It is not difficult to recognize the fear that the previous board and newly elected board was facing.

Setting aside the option of moving the place of business to another country, there would have been an alternative option, although it might have been a risky one: to keep the production in Colombia, but refusing to pay AUC in order to get protection for the workers. What the consequences of that alternative might have been is impossible to predict, but that certainly would have saved the company lawsuits

...