Statement From SEAI’s U.S. Shrimp Exporters On C.A.L. Report

As the group of leading Indian shrimp companies exporting to the United States, we have reviewed the nearly 100-page document issued by the “Corporate Accountability Lab” (C.A.L.). We can say categorically that the companies in our group peel and process shrimp entirely in-house, at state-of-the-art facilities that are purpose-designed to meet the highest standards and protocols set by Indian, U.S., and international law and best practices. We take those requirements seriously and have always been open and transparent with customers, regulators, and other stakeholders about the way we do things. Put plainly, none of our companies use any of the “peeling sheds” described in the C.A.L. document.

We would also like to be clear and unambiguous that our companies do not engage in illegal or unsafe labor practices, period. Any insinuation to the contrary by activists, press, or competitors in the West is false and rooted in outdated impressions or harmful stereotypes. India is the fifth largest economy in the world and growing. Its Labor laws are broad, strong, and modern, and we are proud to comply fully with them. Our employees deserve no less. That is why none of our companies have ever been cited by regulators for any of the sorts of infractions alleged in the C.A.L. report.

Further points:

• Throughout the report, the various work conditions and settings where alleged incidents take place are generalized, with no specific company or any identifying details are cited. Obviously, this prevents any kind of verification or examination of those allegations — and of course also makes any remediation impossible.
• In one section, for example, CAL cites a report by an consulting business called Elevate, purportedly showing a variety of workplace violations. But the company that is being faulted is nowhere mentioned by name, there are no other specific details provided, and the many footnotes that CAL uses in that section for substantiation all in fact are simply a link to the 1948 Factories Act, a law passed by the Indian government decades ago. The Elevate report itself, which we obtained and reviewed, cites no specific companies anywhere in its analysis.
• There is a wide litany of incidents and circumstances of workplace violations that are described in CAL’s report, most of which are seemingly from first-hand accounts. But nearly all of them lack the basic elements of journalism detail — such as who, what, where, and when the incidents are supposed to have occurred.
• Although the Associated Press relies on the CAL report in its article, there is no evidence that AP made any effort whatsoever to verify any of the interior details, situations, individuals, or companies involved. Indeed, it would seem impossible to conduct any such fact-check effort because CAL has concealed nearly all of those specifics.
• Obvious questions arise from the vivid accounts in the CAL report. Why was no effort made to alert local law enforcement or national regulatory authorities? Were specific, identifying details on any of these unlawful situations and settings provided to the government agencies that have a duty-bound obligation to intervene? The report itself describes such interventions that have been publicly reported in the past and yet, inexplicably, apparently did nothing to inform relevant authorities that are in a position to take action.
• SEAI itself never heard from CAL — not prior to, during, nor after their seemingly extensive time in the country. As we did with AP and other journalists, we would have gladly interacted with them on the record. We would also have been keen to help rectify any documented violations by any member company of ours.
• In the rare instances when major companies are cited, the claims about them fall apart on closer scrutiny. For example, CAL quotes an unnamed “manager” at Nekkanti saying that the company’s recruiters “look for workers in rural areas who need money desperately.” Once again, there are no verifying details presented whatsoever and Nekkanti was never contacted for a chance to verify this or respond in any way.
• In another section, the report claims Nekkanti dormitories “only allow[s] workers to leave company premises once a month.” The report quotes an unnamed employee saying, “in Nekkanti’s factory, the freedom of movement of workers is restricted without compromise.” But that is flatly untrue. Nekkanti’s workers are free to come and go at any time, and the company keeps a documented log of all entry and exit at their facilities showing that’s exactly what happens on a routine basis. Those workers have a range of options to governmental authorities and other means of reporting violations, including through their personal cell phones, and the company has never once been cited for detaining workers in any fashion. Here too, CAL never presented any of these allegations or details to the company for a response. It’s telling that when Nekkanti and SEAI provided hard evidence to AP backing up these facts, they conspicuously avoiding repeating CAL’s accusations about Nekkanti in their story, despite the fact that they take the CAL report at face value in many other instances.
• The report Is filled throughout with ideological rhetoric, explicitly aiming to influence political and policy outcomes. For example: “The Indian shrimp industry is at a crossroads. As demand for shrimp continues to increase, so must the pressure on stakeholders at every level to identify and remedy abusive working conditions, forced labor, and environmental harm that characterize the sector. Workers in the sector are victims in the race to cut costs and profit more on America’s favorite seafood.”
• A quote from an unnamed auditor in the report is unintentionally revealing. “Ultimately, everybody wants money in the industry,” that person said. “Nobody is working for the sake of betterment of workers, that is all bulls**t, everybody is here to make money.” Yet notice that the organization that produced this report, Corporate Accountability Lab, receives huge financial grants from deep-pocket foundations with an ideological agenda that is hostile to the seafood industry. That financing is often hidden, with unknown terms and durations, and utterly opaque from scrutiny. By contrast, the companies in our organization are transparent with their financial performance, production metrics, and partnerships. Our companies also report diligently to a variety of government regulators in both the U.S. and India — and they collaborate with those agencies on standards and compliance. Just as we are doing here, those companies are also forthcoming with news media and other independent bodies reporting on the industry. Readers would be right to notice that the industry is being fully open — while its critics at CAL and Associated Press are concealing their funding, refuse to answer basic questions about their methods, and won’t disclose the terms of their arrangements or collaborations with foundations and NGOs.