By Neil Kohlmann
Imperialism is not a relic of the past. It is still alive and well, though somewhat discreetly, modern imperialism 'no longer relies on permanent colonies' (Gordon and Webber 2016: 5), but is instead based in regimes of global wealth extraction. Todd Gordon, a professor of social justice, defines imperialism as, 'a system of global inequalities and domination - embodied in regimes of property, military power, and global institutions - through which wealth is drained from the labour and resources of people in the Global South to the systemic advantage of capital in the North' (2010: 26). This dynamic is foundational to Canada’s mining sector, and I argue, imperialist mind-set. According to the Government of Canada, in 2013, over 50% of the world’s publically listed exploration and mining companies were head-quartered in Canada. These 1500 companies had an interest in some 8000 properties in over 100 countries around the world.[1] This global reach of power has come under scrutiny, and given rise to the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR), in an attempt to make corporates more "conscious".
Canada adopted its own approach to CSR, and this piece will focus specifically on Canada’s 2014 CSR strategy for the extractive sector (henceforth called "the strategy"). Titled “Doing Business the Canadian Way”, it defines social responsibility as, 'voluntary activities undertaken by a company, over and above legal requirements, to operate in an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manner' (Global Affairs Canada 2014: 2). The voluntary nature of CSR is significant because it does not hold corporations accountable directly – rather it provides companies with an optional "toolkit" for being responsible. I focus on Kinross Gold as an example of Canadian CSR in practice, as they are frequently cited as one of the 'most socially responsible corporations in Canada' (Smyth 2015). The Kinross website features a distinct ‘corporate responsibility’ section, filled with pictures of smiling racialized minorities and a statement from its CEO J. Paul Rollinson that "mining responsibility is not just a priority, it’s an imperative".
However, CSR in practice is anything but responsible for the people and places impacted by mining. Local voices, academic perspectives, Marxist theory, and even Kinross Gold’s own branding and actions reveal how Canada’s CSR policy allows the gold mining company to both hide and enact its destructive parasitism. Canada’s approach to CSR red and whitewashes its own empire, encouraging Canadian imperial corporations such as Kinross to expand indefinitely under a protective shield of fabricated responsibility. In an elaborate branding exercise, it cloaks itself in the flag of Canadian benignity and exceptionalism, turning the gaze of government, investors, and critics away from its atrocities while sucking dry the lands of people drowned out by the drone of its own self-righteousness.
Merriam-Webster defines whitewashing as, 'gloss[ing] over or cover[ing] up', and 'alter[ing] (something) in a way that favors, features, or caters to white people' (Merriam Webster). Redwashing, although not as commonly used, is defined by Clayton Thomas-Müller as, 'the process of covering up the detrimental effects of corporate initiatives with friendly slogans and lump sum donations to Indigenous communities' (Thomas-Müller 2017). These aspects are sewn up in the red and white of the Canadian flag by CSR policy. This new form of imperialism is insidious precisely because it is dressed up in the rhetoric of responsibility and generosity. This both encourages imperial expansion and makes it harder to detect and hold accountable.
The “Necessity” of Gold Mining
CSR creates the illusion that Kinross Gold’s actions are necessary, thus providing justification and encouragement for perpetual imperial expansion. Ever expanding points of wealth creation are essential to capitalism’s survival, especially in the non-renewable extractive sector. Karl Marx referred to this as a 'werewolf like hunger for surplus labour' that must be ever expanding to ensure ‘surplus value’ is created (1977: 353). Kinross Gold holds this as a central value, declaring on its ‘about’ page that the 'company is focused on delivering value through operational excellence, balance sheet strength, disciplined growth, and responsible mining' (Kinross Gold - About).
CSR policy also gladly endorses this concept, declaring that, 'our extractive companies in the mining, oil and natural gas industries make a major contribution to Canadian prosperity' (Global Affairs Canada 2014: 2). Kinross Gold’s quest for surplus labour, therefore, is encouraged by CSR’s value-added language as a critical component of Canadian economic growth, entrenching the corporation as a vehicle of state prosperity. Indeed, it is no secret that Kinross Gold and other major mining companies generate massive amounts of wealth. However, this wealth enriches shareholders and executives, who typically live far away from sites of extraction.
In their third quarter report, Kinross reported that it had produced the amount of $2,719,724,826 CAD in the first 9 months of 2019 (Kinross; PwC Canada Nov 2019). In less than one year, three billion dollars in gold were extracted, never to return to those exploited. Indeed, Nathan Andrews argues that the corporation has gained a critical role in society - it is virtually untouchable (2019:163). CSR strategy reaffirms this, stating that Canada seeks a ‘globally competitive extractive sector’ (Global Affairs Canada 2014:4). This mind-set alone is enough to heavily bias government policy in favour of corporate profit margins. Thus, it is no surprise that a large degree of academic research on CSR points to the fact that it is tightly coupled with profit maximization (Archel et al. 2011: 340; Banerjee 2003: 144; Andrews 2019). Accordingly, CSR is constructed so that it does not seriously threaten corporate profit margins, but rather becomes a tool to enhance the bottom line. Indeed, Banerjee contends that there is, “no evidence to state that CSR can harm the wealth-generating ability of business firms” (2008: 61). CSR is not a risk for business as usual.
Consensual Relationships?
Since the work of corporations in the extractive sector is seen by CSR as inherently essential to continue their growth, actual consent in host countries becomes a mockery. Instead, it is replaced with artificial branding in the form of "consultation". The value-added mentality within CSR policy dooms it to be a tool of imperialism, because any actual Indigenous and labour rights are barriers to profit (Gordon 2010: 205). Thus, CSR does little more than pay basic lip service to them. Critically, during development roundtables of the initial 2011 CSR strategy, discussion around Indigenous people’s ability to say no to extractive companies was deliberately avoided (O’Faircheallaigh and Ali 2017: 63). This removed a legitimate path of refusal and thus destroyed any possibility that CSR could realistically ensure consent. Current policy is quite vague, and the strategy does not even mention the word consent or consultation once in reference to starting a project.
Kinross Gold’s policies are similarly vague, taking clear inspiration from Canada’s lack of firm terms. It too does not mention "consent" anywhere on its CSR page or documents, and only vaguely mentions consultation as being part of a larger, 'spirit of consultation and cooperation' with Indigenous communities (Kinross Gold, ‘Corporate Responsibility’). Importantly, the use of the term "spirit" also applies a degree of vagueness. Anything stricter would risk interfering with the bottom line. An assumption of consent becomes a system of imperial domination when taken in conjunction with the rest of CSR policy. In contrast, host parties are put on the defensive while trying to salvage whatever they can of their own lands. A power imbalance is entrenched from the very beginning. Precisely because of this, Gordon and Webber refer to CSR as, 'a deeply cynical ideological ruse, designed to buy off communities for pennies once resource development projects have already been presented as fait accompli' (2016: 285), institutionalizing corporate rights and domination over valuable land.
Actual dissent is silenced accordingly. Any concerned Indigenous voices loud enough to be heard are stopped by the corporation through a combination of criminalization, assassination, and persecution (Gordon and Webber 2016: 285). With those voices out of the picture, an appropriate conciliatory "tone" can then be set.
There is ample evidence to show that Kinross is guilty of this. In Ecuador in 2010, Kinross used their extensive government connections to use military force to quash an Indigenous blockade of their mining site (Gordon and Webber 2016: 238-239). Furthermore, Kinross has leveraged social unrest and war to their advantage, meaning that any attempts at coherent opposition have been destroyed or demobilized by conflict. Kinross invested in mining projects shortly following the invasion of the Congo by Rwanda and Uganda (Gordon 2010), exploiting a clearly volatile situation. CSR’s assumption of consent, its vague rules around pre-extraction agreements, and its positioning of the corporation in a dominant position leave interpretation of a "spirit of consultation or cooperation" up to Kinross itself.
The Good, the Bad, and the Socially Responsible
CSR policy advocates that the "good" corporation is a solution to the "bad" corporation. The "good" and "bad" corporations, however, are one and the same. This allows Kinross Gold to be a solution to its own vices, deceiving both hosts and external critics into thinking it is virtuous. CSR exists – aesthetically – to replace "bad" corporations with "good" ones. The original 2009 Canadian CSR strategy states that, 'increasing concerns have been raised about the human rights impacts of the activities of Canadian extractive companies with respect to their operations abroad' (Global Affairs Canada), and proposes itself as a solution to these worries. Corporations that adopt CSR can ease these concerns and are therefore "good", while corporations that do not are "bad".
Indeed, capitalism is often forced to adapt when it faces sustained public pressure. Karl Marx made note of this over 150 years ago, stating that, 'capital…takes no account of the health and the length of life of the worker, unless society forces it to do so' (1977: 381). Increasing concerns around Canadian conduct abroad, therefore, forced the creation of CSR to take account of mining practices. This certainly seems good in theory. This is a popular argument used by CSR advocates, who have faith in the corporation as a tool for good but believe companies just need the correct guidance (Dashwood 2012: 206). This appears especially appealing when compared to the argument of Milton Friedman, who believed that there is, 'only one social responsibility of business: to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profit' (2002: 133).
It is no surprise, therefore, that corporate social responsibility has been presented as a, 'universal good that can be embraced by different sections of the political spectrum' (Blowfield and Frynas 2005: 505). "Universal" appeal, however, requires significant concessions, and CSR in practice does not fundamentally change anything from Friedman’s beliefs, keeping in line with profit-motives instead. Kinross Gold is a corporation in the vein of Friedman with a nicer smile.
Furthermore, the fabricated "good" of Kinross Gold aids it in imperial exploitation. As discussed above, CSR is voluntary. Thus, while Kinross benefits from the label of "socially responsible", and embodying the "Canada brand", it is not compelled in any significant way to uphold specific standards. In practice therefore, Kinross is only accountable to Kinross (Andrews 2019: 182). It can cover up its "bad" side while highlighting the "good", 'draw[ing] attention to the benevolence of the corporation' (Andrews 2019: 184).
And what of local communities impacted by mining? Do they come to believe that they are dealing with a "good" corporation, rather than a "bad" corporation? On the flipside of the "relationship", there is little reason for Kinross to see these communities as being helpful to the financial success of the corporation (Hilson 2011: 10938). Thus, very much in line with Friedman economics, there is nothing of value for Kinross in CSR initiatives beyond an effective marketing strategy. Frantz Fanon, in describing ongoing colonialism in 1961, stated that the 'colonist is an exhibitionist', and he will do what he can to boost his extravagant image as a benefactor (2004: 17). By using CSR to its advantage, Kinross insidiously entrenches itself as a "good" corporation, thinly veiling its imperial domination.
The Sustainable Development of Structures of Dependence
By establishing the "socially responsible" company as necessary and benevolent, CSR policy allows Kinross to control the futures of its host countries, by creating day-labourers with little livelihood alternatives. The rhetoric of sustainable development is ironically dominant within CSR. The strategy states that, 'the extractive sector can help build a country' (Global Affairs Canada 2). The "socially responsible" corporation therefore gains credibility as a kind of "white saviour" coming to the assistance of struggling nations.
Indeed, these countries are characterized in CSR discourse as needing a kind of special attention due to (presumed) weak governance, remoteness, and various ‘complex challenges’ (Global Affairs Canada 3). In these locations, Kinross can act as a quasi-state, which in practice replaces or co-opts any kind of weak central governance (Banerjee 2003: 172). Marx made note of the dominating effect of industry on European governments during the Industrial Revolution, declaring that industry, 'seized hold of the vital force of the nation at its roots' (1977: 348). In the present day, Kinross does the same thing in its host countries through CSR "sustainable development" measures, using them to solidify imperial control in several ways:
First, companies in the extractive sector are deeply problematic government surrogates because they have no economic interest in "managing" a country once extraction is finished. 'What will happen to a local community,' Banerjee questions, 'that is completely dependent for its economic, social and environmental welfare on a multinational company once the latter decides to move its location?' (2008:74). Corporate governance, therefore, is problematically restricted to the lifespan of extraction, leaving host nations developed only as much as mineral extraction requires.
Second, by characterizing these nations as having ‘weak governance’, CSR creates a 'scapegoat for development failures' (Andrews 2019:113). If a corporation is not successful in adequately developing, it can alleviate itself of guilt by pointing to the poor central management of host countries that was there before it arrived. Thus, Kinross can act as a government while escaping all real blame for mismanagement.
Third, and most destructively, CSR "sustainable development" institutionalizes corporate dependency. This provides Kinross with easily exploitable desperate labourers and leaves behind crippled lands. Gold mining requires the destruction of large amounts of land, which often come at the cost of local subsistence economies.
In the 1850s Marx commented on a very similar mass transfer away from subsistence farming and to wage based labour as, 'the appropriation of the agricultural producer' (1977: 876). This shift greatly expanded European economies and thrusted them into the Industrial Revolution. The same process today certainly creates many jobs, and lets Kinross proclaim proudly on their website that they have a workforce composed of 97.7% local inhabitants (‘2017 Corporate Responsibility Report’: 42).
The removal of subsistence economies, however, has damaging consequences. Locals are increasingly unable to grow their own food, and it is difficult for them to adapt to the sudden transition into wage labour. A local affected by a Kinross mine in Ghana stated that the mining company has, “taken my lands and [now] I can’t care for myself’” (Andrews 2019: 131). Hence, while Kinross provides jobs, they also remove any alternatives. Thus, while Kinross can boost its CSR reputation by publishing glossy newsletters that state that they created a ‘heritage education program’ around their Paracatu Mine (Kinross World), they systemically remove any spaces to continue to live this heritage.
Indeed, Fanon proclaimed that empire, 'does not call the colonized to the way of god, but to the way of the white man' (2004: 7), and this is precisely what Kinross does, all the while boosting its brand through hollow gestures. It is here that CSR, 'quenches the vampire thirst for the living blood of labour' (Marx 1977: 367), and effectively conceals it under the fabrication that 'local communities reap the benefits of responsible resource development' (Global Affairs Canada 10). A cycle of dependency is created, where the only substantial local employer in a community – deprived of their own subsistence – is Kinross.
Furthermore, the deleterious physical effects of mining are significant. Locals of Kinross' Chirano mine in Ghana pleaded that, “the drinking water [was] not sufficient [with] no alternative drinking water source anywhere” (Andrews 2019: 151). Indeed, thousands of subsistence farmers in Ghana have been forcibly displaced by Canadian mining companies, and have not received adequate compensation (Kwakyewah and Idemudia 2017: 158). Poverty is institutionalized, and Kinross profits directly, shipping millions of ounces of gold away to market. Poor countries are incorporated into the global market, jobs are created, taxes are paid, and money is invested into the local economy, but in a way that is fundamentally predicated on exploitation and ‘patterns of dependency’ (Gordon and Webber 2016: 7).
Fanon understood that the tools of imperial domination had shifted in the latter half of 20th century, stating that, “[a]tillery shelling and scorched earth policy have been replaced by economic dependency” (2004: 27). Now, CSR has mixed economic dependency carefully with branding opportunities, packaging it up for guilt free consumption.
Conclusion
Canada’s approach to corporate social responsibility red and whitewashes its own empire quite effectively. CSR creates the illusion that empire can be responsible and a "win-win" for all involved. Ultimately, corporate social responsibly should not be understood as a force for positive change, but rather a nefarious justification for international wealth extraction, institutionalized suffering, and corporate profit. Just as capitalism has had to adapt to stay relevant, so has imperialism. Corporate social responsibility must be confronted head-on. If the mask is ripped off, the same forces that have been ravaging the world for hundreds of years will be revealed for all to see. Kinross Gold is not a friend, it is not a benefit for all, and it is certainly not ‘responsible’ to people and places ravaged by its monstrosity.
*adapted from an essay submitted for a course assignment at U of T
[1] Of course, from 2013-2020 this number is expected to have grown. Additionally this statistic only accounts for companies publically listed. Popular media and activist networks, NGOs etc. often quote 75% of mining companies in the world are based in Canada.
References
Andrews, Nathan. 2019. Gold Mining and the Discourses of Corporate Social Responsibility in Ghana. Palgrave Macmillan.
Archel, Pablo, et al. 2011. The Institutionalisation of Unaccountability: Loading the Dice of Corporate Social Responsibility Discourse. Accounting Organizations and Society, 36, 327–43.
Arko, Benedict. 2013. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in the Large Scale Gold Mining Industry in Ghana’. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research. 8(1).
Banerjee, Subhabrata Bobby. 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Critical Sociology. (34)1, 51–79.
---. 2003. ‘Who Sustains Whose Development? Sustainable Development and the Reinvention of Nature’. Organization Studies. (24)1, 143–80.
Berens, Guido, et al. 2007. The CSR-Quality Trade-Off: When Can Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Ability Compensate Each Other?. Journal of Business Ethics. 74(3), 233–52.
Blowfield, Michael, and Jedrzej George Frynas. 2005. Setting New Agendas: Critical Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility in the Developing World. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944). 18(3), 499–513.
Global Affairs Canada. 2014. ‘Doing Business the Canadian Way: A Strategy to Advance Corporate Social Responsibility in Canada's Extractive Sector Abroad’. 14 Nov. 2014.
Global Affairs Canada. 2009. ‘Building the Canadian Advantage: A Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector’.
Dashwood, Hevina S. 2012. The Rise of Global Corporate Social Responsibility: Mining and the Spread of Global Norms. Cambridge University Press.
Fanon, Frantz. 2004. The Wretched of the Earth. Translated by Richard Philcox, Grove Press.
Friedman, Milton. 2002. Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press.
Gordon, Todd. 2010. Imperialist Canada. Arbeiter Ring Publishing.
Gordon, Todd, and Jeffery R. Webber. 2016. Blood of Extraction: Canadian Imperialism in Latin America. Fernwood Publishing.
Hilson, Gavin. 2011. Inherited Commitments: Do Changes in Ownership Affect Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) at African Gold Mines?. African Journal of Business Management, (5) 10921–39.
Kinross Gold. 2017. Corporate Responsibility Report.
Kinross Gold - About.
http://2017corporateresponsibilityreport.kinross.com/about/default.aspx. Accessed 25 Sept. 2019.
Kinross Gold - Home. http://2017corporateresponsibilityreport.kinross.com/home/default.aspx. Accessed 25 Sept. 2019.
Kinross World. http://kinrossworld.kinross.com/en/. Accessed 30 Sept. 2019.
Kwakyewah, Cynthia, and Uwafiokun Idemudia. ‘Canada-Ghana Engagements in the Mining Sector: Protecting Human Rights or Business as Usual’. Transnational Human Rights Review, 2017, pp. 146–70.
Marx, Karl. 1977. Capital. Translated by Ben Fowkes, Vintage Books.
O’Faircheallaigh, Ciaran, and Saleem Ali. Earth Matters: Indigenous Peoples, the Extractive Industries and Corporate Social Responsibility. 2017.
Smyth, Julie. ‘Canada’s Top 50 Socially Responsible Corporations: 2015’. Macleans. 8 June 2015, https://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/canadas-top-50-most-socially
responsible-companies/.
Thomas-Müller, Clayton. We Need to Start Calling out Corporate “Redwashing”. CBC News. 20 March, 2017. https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/corporateredwashing-1.4030443.
‘Whitewash’. Merriam-Webster.
Comentários