The Great American Way: Lawsuits
Corrie family files against Caterpillar, Israel
We'll start with Robert L. Jamieson, Jr., columnist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
Jamieson objects. But he's not without sympathy:
Indeed, he even goes on to point out, "If Caterpillar wants to continue selling its products to Israel ... it is guilty of being a bad corporate citizen, a company lacking moral backbone."
But Jamieson asserts that corporate responsibility in this context is a moral responsibility, not a legal one.
I don't agree, but I'm unsure how strongly. We'll come back to that.
Over at the Corporate Social Responsibility Newswire, William Baue sorts through the issue:
While both the shareholder resolution and the lawsuit point to a 2004 letter from the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, I'm not sure how relevant that is to Cat's standing in the Corrie case.
Nonetheless, if, as the resolution states, Cat has been aware of the issue for "years", and those years precede the two that have passed since Rachel Corrie's death, the company might bear some exposure.
Mr. Jamieson seems to share Cat's perspective, but what strikes me as incorrect about that notion is that if I knowingly sell a weapon to someone who has declared their intent to cause illegal harm, yes, I'm a liable party to any crime committed with that weapon. Similarly, Caterpillar may suffer some legal exposure on this issue. That, however, is a sticky matter of detail unavailable to us. The Corrie lawsuit does look back to Nuremberg, and the issue of Zyklon B.
The shareholders, of course, are worried about money. The resolution, however, does accuse that Cat's "head in the sand" approach will cause the company name to become synonymous with human rights abuses, which would of course, "negatively impact shareholder value".
Caterpillar has neither confirmed nor denied that a risk analysis was performed after learning of Israel's problematic use of its bulldozers.
Does Caterpillar bear any liability here? If I was the guy who gave your brother-in-law a shovel while he was angry and after he'd already beaten your sister three or four times, would you accept a similar brushing-off from me? "Millions of shovels are used in every region of the world today. I have neither the legal right nor means to police individual use of the product."
I agree in part with Jamieson:
Definitely, Israel is a proper target, and probably a better one. But I'm not sure that Cat should be off the hook.
What says ye?
____________________
Notes:
Corrie family files against Caterpillar, Israel
We'll start with Robert L. Jamieson, Jr., columnist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
Jamieson objects. But he's not without sympathy:
Indeed, he even goes on to point out, "If Caterpillar wants to continue selling its products to Israel ... it is guilty of being a bad corporate citizen, a company lacking moral backbone."
But Jamieson asserts that corporate responsibility in this context is a moral responsibility, not a legal one.
I don't agree, but I'm unsure how strongly. We'll come back to that.
• • •
Over at the Corporate Social Responsibility Newswire, William Baue sorts through the issue:
While both the shareholder resolution and the lawsuit point to a 2004 letter from the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, I'm not sure how relevant that is to Cat's standing in the Corrie case.
Nonetheless, if, as the resolution states, Cat has been aware of the issue for "years", and those years precede the two that have passed since Rachel Corrie's death, the company might bear some exposure.
• • •
Mr. Jamieson seems to share Cat's perspective, but what strikes me as incorrect about that notion is that if I knowingly sell a weapon to someone who has declared their intent to cause illegal harm, yes, I'm a liable party to any crime committed with that weapon. Similarly, Caterpillar may suffer some legal exposure on this issue. That, however, is a sticky matter of detail unavailable to us. The Corrie lawsuit does look back to Nuremberg, and the issue of Zyklon B.
The shareholders, of course, are worried about money. The resolution, however, does accuse that Cat's "head in the sand" approach will cause the company name to become synonymous with human rights abuses, which would of course, "negatively impact shareholder value".
Caterpillar has neither confirmed nor denied that a risk analysis was performed after learning of Israel's problematic use of its bulldozers.
• • •
Does Caterpillar bear any liability here? If I was the guy who gave your brother-in-law a shovel while he was angry and after he'd already beaten your sister three or four times, would you accept a similar brushing-off from me? "Millions of shovels are used in every region of the world today. I have neither the legal right nor means to police individual use of the product."
I agree in part with Jamieson:
Definitely, Israel is a proper target, and probably a better one. But I'm not sure that Cat should be off the hook.
What says ye?
____________________
Notes:
Jamieson Jr., Robert L. "Sue Israel, not the bulldozer maker". SeattlePI.com. March 18, 2005. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/216564_robert18.html
Baue, William. "Caterpillar Bulldozes Shareowner Concern Over Aiding Alleged Israeli War Crimes". CSRwire.com. March 24, 2005. See http://www.csrwire.com/sfarticle.cgi?id=1671
Caterpillar, Inc. "Global Unrest". CAT.com. See http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=39240&x=7
Baue, William. "Caterpillar Bulldozes Shareowner Concern Over Aiding Alleged Israeli War Crimes". CSRwire.com. March 24, 2005. See http://www.csrwire.com/sfarticle.cgi?id=1671
Caterpillar, Inc. "Global Unrest". CAT.com. See http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=39240&x=7