Shell Fueled by Forced Labor
Royal Dutch Shell has been accused of many human rights and environmental abuses over the years, and it appears that you may be able to add forced labor to the list of the company’s exploitative policies.
Earlier this week, Shell announced that it was putting $12 billion into a venture with Cosan, the leading company in Brazil’s sugar cane ethanol industry. You might remember Cosan from Angela’s recent post about Wal-Mart’s relationship with this company. Cosan was placed on a blacklist maintained by the Labor Ministry in Brazil after severe labor rights abuses were identified at one of the company’s suppliers. Last month, the company got a temporary injunction and was removed from the list, but the Attorney General is contesting the injunction.
This example raises a broader concern about the biofuels boom. Over the years, many workers in Brazil’s sugar industry have been removed from forced labor conditions as well as situations of debt bondage. The recent “List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor” published by the U.S. Department of Labor also noted that sugarcane from Brazil is often produced by forced labor. Beyond these cases, the general conditions for workers in this sector often include low pay, long hours, minimal or no attention to health and safety standards, exposure to toxic chemicals, and miserable living conditions. While huge amounts of money are going into developing this industry, much of the profits garnered by the large multinational corporations who are benefiting is fueled by worker exploitation.
Agrofuels have been criticized for many reasons –- negative environmental impacts, contributing to hunger, grabbing land from communities –- and the stories from Brazil and other major producing countries suggest that those of us concerned about workers should contribute to the debate as well. If we want to create truly sustainable solutions for the energy and climate crises, we must also protect the rights of workers and their communities.
Photo credit: whologwhy







COMMENTS (0)