Chiquita Brand Case - Colombia/USA

The Chiquita project gave us a chance to work simultaneously with two colombian students based in Javeriana University in Cali, Colombia. We were combined into a virtual team tasked to analyse the stance, effects, and ethical dilemmas of the Chiquita corporation in Columbia in the mid 1990s. There were two primary objectives of this partnership. First was to get us accustomed with working in international groups. Secondly, was to become more aware of our own culture perspectives (ethnocentrism) and experience how business is conducted in other cultures (identifying norms and common practices). We were paired with Jorge and Maria of Javeriana University. We slowly got to know Jorge and Maria and learned about their family lives, hobbies, ambitions, and cultures through e- mail contact. We decided that email was the best way to transfer information as a group because of conflicting school schedules and work schedules. This worked relatively well for our group because we were able to cover the Chiquita case in great detail and we were able to lay out our thoughts and arguments in words that made it easier for our counterparts to translate if needed because our Colombian counterparts were doing this project in their second language-- english. We were immensely impressed with the fluency of our Colombian team members. They were extremely informed and connected to the issues that were occurring in Columbia and with what we were discussing-- which made it easier to talk about perspectives because they were able to explain in detail the occurrences that happen in columbia as well as the national feeling. We enjoyed working with Jorge and Maria and only regret not having the ability to skype.

Cultural Differences are the attributes that define the individualism of each nation. The people of these nations carry the distinct values that make each region so original in its customs. We were lucky enough to be in contact with students from Colombia. Citizens of Colombia differ from those of the United States in a variety of different ways. To begin, the native language spoken in Colombia is Spanish, however, all of our peers from the Colombian Group are near fluent in English. When we asked each member to tell us about themselves, there was one major similarity between all of the members. They all started by describing their family in great detail. Brothers and half-brothers alike, they slowly broke down their immediate family listing every member and the importance of their relation. Also, it was quite obvious to see that Colombians live in a certain hierarchical social structure -- but are collective as a people. Power is determined by age and position and respect is distributed accordingly. Unlike the United States, elders are looked towards when younger family members are seeking guidance. Hence, we researched the etiquette used in Colombian business as part of this assignment. Greetings between the two parties should take time, and allow each side to talk briefly about their families and health statuses. Eye contact is associated with positivity and is a key factor for gaining the opposing parties trust. Trust is the foundation that any good Colombian business transactions are constructed on. Strong relationships are formed around honesty and are essential to success of both parties. Colombians also rely heavily on body language to communicate. This puts more pressure on the opposing party to get a legitimate understanding of the interpretation. To conclude, Colombian culture is one of respect, integrity and values. They are raised with an understanding of what is truly important in life, and show a great deal of respect to their elders. From our encounters, the students appeared to be very humble and educated. As Mahatma Gandhi once stated, “A nation’s culture resides in the heart and in the soul of its people.”

We analyzed “The Chiquita Case” which is a historical description of the Banana one of the largest companies in the industry in South America-- specifically Columbia. The case illustrated the destructive and corrosive power that Chiquita had on Politics, labor rights, and natural resources in latin america. Chiquita was centered in the international spotlight when it was reportedly paying bribes to the AUC for “1 penny of every banana exported” in order to protect its workforce. According to the Anti- corruptions act of 1977, it is against international trade policy to bribe for prefered treatment in a country. However, as a team, we also evaluated the ethical stance of Chiquita as well as the legal liability. Chiquita was paying the AUC to protect its workforce from being killed, kidnapped, or intimidated. Hence it was doing it for the benefit and livelihood of its workers. It also presented an interesting question-- how would we react in the same situation that Chiquita was in? Would we pay the bribe? Would we leave Columbia and the profitable banana industry for our competitors? The options will be discussed further in this paper

Chiquita is being faced with social and political destabilization pressure from guerilla groups such as Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), the Ejército de Liberación Nacional (ELN), and most recently, the Movimiento 19 de Abril (M-19). Who battle for control of the area around chiquita’s essential banana fields and corporate headquarters. These guerilla groups have resorted to kidnapping, bribes and extortion of Chiquita employees. Chiquita’s executive group had just put a deal on the table—for every dollar’s worth of bananas Banadex exported, AUC would receive a penny. In return, AUC would offer protection for the employees of this Chiquita subsidiary, keeping them safe from the murder and violence that characterized this region. However the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) has mandated that “Funding a terrorist organization can never be treated as a cost of doing business.”

Chiquita and its executives have limited options regarding their situation with the pressure from the AUC. Chiquita is suffering from the risk of losing more employees to extortion or kidnapping, and to stop this the simple answer seems to pay AUC money to temporarily “buy” their safety, but who knows how long that will last until they demand more money. A global business like Chiquita can’t have that liability of extortion to deal with as they try and do legal ethical business with many countries or the reputation of funding a terrorist/ paramilitary group. Chiquita could potentially hire outside armed security to watch banana fields and secure the companies plants to ensure safety of employees as well as crops. This however may turn against them, seeing how the guerilla groups are also armed, this could create more tension and cause a small war within a company or city.

Another option is that Chiquita could simply raise

...