Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) or Corporate Social Investment (CSI) have been embraced at the confluence of capitalism and socialism. Throughout the years, companies have variously embraced this aspect. Sincerity is measuredly seen in the implementation of these concepts but they have been advanced as options towards balancing between natural resource exploitation and the concerns of communities surrounding these mine sites.
by Edmond Mkaratigwa1 and Albert Maipisi2
At the bottom of the phenomenon of Corporate Social Responsibility or Investment lays a strategy for the existence of the corporates. The strategy is not voluntary but preemptive and a fight against the consciousness of a class that feels left out exploited and poor. This group of people has a mindset suspicious of those who have managed to create wealth through investments in the various sectors of the economy and in this case, the mining sector. It is not everyone who can be in business and more so, become a miner. Even so, there is need to interrogate this matter further, towards finding a lasting solution for developing countries and in particular Zimbabwe.
In trying to deal with this challenge, Zimbabwe, once took an extreme position through the indigenization laws. In this direction, many after a particular time backtracked and questioned the efficacy of that approach in the country, led by the civil society organizations. It was viewed as retrogressive. In the same sense today, many are wishing for the former approach over more liberal approaches which can be market-based or voluntary and based on individual firm’s values and convictions as well as the need to survive any foreseen risk that may emanate from negative actions against the firm, as a result of community dissatisfaction.
Where does the solution to this conundrum lay? The key challenge has roots in many aspects. First, is the delay by the government to adopt a mechanism that can sustainably grow its own crop of new miners through a supportive legislative framework. In this regard, Zimbabwe until now, is reliant on an archaic legal framework and in some instances, the practice is already by far ahead of the law. The situation can be brittle even though tackling the matter can also open a can of worms, that can break already achieved gains. The Mines and Minerals Amendment Bill is providing a chance for solution-seeking. Its contents have been debated only in terraces and not in the mainstream legislative formulation framework for a while, hence no solution in sight, though in sight. It offers room for reconsideration of our paths if we are ready and sharing the same sentiment.
The next aspect revolves around the nature of the country’s orientation as part of the social system that builds national culture. The fact that communities demand to benefit from the natural resources extracted from their settings does not really imply that the miner has rendered all other mining opportunities in the country inaccessible through his or her engagements. Of course, it is correct that where one mines, another cannot mine at the same time. Nevertheless, the key question is, are all resource-rich areas already fully exploited in the country.
If not, why is that most of the rich people who know that there are minerals, are not motivated to mine, yet demand those mining, to plough back to their communities. The answer may be laying in our education system and the culture of being workers still dominant in the broader local citizenry and those abroad. Failure to review appropriate laws hopefully is also not attributable to weak comprehension of the necessity to incorporate the new thinking, transformed from that of the 1960s, towards economic growth from within and by selves. The thinking is buttressed by the view that most people involved in modern mining are not even trained for the task as the trained are looking for jobs elsewhere.
In ending for now, is the increased call for corporate social responsibility or investment due to levels of poverty being witnessed in communities where mining activities are taking place? Is it a result of feeling for those without by those in the mining sector or those concerned with the plight of the communities? These are all important questions but the real issue is also for us to face our own realities. Among these realities is acceptance of our strengths and weaknesses and then we can build our foundations from there. Capital exists within the country and among our people, but many are not risk-takers. Risk takers are an important human capital in our societies or from worlds abroad, but the culture can also be deliberately motivated, created and cultivated.
The culture of alms is as old as humanity and that is entrenched in our communities, but is it the best of the cultures, towards national economic empowerment. This cannot be a one-day adventure and equally Corporate Social Responsibility or Investment is not the best approach but a wedge in the absence of the best. Pragmatism is the arena in which Corporate Social Responsibility or Investment dwells as it seeks to consider concerns from various stakeholders, but it remains voluntary and ultraistic, hence difficult to use in dealing with poverty and for planning toward sustainable poverty reduction unless adequately coordinated and based on verifiable indicators as measures of progress towards the set goals.
Otherwise, Corporate Social Responsibility in Zimbabwe is another façade that keeps societies expectant of crumbs which will never meaningfully economically transform societies but usually achieves the opposite. Real transformation is in genuine ownership which we continue to evade where laws are taking long to buttress certainty of such thoughts towards ownership and reversal of any negative overlaps among the different sectors of production in our overall economy. Within such a thinking framework, the question remains: Is Corporate Social Responsibility or Investment the last of our thought process initiatives toward community empowerment and local wealth creation? Definitely no!
[1Ph.D. Candidate of Energy Innovation and Chairperson of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Mines and Mining Development & 2Ph.D. in Disaster Management and Public Administration. Published ideas are entirely views of authors and cannot be attributed to their current institutional positions].
