Last Updated Apr 8, 2008 2:11 PM EDT
Now, a new lawsuit argues that Chiquita is complicit in the deaths of five American missionaries killed by the paramilitary groups, because that "protection money" was used to buy weapons (the lawsuit was filed by the victims' families).
As Mitchell wrote, it's not hard to conjure up some sympathy for Chiquita if it was, in fact, simply trying to protect its employees. At the same time, the company always had the option of pulling out of Colombia. They would lose business, but wouldn't lose, as Mitchell put it, most of their moral capital.[poll id=35]Think Mitchell was right? Should Chiquita have pulled out of Colombia and saved its ethical backbone? Or is this the sad reality of doing business in unstable countries? Tell us in the comments section.
Have a workplace-ethics dilemma you'd like to see in this poll? Email wherestheline (at) gmail.com
(Editors Note: In the original post "Colombia" was spelled "Columbia." We regret the error.)