Companies which engage in potentially harmful behaviors with results such as environmental dangers or distribution of unsafe products often simply pay a fine as damages and move on. Should the punishment for these behaviors include a public mea culpa?

My understanding of the term mea culpa is to take responsibility, to say it was my fault and no one else’s.

While many companies just pay up and move on, there is something missing from this process: acknowledgment of the suffering that the actions caused. Or, in other words, the human element. The case of Dole and Dow in Nicaragua comes to mind.

Dole and Dow were recently found liable in a pesticide exposure lawsuit that spanned international borders and decades of legal battle. An LA Superior Court jury ordered the companies to pay $3 million in damages to Nicaraguan banana workers who were made sterile by exposure to the chemical DBCP.

To date, I’ve not found any public mea culpa from either company. Instead, both tout their corporate social responsibility initiatives, their efforts for the environment and their commitment to the human element, which is the tag line of Dow’s recent ad campaign.

To me it seems that the families affected by the chemical exposure – which left many people sterile – would benefit as much from an acknowledgment of responsibility as they would from the monetary damages paid. Somewhere, in the millions of dollars of ad money spent by these two companies, it would make a difference if the victims were acknowledged – we poisoned you, we’re sorry and it will never happen again.

Check out Liz’s take at Business and Blogging

Post from: EveryJoe

Are Fines Enough When Harm is Done?