Did anyone see 60 Minutes last night? They re-aired their piece, The Price of Bananas, about how Chiquita Brands paid $12 million in “protection” money over a period of seven years to the paramilitary group, the AUC, in Colombia. The AUC were responsible for thousands of civilian deaths in the region where Chiquita was running its plantations and now family members of the victims are suing Chiquita.
I wrote about this before, but last night 60 Minutes added new information from their original interview with Fernando Aguirre, current CEO of Chiquita Brands, that I think deserves to be mentioned.
Why am I so disturbed by this case and this interview?
Just read the following excerpt from the interview and see for yourself. (You can also see the 60 Minute segment here or read the text here.)
“This company has blood on its hands,” says attorney Terry Collingsworth, who has filed one of five lawsuits that have been brought against Chiquita, seeking money for the families of Colombians killed by the paramilitaries.
Collingsworth says the money Chiquita paid for seven years may have kept its employees safe, but it also helped buy weapons and ammunition that were killing other people.
“Are you saying that Chiquita was complicit in these massacres that took place down there?” [60 Minutes Steve] Kroft asks.
“Absolutely. If you provide knowing substantial assistance to someone who then goes out and kills someone, or terrorizes, or tortures someone, you’re also guilty.” Colllingsworth says.
Asked if he believes that Chiquita knew this money was being used to go into the villages and massacre people, Collingsworth says, “If they didn’t, they would be the only ones in the whole country of Colombia who didn’t think that.”
“You’re not saying that Chiquita wanted these people to be killed?” Kroft asks.
“No, they were indifferent to it,” Collingsworth says. “… they were willing to accept that those people would be dead, in order to keep their banana operation running profitably, and making all the money that they did in Colombia.”
Collingsworth says he thinks the company should have just picked up and left.
“It’s easy for a lawyer to give that type of advice, after the fact,” Aguirre argues. “When you have more than 3,500 workers, their lives depend on you. When you’ve been making payments to save their lives, you just can’t pick up and go.”
“What did the company think this money was gonna be used for?” Kroft asks.
“Well, clearly to save lives,” Aguirre says.
“The lives of your employees?” Kroft asks.
“Absolutely,”Aguirre says.
“It was also being used to kill other people,” Kroft says.
“Well, these groups were funded with hundreds of millions of dollars. They had the guns.” Aguirre says. “They had the bullets. So I don’t know who in their right mind would say, ‘Well, if Chiquita would have stopped, these killers would have stopped.’ I just don’t see that happening.”
“Do you feel that the company has any responsibility to compensate the victims of the paramilitaries in Colombia?” Kroft asks.
“The responsibility of any murders are the responsibility of the people that made the killings, of the people who pulled the trigger,” Aguirre says.
I find these last few exchanges particularly disturbing. Aguirre’s reasoning is that there was already so much money going to fund the paramilitaries, that even if Chiquita determined that paying paramilitary groups (“terrorists” according to the U.S. government) was unethical, immoral, or illegal and closed down shop, it wouldn’t have made any difference. Therefore, why not keep doing so? Why take a stand if it won’t change the “bigger picture”? Is this the kind of corporate philosophy that you feel good about? What about his next comment when asked if he felt that Chiquita has any responsibility to compensate the victims and Aguirre responds that, “the responsibility of any murders are the responsibility of the people that made the killings, of the people who pulled the trigger?” How’s that for corporate social responsibility?
I know that these situations are complex and as Aguirre points out, it’s easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, but please tell me how this interview sits with you? How good can you feel about supporting this company? What kinds of statements would make you feel better? Better yet, what kind of actions would you want the companies you support – through your purchases – to be taking in the world?
I don’t think this is naïve. I think each one of us, individually, can draw our own lines and decide which companies, which retailers, perhaps even which farmers we would like to support through our purchases. Collectively, we can also demand that all parties in the supply chain be held accountable to produce our food in the most environmentally and socially sustainable manner possible, upholding values we believe in with integrity and transparency. It just means we need the information and we need to care enough to educate ourselves and each other. We then need to use our collective power to demand changes in corporate behavior, and in governmental policies which allow for and reward it. Finally, we need alternatives and we need to support those companies, stores, co-operatives, and local farmers who are walking the walk – actively working to create an alternative food system and an alternative economy.
I can’t say I’m surprised by Chiquita and Dole but I guess I am more disappointed that these actions haven’t received a bigger public outcry.
Thank you to 60 Minutes for continuing to make this story public.
Small Farmers. Big Change. 
From the people who brought you thirty years of civil war in Guatemala…
Check out Chiquita on Wikipedia; much to be ashamed of.
One thing that the 60 Minutes piece did not focus on was the historical background of the situation in Colombia. The producers seem to assume that the viewer knows this already. What is the history of Chiquita Bannana in Colombia? How has it played into the formation of the social/political framework of the country?
The 60 Mintues piece also points to the Marxist uprising of the FARC as seemingly coming out of no where and as being the origen of the conflict. Why was there a revolution? What were their demands? What was their motivation?
We don’t have to champion the FARC but it’s important to look at the root causes of the problems. These questions could easily fill volumes of books (and they have) but 60 Minutes could at least have spent 30-40 seconds of their piece providing more background in order for the viewer to be better informed. In the end, they end up leaving an incomplete picture of the scenario. I’ll dare say it’s even misleading, intentionally or not.
As Rep. Delehunt points out in the piece, there are many corporations that are paying paramilitary groups in Colombia. Chiquita now has the advantage of being able to say, “hey, at least we came clean”. Chiquita makes a compelling case that they were only trying to protect their own workers. But this is misleading. Did the paramilitaries ever kill any of the workers at Chiquita? If so, why?
The right thing for Chiquita to do would have been to engage in some sort of corporate civil disobedience and directly address the human rights abuses. Human Rights comes before business.
Maybe the bannana plantations in Colombia should be run by Colombians. Maybe people in the US should eat more apples.
Hey Brian,
Thanks for pointing out some of the background information that you wish 60 Minutes had provided its viewers. While it is true, that there was much more they could say, about Colombia and about Chiquita’s history (as Keith so succinctly points out above), personally, I commend them for airing this story. Not once, as they did last year, but for keeping it alive, and airing it again as they did this week.
Who else is talking about Chiquita and Dole? Why isn’t anyone suggesting boycotts? The justifications and excuses that Aguirre makes in the interview are outrageous – and offensive – to me. History has been through this over and over again; where is the public outcry in this country?
As for your last comment – maybe people in the US should eat more apples. Actually, I disagree. I have no problem with people in the US eating bananas (or drinking coffee, tea or chocolate for that matter.) I have a problem with corporations putting their profits above all other considerations and I have a problem that we’ve created economic systems which make it difficult to fully understand who is benefitting and who is losing. I have a problem that consumers don’t know or don’t care, or feel they have no choice, and so continue buying products from companies whose behavior we find unethical at best.
Ultimately, I’m trying to understand how to stay better informed myself, how to help educate others, and most importantly, how to build alternative supply chains and alternative ways of doing business.
Rather than not eat bananas, I’d ask folks to buy bananas from companies that are trying to behave in positive, ethical, environmentally responsible ways. Having just returned from a trip to Ecuador to visit the co-operative, El Guabo, where Equal Exchange is buying our organic, Fair Trade bananas…. well, I’d hope that folks will support us and buy these bananas and other products we can actually feel good about…..
Thank you for keeping a spotlight on this situation. The lack of awareness around corporate “morality” is, in my opinion, a big part of the reason business is able to continue “as usual” in spite of public disgust with this behavior.
Please keep the light shining.
Chiquita is not the only corporation that is up to no good in Colombia. Check out this website:
http://www.killercoke.org/
I’m really impressed by your website, and wanted to let you know about some books I’ve written for Rosen Publishing.
As a freelance writer, I was glad to receive a dream assignment last year from my editor at Rosen. They commissioned books from me for marketing to high school libraries across North America. The books were on green topics: Making Good Choices About Fair Trade, Making Good Choices About Nonrenewable Resources, Jobs in Sustainable Agriculture, and Biofuels.
Get this — I didn’t have to suggest these titles — a senior editor approached me about writing them! At a time when another educational publisher I know is facing the “recession” by cutting back titles and cancelling new series of books, Rosen instead is concentrating on making their new titles more topical and timely.
You can learn more about them at http://www.rosenpublishing.com
JPMorgan and Goldman bonuses and risk-taking (i.e., ignoring the society’s criticism regarding the financial crisis) may be a counterexample to the importance of CSR in business. I just posted on this example, in case you are interested.
Nice post!