June 13, 2024
By Audrey Kemp

After the major banana distributor was ordered to pay $38.3m in damages for financing a right-wing paramilitary group in Colombia, human rights and branding experts discuss the case’s corporate implications and lessons.

After 17 years of litigation, Chiquita Brands International, the leading distributor of bananas in the US, was found liable on Monday for financing the United Self-defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a paramilitary and drug trafficking group that murdered civilians during the Colombian civil war, between 1997 and 2004.

The brand was also ordered to pay $38.3m to the families of eight different victims.

“The verdict sends a powerful message to corporations everywhere: profiting from human rights abuses will not go unpunished,” said Marco Simons, general counsel at EarthRights International, a nonprofit representing victims in the case, following the verdict.

While Chiquita did not immediately respond to The Drum’s request for comment, the brand said in a statement that “the situation in Colombia was tragic for so many ... However, that does not change [our] belief that there is no legal basis for these claims.”

Here, human rights experts and marketers analyze the events leading up to this historic verdict and the potential repercussions for the brand and its reputation.

A reputational reckoning

Consumers know Chiquita as one of two preeminent banana brands in grocery stores, along with Dole.

The brand is also known for its iconic jingle, sung by Carmen Miranda, the mascot who graces its blue stickers.

Witnessing such a ubiquitous brand violate human rights laws has rattled some in the advertising and branding space. “I was shocked and deeply concerned,“ says Brian Town, founder and chief executive of branding agency Michigan Creative. “This is a brand we all recognize, the same one that had those iconic commercials with Carmen Miranda. To learn that they were involved in such serious human rights abuses is unsettling.”

On its website, Chiquita bills itself as a champion of various social causes, from “implementing the principles of sustainability in all its business practices” to raising breast cancer awareness on limited-edition pink stickers on its bananas.

While marketers and PR experts often laud these initiatives, the recent verdict has left them feeling conflicted.

”It’s fantastic that Chiquita champions important causes, but these efforts are being overshadowed by the unethical side of the brand,” says Ronn Torossian, chairman and founder of public relations firm 5WPR. ”Modern brands [must] demonstrate a genuine commitment to the ethical practices they’re so quick to boast about publicly.”

Jason Keehn, co-founder of boutique agency Accompany Creative, adds: ”If Chiquita can’t maintain a supply chain that adheres to the most basic of human rights when making their signature product, they should focus their resources on improving the tracing and auditing of their manufacturing, before stretching them into philanthropy.”

Peeling back a bitter backstory

Although many were shocked to learn about Chiquita’s abuses in the region, the news didn’t come as a surprise to all.

For those familiar with the history of the banana industry in Central and Latin America, the idea that a banana producer would be implicated in the political struggles of the region should come as no surprise, explains Irina Tsukerman, a human rights and national security lawyer and president of media advisory company Scarab Rising. The industry gave rise to the very notion of “banana republics,” or politically unstable nations dependent on the export of a single natural resource.

Chiquita originated in 1984 from the United Fruit Company, which had nearly a century-long history of exploitation. In 1928, 2,000 striking United Fruit Company workers were killed in Ciénaga, Colombia, in what became known as the “Banana Massacre.” The event inspired Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s novel One Hundred Years of Solitude.

There was also the “Banana-gate” scandal of the 1970s, which revealed a $1.25m bribe to the Honduran president to reduce export taxes on bananas following the suicide of the brand’s president, Eli Black, according to the New York Times.

“These reports demonstrated how corporate leadership knew these schemes were taking place, even if they were not direct participants,” says Tsukerman.

Rachael Kay Albers, brand strategist and founder of creative studio RKA Ink, believes the verdict against Chiquita was long overdue. As she sees it, Chiquita’s “entire history is stained with blood and impunity.”

“Chiquita is the poster corporation for the insidious ways companies use propaganda to prop up their public image, all so they can continue profiting off of human rights violations,” says Albers, referring to when the company worked with Edward Bernays, sometimes referred to as ’the father of public relations,’ to maintain a positive public image while spearheading a misinformation campaign that led to the violent overthrow of the Guatemalan government in the 1950s.

See full article here