I was very surprised when searching for an article to come across this one, that deals with such an odd but familiar company, Chiquita. BBC News reports a United States Judge has required the company to pay a 25 million dollar fine for have given $1.7 million to the United Self Defense Forces of Columbia (AUC) in March. (The EU and US list the AUC as a terrorist organization) Prosecutors claim Chiquita also made payments to the Revolutionary Armend Forces of Columbia (Farc). Both paramilitary groups have been involved in conflicts resulting in the deaths of thousands of Columbians.
Research: When Chiquita pleaded guilty to giving protection money to the AUC in March they said their motive was for the safety of its Columbiam workers. They later agreed to pay the $25 million to resolve an inquiry by the United States Justice department. Research in the case shows that both the AUC and Farc are organizations that have been involved in violent conflicts for the past forty years.
Planning: I was unable to locate crucial information about the PR tactics and practices used by Chiquita, which has its headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio. However the company agreed to pay the $25 million fine as a settlement with the department of justice.
Communication: After Chiquita had leagally dealt with the department of justice they sold the Columbian sector of the American based business. From a Public Relations point of view this was the right move. I also think that rather then try to excuse their payments as safety measures for Columbian workers they should have just agreed to pay the fine.
Evaluation: The article only went into so much detail about the communication tactics used in dealing with their problem but I can imagine that with the Columbian part of the business gone that operations at Chiquita are going smoothly. I think we can also assume that the money paid to the AUC was not worth the $25 million fine they are now faced with.
Tthis story is a good example of a situation that could be a potential Public Relations nightmare. Chiquita was lucky to get out of this one unscathed. I don't know of any other companies to thrive after being linked with terrorist organizations, especially American based companies given our involvement in the War on Terror.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Kim,
This is an excellent choice of public relations cases, very interesting and relevant to our course. Chiquita, as a transnational organization, faces many public relations and legal challenges when dealing with publics (including governments) abroad and at home – including publics (like terrorist organizations) that don’t share the same values!
You raise some important issues about Chiquita’s payment of money to organizations on the U.S. terror list. However, can Chiquita do business in areas that are dominated by these organizations without protection? This is an interesting ethical dilemma … one that public relations managers inside and outside of Chiquita have to consider carefully.
For instance, was Chiquita’s decision to pay “protection” money a public relations issue, a business issue, a legal issue, or another kind of issue? I would suggest that it was, initially, not a public relations issue; however, once Chiquita decided to break U.S. law then it became a public relations (and legal) issue. Where were the public relations counselors and lawyers when Chiquita’s senior leadership made this decision? Or, did the public relations and legal counselors provide advice that Chiquita rejected? Do you see how Chiquita could have saved a lot of money if they had listened to good public relations and legal advice? Again, remember the value of good public relations.
Finally, good work with your hotlinks – very helpful (even the Spanish language site!).
Well done,
Mark
Thanks for your comments. I agree that the absence of good public relations from the start of this case was a huge problem. Perhaps if Chiquita had taken advice earlier from its PR people they could have avoided alot of bad press. And, to state the obvious, save time and money. However, I also feel that when the issue arose it was alot more of an ethical and legal dilema. I think that if the idea of paying the protection money had been presented to anyone within the company besides the exectutive decision makers they would have been advised not to pay the money at all, since it was clearly an illegal operation.
Kim,
What an interesting case that you chose. It is shocking to find that an American based company financially supported a terrorist group.
I think that the company did the right thing by pleading guilty and paying the fine. This allowed for east and quick clean up of their mistakes. I agree with you that Chiquita is really lucky that this case did not escalate into a more public and media centered case.
Post a Comment