Based on the following article: here
The issue for Chiquita is to not have gotten much recognition for their ethical behavior. Even though they have worked hard on creating more environmentally friendly production processes, instead of being rewarded, they now face boycotting threats and lawsuits. Leading to great losses, difficult to prevent in the short-run. This, understandably demotivates competitors in the same industry to follow Chiquita‘s footsteps in becoming a more ethical multinational corporation. Consequentially this would lead the industry as a whole to slow or no changes to become more sustainable, threatening the environment.
Furthermore Chiquita‘s decisions have also had an effect on the living conditions of Canadians dependent on the oil industry, decreasing their quality of life as they now earn less income. In this case Chiquita has managed to please environmentalists keen on blocking the Keystone XL pipeline, prioritizing the environment and future generations over the living conditions of current citizens.
Unlike other multinational corporations Chiquita‘s primary motivation to clear and improve their corporate image is due to their fairly immoral history. This may be an acceptable reason to take such drastic actions however, should it be their primary reason? Should the primary reasons not be the consequences on stakeholders and the well-being of the environment?
One comment