Over a year ago, in response to the growing public pressure surrounding human rights abuses in the Reynolds American supply chain, the company issued an open letter to those concerned with farm labor issues. The letter attempted to describe Reynolds as a socially responsible purchaser of tobacco, with no liability for the deplorable conditions throughout the fields of the South. Shortly after, Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC) President Baldemar Velasquez responded point by point, exposing the open letter as a public relations effort that was rife with misrepresentations and an attempt to avoid responsibility for its own supply chain. Both letters can be found on FLOC’s website, www.floc.com.

Recently, after repeated introduction of shareholder resolutions related to the health and human rights of tobacco harvesters on Reynolds contract farms, and increasing national attention to the issue, the company has released a new statement describing their efforts to support human rights in their supply chain. The most notable aspect of the statement is that it acknowledges that Reynolds has a responsibility to support human rights in its “sphere of influence”.  This “sphere of influence” undoubtedly includes the conditions on the farms which contract to produce tobacco for Reynolds. However, the statement and more importantly, company practice, fail to adequately address the rights of the migrant workers that harvest the tobacco that it processes.  With its extreme wealth and industry power, those migrant workers clearly fall within Reynolds’ “sphere of influence” as the contracts that it has with the tobacco farms provide it with significant control over the procurement process. Yet, Reynolds has chosen not to even meet with farmworkers either through their stakeholder outreach meetings or in response to requests from their representatives. 

As Baldemar Velasquez made clear in his response to the first Reynolds statement, “Reynolds does not employ the tobacco farmworkers who harvest the tobacco that RAI purchases from contract growers. However, FLOC will always maintain that Reynolds has the ultimate responsibility for the conditions under which these farmworkers toil.” 

The Reynolds’ statement describes the methods the company uses to “communicate their expectation” that growers “respect fundamental human rights.” The company states that through contract language, site visits, surveys, and other methods, it reinforces the importance of human rights. At no point does the statement describe any mechanism for enforcement of these provisions. It does not mention one example of a grower’s contract being terminated or any other repercussions for not complying with laws or human rights considerations.  Does Reynolds really believe that its encouragement is so effective that not one grower has ever violated a law or human right and that all of the well documented abuses in tobacco fields happen to fall outside of the Reynolds supply chain?

While the company claims it uses surveys to get feedback with farmworkers, the consideration that Reynolds gives to those surveys is sorely lacking. Any person who has spent time in large tobacco labor camps and who has seen the conditions and spoken with workers knows that “a high level of satisfaction” is the exception to the rule. The majority of farmworkers experience undignified and substandard living conditions, dangerous working conditions, low wages, and no means to address grievances.  In fact, most farmworkers fear job loss if they complain about abuses at work.    

Finally, Reynolds claims that “in many developing countries [facing] significant human rights issues related to working conditions and sanitation, child labor, pesticide and herbicide practices and other issues . . . the operating companies will continue to seek opportunities for partnering with other concerned parties to improve these conditions.” While it is notable that the company claims it will do this in “developing countries,” why will it not partner with interested parties such as FLOC when workers face the same situation right here in North Carolina?

We concur with Reynolds asserted belief that “universally recognized human rights should be respected” and welcome their intent to support these rights.  However, for the farmworkers that pick Reynolds tobacco, little has changed since FLOC first sought a meeting with Reynolds CEO Susan Ivey to discuss the desperate conditions most tobacco workers face throughout the Southern US. FLOC will continue to insist that the company take responsibility for the supply chain that enables its wealth and that they should meet with the workers at the bottom of their supply chain.

Reynolds’ latest attempt to address the issues with another statement shows that the company is starting to recognize the growing movement for farmworker justice.   FLOC and supporters of farmworker justice throughout the country will continue to urge Reynolds to move beyond feel-good statements and instead, choose to work with FLOC to find real solutions to the very real problems in its supply chain.