Chiquita Ethics

1. Do you agree with the 11thUS Court of Appeals ruling that cleared Chiquita of any liability for the victims killed by the paramilitary group that Chiquita funded? Construct an ethical argument that supports your view.

I disagree with the Court’s decision to clear Chiquita of any responsibility for killings committed by the militant groups in Columbia that were supported financially by the U.S. based company. The application of the 1789 Alien Tort Statute is questionable because the judge found the technical clause that it could be applied to individuals, not to corporate defendants, and only on the U.S. soil. The controversy of Chiquita’s behavior lies in its attempt to be ethical with its employees and protect them from harm (p. 98).
Using each of the four methods of ethical reasoning, see Figure 5.6, was it ethical or not for Chiquita to pay the terrorist organization when payments were demanded in the early 2000s? The ethical problem of paying or not paying to terrorists is very complex and vital for people and the organizations involved. From the point of view of virtue ethics, for Chiquita’s executives it was ethical and moral to pay ransom because they valued the lives of its employees. The executives acted like guardians of their people that would never leave them unprotected (p. 106). Utilitarian method of ethical reasoning is the comparison of the costs and benefits of Chiquita’s decision. The economic cost was more than $2.5 million paid by the company for protection of its employees. The social cost was 393 Colombians killed by the paramilitary soldiers. The effect on society, human sufferings and damages from the hands of terrorists were measured as $7.86 billion by the Colombians. Chiquita has had only one benefit: her employees and business were under the terrorist’s protection. The company decided that the protectionist benefits overweighed the costs of terrorists’ actions. It was an unethical decision because the utilitarian method didn’t give accurate measurements of social and human costs (p.
It was not an ethical performance. Chiquita entered Columbia with a knowledge that there was a war. Colombians were the victims of this war. It was unfair to put more oil into the flames of the war and support the militants. Consequently, there are only one “yes” and three “no”. We can make conclusion that Chiquita’s decision was unethical from the point of view of justice, human rights, human and social costs (p. 110).
3. Is there anything that Chiquita could have done to protect its employees adequately without paying the terrorists? Support your answer.
Considering that the Colombian government was at war with paramilitary organizations and country was in turmoil, I think there was little that could be done to protect a big community of employees without protection payments to mafia. I guess that Chiquita’s executives didn’t withdraw its business from Colombia because it was profitable. Their payments were done to comply with illegal requirements of doing business in Colombia. They didn’t minimize harm towards all stakeholders. Therefore, it was illegal