continue making secret payments and continue with business status-quo

- merge from before and then what will happen now (future)

[intro]
Chiquita can continue payments and its business status quo. [as govt ignored
them, there are no other recommended solution to secure the company's employees].
By doing so, it will stall any killings and kidnappings, while continuing to
benefit economically and [operating according to their core values]. However,
Chiquita will be financing the terrorist groups and further these group's brutal
activities [harming/] not only the employees but the whole country. Additionally,
the terrorist group may find this threats a success and may affect other companies
to do the same. The company became aware of these illegal acts and became
transparent to the public, which will affect their [market] in the future. The
government may have not declared AUC as a terrorist in the past making Chiquita's
business legal, but the US government will [keep an eye on them in the future/
looking through their past unethical working conditions that will lead to the
demise of the company/ stop their business to the country].

- safer employees - no other ways to protect employees (pg 14), workers are safe
but the rest of the world is endangered
- continue funding the terrorists, funding their weapons for brutal killangs, not
helping society, increasing threats to society although the reults are economically
beneficial
- what are the laws to government? corruption

- because of illegal financing from the terrorist, the corp may be accountable and
US govt may not accept, leading to the demise of the company. this includes their
past unethical actions of bribery for lower prices on taxes and financing terrorist
groups, unethical working conditions (harming environemnt, long hours, bad health
conditions)
- lower penalty before, but may have more penality to today
- 4000 people filed lawsuits, chiquitas claims of extoriton are false and that the
company hired paramilitaries (prezi)
- will affect sales in the future because of the unethical actions of the company.

if auc extorted chiquita, why they did not retaliate when payments stopped?

Unfortunately, the combination of a name change and corresponding improvement

plans failed to prevent the publishing of a media article in 1998 accusing the
company of pollution, illegal activity and forcibly preventing their workers from
unionizing (Schotter and Teagarden 2010). Although the accusations were denied and
forced to be retracted, none of the claims were ever formally challenged by
Chiquita, which raises the suspicion of truth behind the article (Schotter and
Teagarden 2010). With this information it is fair to conclude Chiquita has low
corporate social responsibility, following a less than neoliberal worldview as they
do not reach the standard of obeying the law.