Copyright	
  2011.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  

	
  

Has	
  Chiquita	  Truly	
  Reformed	
  or	
  Are	  They	
  Just	  Green	
  Washing?	
  By	
  Bethany	
  Murphy	
  Gomez	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
Photo	
  from	  Chiquita	
  farms	
  is	
  courtesy	
  of	
  Professor	
  Richard	
  Feinberg	
  This	
   paper	
   was	   prepared	
   for	   the	   course	
   Corporate	   Social	
   Responsibility	
   taught	
   by	
  Professor	
  Peter	
  Gourevitch	
  in	
  the	
  winter	  quarter	
  2011	
  at	
  the	
  School	
  of	
  International	
  Relations	
   and	   Pacific	
   Studies	
   of	
   the	   University	
   of	
   California	
   San	
   Diego	
   (UCSD).	
   The	  papers	   have	
   not	   been	
   edited	
   after	
   having	
   been	
   submitted	
   to	
   the	   course.	
   They	   are	  posted	  here	  to	
  provided	
  others	
  with	  information	  and	
  ideas	
  about	
  CSR,	
  NGO's	
  and	  the	  private	  sector.	
  	
  
The	
  papers	
  are	  COPYWRITE	  	
  protected.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  	
  

	
  

2	
  
Copyright	
  2011.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  

	
  

Table of Contents

I.

Introduction and History.....................………………………………………………3

II.

Self Evaluation and Reporting ……………………………………………………….7

III.

Third Party Certifications ……………………………………………………………..8

IV.

Awards ………………………………………………………………………………...11V.

Stakeholder Relationships …………………………………………………………..12

VI.

Academic Evaluations ……………………………………………………………….15

VII.

Evaluations by Labor Rights Organizations ……………………….………………16

VIII.

Conclusions …………………………...………………………………………………17

IX.

Discussion Questions ………………………………...………………………...……20

X.

Bibliography ……………………………………………………….…………..………21

.

	
  

3	
  
Copyright	
  2011.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  

	
  

I. Introduction and History
Chiquita, formerly known as the United Fruit Company, has one of the most repulsive
histories of any corporation ever. Over the last hundred years, they have committed
almost every crime possible for a multinational corporation. However, over the past
twenty years their image has been transformed into that of a socially conscious andresponsible company that takes care of both its employees and the environment. Are
we to believe that Chiquita has truly reformed, or have they just developed a better
public relations strategy? This paper seeks answers by looking not only at Chiquita’s
self-reported information and the awards and recognition it has received, but also third
party certification, the analysis of academics and independent NGO’s, and labor rights
organizations.
Chiquita is one of the largest fruit companies in the world, with over 23,000
employees and operations in 80 countries around the world. In 2008, they had net
sales of over $3.6 billion and were the largest banana producer to Europe, the second
largest in the United States. In 2005, Chiquita acquired Fresh Express, a bagged saladcompany, which accounts for 36% of the company’s salesi. Bananas account for 57%
of the company’s sales, with other produce making up the other 7% of its sales. The
banana is dominated by three large companies (Chiquita, Dole and Del Monte) and has
been for decades. Chiquita also produces avocados, pineapples, mangos and ahandful of other fruits.

	
  

4	
  
Copyright	
  2011.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  

	
  

The banana industry is oligopolistic: the top 3 companies command 67% of world
market, the top 5 control 84%. In 2007, Chiquita alone commanded 25% of the banana
industry; slightly behind fierce competitor Dole with 26% (Del Monte holds 16%)ii. As
bananas are perfect substitutes for one another, banana producers must compete
based on reputation and marketing alone. It is little wonder then why Chiquita has
focused so much attention on its brand image.
The United Fruit Company was founded in 1899 when the Boston Fruit Company
and the railroad companies of Minor C. Keith merged. Until recently, Chiquita has
focused almost exclusively on bananas with farms almost exclusively in Latin America.
The United Fruit Company was known in Latin America for its harsh, even slave-like
conditions: it was run by American southerners and brought in many of the workers fromthe West Indies, as they were English-speaking, black and considered more subservient
than the local populations. The entire lives of the United Fruit Workers revolved aroundthe company, as most of the workers lived on United Fruit compounds in company
provided houses and their children were sent to company administered schools. The
United Fruit Company was referred to as “El Pulpo” (Spanish for the octopus) because
they were involved in all aspects of the workers lives and even had influence andcontrol over the local and national governments in the countries where they had farms.
They owned approximately 1/3 of the land in Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Costa
Rica, Colombia and Ecuador even though only about 2% of the land was actually used
for banana cultivation.
El Pulpo certainly did use this power to its advantage. In 1928, thousands ofUnited Fruit farm workers were protesting working conditions in Cienaga, Colombia
	
  

5	
  
Copyright	
  2011.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  

	
  

when they were fired upon by the Colombian military. There are differing estimates ofthe death toll – ranging from the United Fruit Company’s estimate of thirteen to several
thousand, the estimate given by Nobel Prize winning author Gabriel García Márquez in
his novel One Hundred Years of Solitude, though there are confirmations that thisestimate was inflated in order to dramatize the events for the book.
The most flagrant abuses of power came in the 1950’s in Guatemala. When
President Juan José Arévalo came to power in 1945, he began pushing for labor reformand ending his support for the farm owners, including United Fruit. After wide spread
strikes on United Fruit farms, the United Fruit Company involved the FBI accusing
Arévalo of being a communist. He was forced to hand over power to General Jacabo
Guzman Arbenz in 1951. However, General Arbenz proved to also be difficult for
United Fruit Company, as he insisted on continuing and expanding Arévalo’s land
reforms, including the expropriation of 200,000 of United Fruit land in 1953. The
following year, the CIA launched a coup d’état removing General Arbenz from power:
the coup was “waged for and abetted by United Fruit.iii” After this point, it was clear that
United Fruit had gone too far, and several years later was penalized by the Departmentof Justice, though the power hungry image of United Fruit remained.
In addition to these completely egregious violations, United Fruit/Chiquita has
been accused of a variety of horrendous crimes including, but not limited to, polluting
the environment, the smuggling of drugs on its shipsiv, the bribing of government
officialsv and the use of paramilitary organizations to intimidate union organizersvi.
More recently, Chiquita officials have pled guilty to making payments to paramilitaryorganizations in Colombia, including the FARC, ELN and AUCvii and have been
	
  

6	
  
Copyright	
  2011.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  

	
  

accused of using child labor and unsafe working conditions on their independent
supplier farms in Ecuadorviii.
It is then no wonder that Chiquita wanted to rework its image. While it isextremely difficult to isolate the effects its brand image on sales as Chiquita’s sales
have been very volatile over the past twenty years in response to trade restrictions fromthe European Union, failed attempts to enter the Eastern European market in a big way
and natural disasters. However, Chiquita slipped from being the largest banana
producer in the United States to being the second largest (behind Dole) and obviously isseeking to regain market share. It appears that early in the 1990’s Chiquita realizedthat by dedicating itself becoming an environmentally friendly company it would bothgive itself a better brand image and save money in the long run through waste reduction
and recycling initiatives. As the banana industry has few large companies and aperfectly substitutable product, the only way to differentiate itself is based on brandperception.
It is useful to compare Chiquita’s behavior with that of Nike, another multinational
corporation who had received bad publicity for its poor labor standards. Nike had
immediately felt the effects of this poor brand image in the form of customer boycotts
and, after several botched attempts to regain this credibility, it turned to third party
auditors of labor standards. While many remembered Chiquita’s sullied history,
Chiquita customers never boycotted its goods nor is there evidence that this brandimage problem caused sales to drop. It appears that Chiquita’s policy shifts were seen
to be preventing such a backlash as Nike experienced and being proactive about
forming a positive brand image.
	
  

7	
  
Copyright	
  2011.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  

	
  

II. Self Evaluation and Reporting
Fast forward fifty five years from the coup d’état in Guatemala and Chiquita looks
on the surface like a completely different company. Chiquita has a CSR webpage thatdetails their “core values” of integrity, respect, opportunity and responsibility, and theircommitment to “ethics and integrity” through their Code of Conduct. It puts out
biannual CSR reports detailing the company’s progress towards environmental
sustainability, fair labor rights for workers, food safety and philanthropic projects. But
how can we tell what is really going on in Chiquita’s farms? Why should we trust thatwhat was once one of the most untrustworthy corporations on the planet is now being
honest about their practices?
One thing worth noting about Chiquita’s 2007/2008 CSR Report is that they
discuss their lawsuit with the United States Department of Justice. Chiquita voluntarily
disclosed that it had been making payments for six years to paramilitary organizations in
Colombia. In the report, it claims that the payments were made in order to keep its
employees safe from violent attacks and that the decision to make the payments cameafter a massacre of 28 Chiquita employees in 1995 and the assassination of two other
employees in 1998 . The report claims that had it stopped making the payments, itwould have complied with the law but its workers lives were in jeopardy, and that it
disclosed these payments to the United States Department of Justice in a transparent
way.

	
  

8	
  
Copyright	
  2011.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  

	
  

For starters, we can look at the certifications it mentions in the Corporate
Responsibility Report 2007/2008 (the 2009/2010 edition is not yet posted on thecompany’s website). They claim that all of their owned farms are Rainforest Alliancecertified, that they have “chosen to apply a slightly modified version of the requirementsof Social Accountability 8000 (SA8000), a standard developed by Social Accountability
International (SAI), to certain areas of its operations” and that all of its owned farms in
Latin America are certified by Global G.A.P. for food safety. Who are theseorganizations, what are the standards and why should we trust that they are credible?

III. Third Party Certifications
We can start with the Rainforest Alliance. The Rainforest Alliance is a non-profit
organization that works to “works to conserve biodiversity and ensure sustainable
livelihoods by transforming land-use practices, business practices and consumer
behavior.ix” By working with scientists, business leaders, and non-profit organizations,they have developed a series of standards for a variety of different fields, including
tourism, sustainable agriculture and logging. The Rainforest Alliance was started by
Daniel Katz in 1987 after a workshop and conference on the crisis of rainforest
destruction in New York City. Its board members are a wide array of individuals ranging
from actors, environmentalists, businessmen and leaders of non-governmentalorganizations. It started its first certification program “SmartWood” in 1989 anddeveloped the Better Banana Project standards in conjunction with the Sustainable
Agriculture Network in 1991. The Rainforest Alliance has received a four star seal of

	
  

9	
  
Copyright	
  2011.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  

	
  

approval from Charity Navigator, as well as seals from the Better Business Bureau andAmerican Institute of Philanthropy.
However, for several reasons Rainforest Alliance is not entirely credible. First ofall, it charges inspection fees from its clients in order to cover the time and travel costsof the inspectors. Secondly, it accepts corporate donations, which in addition to
government and foundation donations, amount to 46% of its budget (some accounts put
the level of corporate donations as high as 36% though I was unable to verify thatfigure), and many of the donor corporations are Rainforest Alliance clients. Additionally,
several board members work for client corporations, which is a clear conflict of interestx.
When comparing Rainforest Alliance certification to that of Fairtrade or othercertifications, the Rainforest Alliance is generally indicated to be the weakest
certification standard. While the Rainforest Alliance may still be a strong standard, andis certainly better than no standard at all, we must view this standard skeptically. The
Rainforest Alliance responds to such criticism by claiming that this is the cost of doing
business with the large corporations that are able to make the biggest difference inenvironmental practices and it would rather work with an company to improve its
conditions even if the process is not perfect than simply stand on the sidelines andcriticizexi.
In order to comply with the Rainforest Alliance standards, Chiquita needed toplant a million trees and bushes on its land that act as buffers between the farms andpublic roads and waterways, eliminated the use of the seven most deadly pesticides,
provide protective gear and showering facilities for its workers, and recycle thousands ofplastic bags and twine every year. Chiquita’s certified farms are visited at least once
	
  

10	
  
Copyright	
  2011.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  

	
  

per year by inspectors from Rainforest Alliance’s partner organization (Sustainable
Agriculture Network) though there is little evidence that any surprise visits have been
conductedxii. While a handful of farms have had their certification suspended or
removed at one point or another, “but the companies quickly corrected those problems
and the farms were subsequently recertified.xiii” By November of 2000, all 127 of
Chiquita’s wholly owned farms in Latin America and 307 of its independent suppliers are
Rainforest Alliance certifiedxiv. It’s 2007/2008 Corporate Report states that it is working
to increase the proportion of its independent suppliers that are certified and work
towards certifying suppliers of non-banana produce as well. By November 2000,
Chiquita had spent $20 million to meet these standardsxv.
As the Rainforest Alliance serves to certify the environmental sustainability of acompany, it does not carefully address the labor standards and working conditions on a
farm. For this reason, Chiquita chose to implement the SA8000 labor standard (anauditable standard that certifies individual farms or factories, not the brands themselves)developed by Social Accountability International. While SAI does not do the certifying
itself, the actual audits are conducted by SAI certified organizations (Social
Accountability Accreditation Services), very few of which are actually NGOs. This is afairly new certification organization, which has also encountered several criticisms of its
independence. Some complaints include the lack of independence between SAI and
the SAAS, the length of the audits (one day once every three years with limited
monitoring), lack of surprise visits, and little detail on the criteria for “freedom of
association and the right to collective bargaining.xvi” Similar to our analysis ofRainforest Alliance, we can conclude that the SA8000 certification is better than

	
  

11	
  
Copyright	
  2011.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  

	
  

nothing, but not trustworthy enough to remove all doubts of Chiquita’s unethicalpractices. Chiquita’s CR 2007/2008 indicates that while 100% of owned farms in Latin
America were SA8000 certified, by 2008 only 42% of Chiquita’s total banana volume
came from SA8000 certified farms.
The third certification that Chiquita highlights in its CR Report is that of Global
G.A.P. Global G.A.P. is a German NGO that certifies “good agricultural practices andfood safety”. Unlike the SA8000, Global G.A.P. conducts unannounced visits to farms,
indicating that its results may be more reliable than other organizations. Thiscertification is required for all products entering European markets, and all Chiquita
wholly owned farms and all Chiquita products entering Europe come from farms thathave been certified by Global G.A.Pxvii. However, the Global G.A.P. certification means
only that the food is safe to eat and of good quality, not that it was made underenvironmentally sustainable or ethical labor conditions.
IV. Awards
In addition to its third party certifications, Chiquita has received the following
awards and recognitions over the years:•

Distribution Business Management Association (DBMA) Circle of ExcellenceAward 2009

	
  

•

Rainforest Alliance’s Sustainable Standard-Setter Award•

Wal-Mart’s Environmental Supplier of the Year Award•

Green Award from US Plastic Lumber Ltd

12	
  Copyright	
  2011.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  

	
  

•

ACCA Award for Sustainable Reporting•

Article 13 CSR Best Practice•Contributions to the Community Award (US-Costa Rican Chamber of Commerce)

However, none of these awards have stringent criteria attached to them, and most ofthese organizations selected Chiquita due to their certifications by Rainforest Allianceand the SA8000, their Corporate Responsibility Reports or philanthropy projects. Whileawards never hurt an organization’s reliability, if they are based on loose criteria or
criteria we have already examined, they do little to convince us of the organization’s
credibility.
V. Stakeholder Relationships
Another way we can evaluate Chiquita’s credibility as a socially responsible
corporation is based on its relationships with stakeholders. Its 2007/2008 CR Reporthighlights the following relationships:

	
  

•

2001 IUF/COLSIBA Agreement•

2002 BSR Board•

2002 Ethical Trading Initiative•

2003 SAI Advisory Board•

2004 Nogal Project with Migros & GTZ•

2005 KLD Domini 400 Social Index•

2005 Meso-American Reef Project with WWF•

2008 Biodiversity Project in Panama

13	  Copyright	
  2011.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  

	
  

Its 2001 labor agreement with the International Union of Foodworkers andCoordinadora Latinoamericana de Sindicatos Bananeros (Organization of
Latinamerican Banana Unions) was a very significant agreement signaling a shift inpolicy that allows Chiquita workers to safely unionize. Chiquita now has far moreunionized banana workers than any other transnational, and therefore Chiquita
employees receive better wages and benefits than their competitorsxviii. This agreement
was widely applauded by labor unions and labor union promoting NGOs worldwide,
including those who had been highly critical of Chiquita during the 1980’s and 1990’s.
In 2002, Chiquita formalized its arrangement with Business for Social
Responsibility, a San Francisco based non-profit organization that allows its members
to share best practices, access its research and potentially take advantage of its CSR
consulting services. From BSR, Chiquita learned how to engage with outside
stakeholders and what some of the best practices were from peer organizations – thisinformation was used to help rework the company’s Code of Conduct into somethingthat was consistent with a socially responsible businessxix. Chiquita’s relationship with
BSR is unique from its relationship with Rainforest Alliance, SAI and Global G.A.P. as
BSR does not claim to be a third party organization, nor is it a membership thatcompany’s can point to in an attempt to prove their credibility. Companies seek out
BSR’s services when they actually want to improve their company’s sustainability andlearn how they can be more efficient in the future.
Also in 2002, Chiquita joined the Ethical Trading Initiative, a UK-based “allianceof companies, trade unions and voluntary organizations” that works “in partnership toimprove the working lives of people across the globe who make or grow consumer
	
  

14	
  
Copyright	
  2011.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  

	
  

goods - everything from tea to T-shirts, from flowers to footballs.xx” While thisrelationship may have increased Chiquita’s credibility and partnership with its workers,
this relationship was dissolved in 2010, though its dissolution has not yet been updated
on Chiquita’s website. According to a representative from ETI “They (Chiquita) lost theirbusiness with UK supermarkets so pulled out of ETI to focus on other vehicles for their
CSR work. Regrettable (from our point of view), but understandable; it was an amicablesplit. We still talk to Chiquita and would welcome them back if the occasion arose.xxi”
The Nogal Project, Meso-American Reef Project and Biodiversity Project
demonstrate Chiquita’s dedication to engaging in philanthropic environmentally focused
projects. These projects are conducted in areas where Chiquita has operations, though
the projects are not directly related to Chiquita’s operations, and partner with reputableorganizations such as the World Wildlife Fund and producers such as Swisssupermarket chain Migros. While Chiquita receives bonus points for engaging in such
philanthropic activities, and this does demonstrate a commitment to the environment, it
does little to convince us of its equitable labor practices.
In 2004, Chiquita became a member of KLD Domini 400 Social Index – aninvestment firm that specializes “exclusively in socially responsible investing.xxii” In order
to become a member of this organization a firm must exhibit the following
characteristics:

	
  

•

Contribute to the local communities in which they are located•Produce high-quality, safe, and useful products•

Enrich the ecosystems on which they depend•

Invest in the health and development of their employees

15	
  Copyright	
  2011.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  

	
  
•

Treat their investors and lenders openly and transparently•

Strengthen the capabilities of their suppliers

While these criteria are admirable and in line with socially responsible corporation, they
are all mission based and do not have specific identifiable or auditable characteristics tojudge firms based on. Therefore, while this membership again does not harm Chiquita’s
credibility, cannot boost it considerably.

VI. Academic Evaluations
In addition to its stakeholder relationship and partnerships with certifying NGO’s,
Chiquita has been analyzed and evaluated in academic literature. The book Smart
Alliancexxiii details both the history of Chiquita and the United Fruit Company and therelationship between Chiquita and the Rainforest Alliance and its analysis indicates that
Chiquita has truly reformed from the inside out and is legitimately working to improve its
environmental sustainability though “most of Chiquita’s commitments to workers’ rights
must still be demonstrated”. However, it must be noted that one of the authors of thisbook is a former member of the Board of Directors for Rainforest Alliance, and therefore
the analysis in this book may be biased.
Another independent analysis was done by Dr. Marina Prieto-Cárron of the
University of Bristol in her paper “Corporate Social Responsibility in Latin America:
Chiquita, Women Banana Workers and Structural Inequalitiesxxiv ”. From her analysis“Chiquita is one of the most progressive companies on paper and in practice, Chiquita
seems to be trying”. Most of Dr. Prieto-Cárron’s complaints are a result of the hidden

	
  

16	
  
Copyright	
  2011.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  

	
  

structural gender inequalities in the banana industry, which would be difficult for
Chiquita to address through certification standards and are embedded in the local
culture where its farms are located. Additionally, IR/PS professor Richard Feinberg
visited a Chiquita owned farm Guayacan in Costa Rica in 2008 where he informallyinterviewed several banana workers. All workers appeared to be wearing protective
gear, complying with safety standards and the farm seemed to be compliant withenvironmental safety standards. However, the workers indicated to Dr. Feinberg thatmanagement did not encourage unionization and that union organizers werediscriminated against, passed up for promotions or could be in jeopardy of losing theirjobsxxv.

VII.

Evaluations by Labor Rights Organizations
International labor rights organizations are another place to look to get an

independent view of Chiquita’s labor rights policies. USLEAP (US Labor Education in
the Americas Project) had been one of Chiquita’s biggest critics in the 1980’s and1990’s but commended Chiquita for signing the 2001 labor rights agreement with
IUF/COLSIBA and believes that Chiquita has the highest quantity of workers with fair
pay and benefits of any company in the industry. That being said, its website also
highlights several incidents in which Chiquita violated this agreement once in 2006 in
Honduras and again in Costa Rica in 2007xxvi . Additionally, they are currently
considering a new campaign geared towards North American and European consumers
shaming Chiquita for violating labor agreements by firing union workers and blocking

	
  

17	
  
Copyright	
  2011.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  

	
  

organization efforts in Guatemala and Ecuador, though IUF and COLSIBA still “consider
Dole to be enemy number onexxvii”.
Peuples Solidaires, a French labor rights NGO, claims that paramilitary groups havebeen used torture, threaten, intimidate and potentially kill union members on strike at
the Olga Maria plantation of one of Chiquita’s producers in Guatemala, Frutera
Internacional. While the supposed incidents occurred on a farm that was not owned by
Chiquita, Chiquita turned a deaf ear to the claims and concerns of Peuples Solidaires
when they failed to respond to the organizations mailing campaignxxviii.

VIII.

Conclusions

While this analysis yields inconsistent conclusions, we can deduce something of
the truth about Chiquita’s current corporate social responsibility policies. Given
Chiquita’s sullied past, it is easy to understand how it may be in the best interest of theorganization to hone its image as that of a socially responsible company. While
Rainforest Alliance may not be the most independent, stringent or reliable standard in
the world, no one will claim that Chiquita has not made significant strides towards
environmental sustainability in order to comply with these standards.
On the labor side, we can draw much less clear conclusions. Chiquita has madesome clear progress acknowledged by all parties in signing significant labor agreements
and tolerating a large number of unions on its farms. There appears to be real
improvements in the working conditions of Chiquita employees, particularly thoseworking on Chiquita owned farms. There seem to have been a variety of violations of
	
  

18	
  
Copyright	
  2011.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  

	
  

these working conditions over the past ten years throughout Latin America (Ecuador in
2002, Honduras in 2006 and Costa Rica and Guatemala in 2007) mostly on farms that
Chiquita buys from but does not own. Chiquita’s focus on workers’ rights has been
more recent (Chiquita began its partnership with the Rainforest Alliance in 1992 but only
signed its first major labor agreement in 2001), so we may see incidence of this typedecreasing in the future.
One reason for Chiquita’s success in environmental protection and inadequate
progress towards fair labor standards is that fair labor conditions are far more difficult tomonitor than environmental conditions: if one needs to plant trees as buffers in order tocomply with RA’s standards, the trees will be there no matter when the farm is certified;managers can treat workers a certain way while inspectors are present and then turnaround and change their practices as soon as the certifier leaves. This would indicatethat while Chiquita is trying to have better labor conditions, in practice it is difficult to
enforce. While this is no excuse for tolerating horrific working conditions or egregious
violations of labor rights agreements, it is understandable that Chiquita may need somemore time to ensure consistent and enforced labor standards at all of its farms,
particularly from its independent producers. Another theory for the difference in policy
success is that while being more environmentally sustainable actually saves thecompany money in the long run, labor rights is a much more zero sum game and it
would be hard to imagine a scenario where having strong unions would be better for
Chiquita’s profits in the long run. I would agree with Dr. Prieto-Cárron – Chiquita
appears to be trying. It may not yet have the perfect conditions that it portrays in its
Corporate Responsibility Reports and CSR website and has a long way to go to

	
  

19	
  
Copyright	
  2011.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  

	
  

improve working conditions for its laborers, but at least everyone can agree that it is nolonger the evil corporation massacred its protestors or overthrew governments.
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
i

	
  Chiquita	
  CR	
  Report	
  2007/2008	
  	
  UNCTAD	  http://www.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/banana/companies.htm	
  iii
	  Smart	  Alliance	
  Chapter	
  4	
  
iv
	
  Cincinnati	
  Enquirer	
  Article	
  v
	  1975	
  Bananagate	
  vi	  Peuples	
  Solidaires	  vii
	  Chiquita	
  CR	
  Report	
  2007/2008	
  
viii
	
  Human	
  Rights	
  Watch	  “Tainted	
  Harvest:	
  Child	
  Labor	
  and	  Obstacles	
  to	
  Organizing	
  on	
  Ecuador’s	  Banana	
  Plantations”	
  2002	
  ix
	
  Rainforest	
  Alliance	
  website	
  http://rainforest-­‐alliance.org/about	  x	
  IR/PS	  Paper	
  Rainforest	
  Alliance	  xi	
  Smart	  Alliance	
  xii
	  Idib	  xiii
	  Rainforest	
  Alliance	
  website	
  http://rainforest-­‐alliance.org/agriculture/crops/fruits/bananas	  xiv	
  Bananalink	
  http://www.bananalink.org.uk/content/view/112/64/lang,en/	  xv	
  Idib	  xvi	
  IR/PS	
  SA8000	
  paper	  xvii
	  Chiquita	
  CR	
  Report	
  2007/2008	
  
xviii
	
  USLEAP	  http://usleap.org/usleap-­‐initiatives/-­‐banana-­‐worker-­‐justice-­‐initiative/more-­‐information-­‐banana-­‐workers/top-­‐banana-­‐com-­‐1	
  xix	
  Smart	  Alliance	
  Chapter	
  10	
  
xx
	
  ETI	
  website	
  http://www.ethicaltrade.org/	
  xxi
	
  Email	
  ETI	  Membership	
  Services	
  Representative	
  Martin	
  Cooke	
  February	
  28,	  2011	
  xxii
	
  Domini	  Social	
  Investments	
  website	
  http://www.domini.com/about-­‐domini/index.htm	
  
xxiii
	
  Smart	  Alliance	
  	
  
xxiv
	
  Corporate	  Social	
  Responsibility	
  in	
  Latin	
  America:	
  Chiquita,	
  Banana	
  Workers	
  xxv
	  Interview	
  with	  Professor	
  Richard	
  Feinberg,	
  Tuesday	
  March	
  1,	
  2011	
  xxvi
	
  USLEAP	  http://usleap.org/usleap-­‐initiatives/-­‐banana-­‐worker-­‐justice-­‐initiative/more-­‐information-­‐banana-­‐workers/top-­‐banana-­‐com-­‐1	
  
xxvii
	
  USLEAP	  March	  2011	
  Newsletter	
  “New	
  Chiquita	  Campaign”	
  xxviii	
  Peuples	
  Solidaires	
  “Appels	
  Urgents:	
  315	
  Guatemala:	
  Mettre	
  fin	  à	
  l’impunité”	
  http://www.peuples-­‐solidaires.org/315-­‐guatemala-­‐mettre-­‐fin-­‐a-­‐limpunite/	
  
	
  
	
  
ii

	
  

20	
  
Copyright	
  2011.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  

	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

Discussion Questions
1. As a consumer, how does the knowledge of Chiquita’s CSR policies affect yourdecision on which brand of banana to purchase? Do you have brand loyalty toyour bananas? Would knowledge of Chiquita’s historical misdeeds cause you to
avoid buying Chiquita’s product if they had no CSR program?
2. This paper addresses many different opinions on Chiquita’s policies. Which do
you find the most compelling? Which do you believe to be the most independentand accurate? Why?
3. If you were in charge of Chiquita’s CSR policies, what would you do differently?
What would you focus on and how would you silence critics of your company?

	
  

21	
  
Copyright	
  2011.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  

	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

Bibliography
Bananalink website “Environmental And Social Certification”
http://www.bananalink.org.uk/content/view/112/64/lang,en/Chiquita 2007/2008 Corporate Responsibility Report
Cummings, Shannon “The SA8000 Standard” IR/PS 2008
Domini Social Investments website http://www.domini.com/about-domini/index.htm
Ethical Trading Initiative website http://www.ethicaltrade.org/
Email Ethical Trading Initiative Membership Services Representative Martin Cooke
February 28, 2011
Interview with Professor Richard Feinberg, Tuesday March 1, 2011
Gallagher, Michael and Cameron McWhirter “Chiquita Secrets Revealed” Cincinnati
Enquirer May 3, 1998
Human Rights Watch “Tainted Harvest: Child Labor and Obstacles to Organizing on
Ecuador’s Banana Plantations” 2002
Peuples Solidaires “Appels Urgents: 315 Guatemala: Mettre fin à l’impunité”
http://www.peuples-solidaires.org/315-guatemala-mettre-fin-a-limpunite/
Prieto-Carrón, Marina “Corporate Social Responsibility in Latin America: Chiquita,
Banana Workers” University of Bristol, UK 2004
Rainforest Alliance website http://rainforest-alliance.org
Taylor, J. Gary and Patricia J. Scharlin Smart Alliance: How a Global Corporation andEnvironmental Activists Transformed a Tarnished Brand (Chiquita Banana). Yale
University Press Agrarian Studies Series 2004
US Labor in the Americas Project “Chiquita” http://usleap.org/usleap-initiatives/banana-worker-justice-initiative/more-information-banana-workers/top-banana-com-1
US Labor in the Americas Project Newsletter March 2011 “New Chiquita Campaign?”

	
  

22	
  
Copyright	
  2011.	
  No	
  quotation	
  or	
  citation	
  without	
  attribution.	
  

	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

US Labor in the Americas Project Newsletter March 2006 “Shifting Sands in the Banana
Sector”
Ventura, Feliz “Examining the Rainforest Alliance’s Agricultural Certification
Robustness” IR/PS 2007