Alexandre Darmame – A 21st century Gordian knot, forcing Goliath to consider David: The state of Business and Human Rights in South Africa

By Alexandre Darmame

Après trois heures de route, nous étions arrivés dans les collines du Nord-Ouest. Le soleil étincelant africain avait cet incroyable effet de rendre n’importe quel horizon absolument époustouflant, impression renforcée par un relief recouvert d’une savane à perte de vue. Là, nous devions rencontrer une communauté affectée par des opérations minières locales. Nous nous installâmes dans une grange vide un peu surélevée par rapport au village. Notre contact sur place, une grande femme élégante nous avait accueillis avec un grand sourire. Un enterrement avait pris place le matin même et elle avait dû venir à notre rencontre avec sa belle mais funèbre robe et sa grande capeline noire. À l’intérieur, une partie de la communauté nous attendait déjà. Nous prîmes place rapidement et la séance s’ouvra sur des chants tswanas et des prières, puis nous plongeâmes dans le cœur du sujet, la mine à côté du village. Les témoignages sur ses effets néfastes s’enchainèrent: problèmes de santé, pollution de l’eau, mort du bétail, maisons affectées à cause des opérations de la mine. Trois heures de récits déchirants sur les changements funèbres causés par l’arrivée des compagnies minières.

Finalement vint la frustrante question : Pourquoi nous a-t-on menti?  Pourquoi nous a-t-on dit que les entreprises apporteraient, de nouvelles infrastructures, de nouvelles routes, des opportunités économiques quand elles viendraient sur nos terres? La réponse était évidente : si on avait dit aux communautés environnantes qu’on viendrait prendre leurs terres, leurs minéraux, rendre malades leurs enfants, détruire des écosystèmes, tuer leur bétail et briser à jamais leurs liens communautaires, qu’on leur laisserait des terres ravagées, tout ça, sans qu’ils ne retirent aucun bénéfice des projets miniers, et pour un jour disparaître sans jamais réhabiliter la terre dépouillée de ses ressources, la communauté ne les aurait jamais laissés faire.

Corporations and Human Rights in a globalized world. 

“Chiquita Held Liable for Deaths During Colombian Civil War: A South Florida jury found the company liable for killings committed by a paramilitary group that was on the banana producer’s payroll,” reported the New York Times on June 11, 2024. This verdict casts a glaring spotlight on the often-overlooked human rights violations perpetrated by corporations at the international scale in their relentless pursuit of profit. To those aware of historical corporate human rights violations, like the East India Company’s dark past or the Rana Plaza disaster, this revelation is a familiar chapter in the ongoing saga of corporate impunity.

Despite longstanding awareness of problematic corporate behaviour on the international stage, it is alarming that transnational corporations remain largely unregulated today, leaving victims without proper access to justice. International law applies only to states, making them responsible for holding private actors accountable for human rights violations. While this framework works on a national level, it fails within the intricate transnational financial, legal, and corporate networks that govern multinational activities. In a global system prioritizing state sovereignty, national regulations often become ineffective, particularly in countries with limited resources. Sometimes, governments even overlook corporate misconduct to attract foreign investors and outcompete neighboring countries, as evidenced by practices of social dumping.

Corporate Impunity in South Africa

South Africa is one of those countries severely affected by corporate impunity. With a land rich in minerals, its mining industry has been central to the economy since the first discovery of gold deposits in Johannesburg. As the resource curse teaches us, this blessing can soon turn into a burden. In the case of the Rainbow Nation, corruption and lack of means join forces with the legacy of apartheid to create a mining empire built on dark foundations.

As Lawyers for Human Rights reports¹, communities are detrimentally affected by the mining industry. The problematic scenario is always the same: mining resources are found, and a company representative asks surrounding communities to relocate in exchange for compensation—communities that may never return to their lands. If they refuse, they are threatened into leaving, communities are broken and turned against each other.

For neighboring communities, those companies with Western or Asian investors² initially represent a good omen. The law makes national minerals the property of the people of South Africa³, and to mine them, companies need to give back to the community. Corporations thus need to plan development projects and economic opportunities, but eventually mining work starts, and after some years communities pay the consequences, and these promises remain unfulfilled . Mining residues pollute the environment, blasting activities affect housing, and the environment is forever destroyed. Externalities are horrifying: development issues for children, respiratory infections, and scarcity of clean water. Some gold mines have shown radioactivity levels worse than Chernobyl⁴. In one case, Alzheimer’s symptoms affected more than a quarter of the population living close by⁵.

When the company ultimately leaves, the situation is far from over for the surrounding communities. Although land rehabilitation is mandatory, mining industries have been particularly creative at finding legal loopholes to avoid bearing costs when they don’t just blatantly abandon the mine infrastructure. Surrounding populations are left with unfulfilled promises, broken communities, and an environmental and health hazard that will worsen over the years, with local actors lacking the resources to address the situations themselves. 

This state of affairs will not get better. Recent reports show that about 20% of the active mines in South Africa will become unproductive in the next 10 years and will constitute a potential hazard for thousands of communities⁶.

The ongoing UN negotiations to develop a legally binding treaty on business and human rights

Given the situation, it’s not surprising that South Africa is one of the leading nations proposing a new binding treaty on Business and Human Rights. Latin America and the African continent are demanding accountability, and they have been leading negotiations towards that aim for years. Currently, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights is the only comprehensive international instrument addressing transnational corporations and human rights. However, as a soft mechanism, they are less than ideal since they exert no pressure on states to address current human rights violations committed by corporations.

The ongoing negotiations in Geneva aim to develop an international legally binding instrument setting corporate accountability ground rules for all countries, specify states’ duties in regulating transnational corporations, establish multinationals’ obligations, and provide recourses in cases of human rights violations.

More than anything, there is a will in Africa to go further than the current due diligence system—a system that bases human rights protection on private initiatives by only forcing companies to assess and plan for potential human rights violations.

The need for the adoption of a legally binding treaty is also about planning for the future of the global economy. Technologies to address global warming and the green transition are going to require minerals and resources from the Global South. Without a legally binding treaty to regulate activities of corporations at the global scale, with net-zero deadlines approaching and considering the divide between Western and Eastern countries, there is a genuine fear in the Global South of a new “rush for Africa” and having to choose between addressing global warming and respecting human rights⁷.

This is especially poignant considering that the West has multiple times been called out for its lack of cooperation in the negotiations. The US and UK are being accused of watering down or delaying the treaty. The European Union comes to negotiations without a mandate or stating that the current due diligence system is sufficient. Worse, Canada have currently taken no part in the ten years of negotiations, not recognizing the potential of the treaty⁸.

The way forward, a regional treaty?

The recent adoption of a due diligence instrument by the European Union (to hold corporations violating human rights liable) has elicited mixed reactions in South Africa. On one hand, one can certainly rejoice at the adoption of such a mechanism for the cause of human rights. Nevertheless, interested parties in South Africa cannot ignore how watered down the current version is compared to the original European proposals. They fear that this directive could be used as a model for the treaty currently being negotiated, which raises two questions. First, is this directive enough to satisfy the demand for corporate accountability? Second, should the solution come from the Global North? Not only are southern populations the ones affected by corporate impunity, but also, northern countries have a conflict of interest since most multinationals come from Europe or North America.

As global negotiations are not yielding expected results, African actors are now starting to consider the possibility of a regional treaty⁹. This would be a way to reinforce cohesion among the continent, establish their obligations toward corporations, put forward competing standards to the European ones, and put African interests at the forefront of the instrument.

Can regionalization provide for what globalization is currently failing to address? Only time will tell.

1. Lawyers for Human Rights (2022). The impact and assessment of Improper Mine Closure in South Africa : Community Perspectives on Human Rights. Online : https://www.lhr.org.za/lhr-resources/the-impact-and-assessment-of-improper-mine-closures-in-south-africa-community-perspectives-on-human-rights/. ↩︎
2. Carte Blanche (2023). Let them eat pap. Available on Youtube : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6EsXPLk_dc&ab_channel=CarteBlanche. ↩︎
3. Republic of South Africa (2002). Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act. Section 2.  ↩︎
4. Lawyers from Human Rights (2022). The impact and assessment of improper mine closure in south Africa : Community Perspectives on Human Rights. ↩︎
5. Carte Blanche (2022). Manganese road | Carte Blanche | M-Net. Available on Youtube : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVQEUSF-Nu8&ab_channel=CarteBlanche. ↩︎
6. Cole, Megan J. (2024), A Mine Closure Risk Rating System for South Africa. Future Water Institute, University of Cape Town, Mining, 4(1), 58-78; https://doi.org/10.3390/mining4010005. ↩︎
7. Center for applied legal studies of Wits University and Bowmans (2024). An introduction to Business and Human Rights, discussion II. Available on youtube : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quW_ccgbYdg&ab_channel=CALSWits. ↩︎
8. Cioffo, Giuseppe (2022). Why isn’t the EU more engaged in the Binding Treaty negotiations ?. Business and Human Rights resource Centre. Online : https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/blog/why-isnt-the-eu-more-engaged-in-the-binding-treaty-negotiations/; Thompson, Ian (2019). Commentary: Canada’s next govt. should require corporate human rights due diligence & engage in process to develop a binding treaty on business & human rights. Online : https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/commentary-canadas-next-govt-should-require-corporate-human-rights-due-diligence-engage-in-process-to-develop-a-binding-treaty-on-business-human-rights/. ↩︎
9. African commission on Human and people’s rights (2023). Resolution on Business and Human Rights in Africa – ACHPR/Res.550 (LXXIV). Online : https://achpr.au.int/index.php/en/adopted-resolutions/550-resolution-business-and-human-rights-africa-achprres550-lxxiv-2023. ↩︎