RMIT Business Sustainability Ethics and Social Responsibility Paper

User Generated

yrzvaunau

Business Finance

Description

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Instructions: In your book please read Case # 17 on page 686- Chiquita: An Excruciating Dilemma Between Life and Law Please write a 2000 words paper (not including the cover page and reference page) in APA format that answers the questions in the case study and please include the following: 1. The Issue/problem identification 1. What are the central facts in the case? 2. What are the major overriding issues in the case? 3. What sub issues or related issues are present? 2. Analysis/Evaluation 1. Stake holder analysis 2. CSR analysis 3. Evaluation 3. Recommendation 1. What would your recommendations be in this case? 2. What additional actions should they have taken 3. What are possible alternatives and implementation considerations
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer:
2000 words
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

View attached explanation and answer. Let me know if you have any questions.

1

Business Sustainability, Ethics, and Social Responsibility

Author’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course
Instructor
Date

2
The case study of Chiquita:
An Excruciating Dilemma between Life and Law presents a difficult situation for the
company. Chiquita is facing the possibility of criminal liability for paying protection money to a
terrorist organization, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC). The company was in
a difficult position because the AUC was responsible for numerous human rights violations. Yet,
Chiquita felt it had no choice but to pay the protection money to protect its employees and
continue operations in Colombia (Wheeler, 2018). The issue is that Chiquita was acting illegally
under U.S. law, yet it was necessary to ensure its employees' safety. This approach creates an
ethical dilemma for the company, as it must choose between acting legally and in a manner
necessary for its employees' safety. The central facts in the case are that Chiquita was paying
protection money to the AUC to ensure its employees' safety and continue operations in
Colombia. The fact that the AUC was engaging in numerous human rights violations adds
additional complexity to the situation. Additionally, the fact that Chiquita was aware of the
AUC's activities, yet chose to pay them anyway, adds another layer of complexity.
The first step to resolving this dilemma is to understand the context of the situation and
the implications of each potential course of action. Chiquita must consider the legal
repercussions of its actions and the potential damage to its reputation if it is found to have broken
the law (Wettstein, 2020). It must also consider the implications for its employees if it does not
take steps to protect them from the dangers of working in Colombia. Once these implications
have been considered, Chiquita must then decide on a course of action. If it decides to abide by
the law, it must do so in a way that is consistent with its ethical standards and does not put its
employees at risk. If it decides to break the law, it must do so in a way that minimizes the
potential legal implications and does not harm its reputation.

3
Ultimately, the decision rests with Chiquita, but the company must take into account the
ethical implications of its decision and strive to make a decision that is consistent with its ethical
principles. In this case, the sub-issues or related issues are the potential legal repercussions of
Chiquita's actions, the ethical implications of their decision to pay protection to a terrorist
organization, and the potential impacts of their decision on the company's reputation (Wheeler,
2018). Additionally, there is the question of whether or not Chiquita should have taken steps to
ensure the safety of its employees without resorting to protection money payments. Chiquita
Brands International is a multinational company based in the United States that produces and
distributes bananas and other fruits. They have a long history of doing business in Central and
South America and have been accused of paying protection money to several paramilitary groups
throughout the region. Chiquita is now facing an excruciating dilemma between life and law as
they must decide whether to continue paying the protection money or face the consequences of
not doing so.
Stakeholder Analysis
Chiquita's stakeholders include their employees, customers, suppliers, shareholders,
government, and the local communities in which the company operates. Everyone is vested in
the company's decision, and their opinions and perspectives must be considered.
Employees: Chiquita's employees would be negatively affected if the company chooses to stop
paying the protection money (Kawuri et al., 2020). The company's workers operate in a
dangerous and unstable environment, and the protection money provides security and safety. If
Chiquita stops paying the protection money, the safety of their employees could be at risk, and
they may be forced to leave their jobs.

4
Customers: Chiquita's customers would likely be unhappy if the company chose to stop paying
the protection money. Customers rely on the company for a consistent supply of quality products
(Kawuri et al., 2020). If the company stops paying the protection money, the quality and quantity
of its products may be affected.
Suppliers: Chiquita's suppliers would be negatively affected if the company chooses to stop
paying the protection money (Kawuri et al., 2020). The suppliers need to feel secure to provide
their services, and if the company stops paying the protection money, they may be forced to stop
working with Chiquita.
Shareholders: Chiquita's shareholders would be unhappy if the company chose to stop paying
the protection money (Kawuri et al., 2020). The company's shareholders are concerned with its
financial returns, and their profits may suffer if the company stops paying the protection money.
Government: The government's opinion of Chiquita would be negatively affected if the
company chooses to stop paying the protection money (Kawuri et al., 2020). The government
would likely view Chiquita as a company that does not...


Anonymous
Really great stuff, couldn't ask for more.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags