No one can deny the massive impact the mining industry has on our economy: while there are numerous ways to measure this, according to Statista, the industry contributed an added value of about R202.05-billion in 2023.
This does not take into account the hundreds of thousands of South Africans employed in the sector; or the thousands of communities benefiting from local development through social labour plans and procurement opportunities for local SMMEs.
The fact is that South Africa would not be what it is today without the mining industry.
Having said that, there is no escaping the hard truth that the modern South African mining industry would also not be what it is today without its painful past. The cost of the industry’s success on the lives of black South Africans and migrant workers from neighbouring states employed by the mines, and on their families, has been traumatic.
Thirty years after our transition to a democratic state founded on the values of human dignity, the achievement of equality and advancement of human rights, the mining industry has yet to acknowledge in any way this extraordinary history.
In 1997, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission offered a unique opportunity to do so. However, the submissions presented by the Chamber of Mines (now the Minerals Council of South Africa) were wholly inadequate and exculpatory, and rightfully criticised in the commission’s final report.
It is disappointing that this momentous opportunity for reconciliation with broader society was missed at the time.
The lack of meaningful acknowledgement by the mining industry continues to plague attempts by the industry to build trust with stakeholders.
However, for some time now both the Minerals Council and individual mining companies have been applying their minds to legacy issues and their acknowledgement as an essential step in dealing with the past.
Until now, standing in the way of moving beyond merely applying minds seriously to the necessity of dealing with legacy issues has been the deep distrust between the government and the mining industry; a fear that the government would exploit any form of acknowledgement to the detriment of the industry.
Since the change of national government in May, the country has been swept by a wave of positivity, a sense of renewal and a much closer working relationship between the national government and the private sector.
That makes this the ideal opportunity for the mining industry to showcase its progress post-apartheid, while acknowledging the legacies of the past in collaboration with the government which will hopefully acknowledge its own shortcomings and failures over the past 30 years.
Mining practices in South Africa have progressed significantly since the end of apartheid: the industry has collectively improved working conditions; drastically reduced deaths and safety incidents and significantly enhanced health conditions for miners; more inclusive engagement with affected stakeholders has become entrenched in many company processes; policies drafted by the government and companies alike are incrementally contributing to socioeconomic development and improved environmental protection; and mining companies are adopting global standards that enforce greater transparency and establish obligations to uphold human rights.
These and other advancements are overlooked in favour of a default narrative that the mining industry is irretrievably stained by its past and incapable of transforming; an acknowledgement would simply be viewed as an insincere, cynical box-ticking exercise.
Nothing less than a heartfelt and remorseful acknowledgement would be credible. And there are many examples in the world where transgressors of human rights violations have acknowledged their past, taken appropriate restorative action and subsequently been embraced by society at large.
The most extreme and well-documented example of this is Germany’s ongoing acknowledgement, expressions of remorse, apologies and actions in relation to the Holocaust.
What then is keeping mining companies from this essential act of acknowledgement?
Acknowledging past wrongs may create opportunities for populist spoilers to exploit what they would interpret as a vulnerability, and attempt to enhance their own prestige, power and resources by initiating litigation against the Minerals Council and/or individual mining companies.
Although legal opinion has been taken from senior counsel who rightly concluded that an acknowledgement of past legacies would not create a cause of action, there remains a concern that bringing this issue to the fore may do more harm than good to the mining industry in South Africa.
My experience in transitional justice and reconciliation over the past 40 years, both in South Africa and internationally, has proved the opposite.
In our view, the solution to the challenge should be that the industry, through the Minerals Council, makes a genuine attempt at reconciliation. For the industry to build trust with both stakeholders and the public at large, enough to allow a meaningful dialogue to occur, the starting point must be to acknowledge all aspects of the past.
Doing this would separate the current mining industry from both the apartheid past and the 1997 TRC attempt.
The first step in this process would be to consult with stakeholders to elicit their views on the causes of the industry’s bad reputation and possible remedies. The proposed consultation should involve deep engagement and evidence-based listening.
With an enhanced understanding of the harm caused by past practices, the industry should then, as a second step, take a carefully considered view on the most effective form of acknowledgement.
Would that be an acknowledgement statement, or would it be corrective actions, or both? Would the statement and/or actions also require compensation as an essential ingredient? Could the objective of reconciliation be achieved without an apology?
To complete the process, what is required is a commitment to, and decisive action towards, comprehensive transformation in the mining sector. It entails articulating an expansive vision of the future of mining. It should evidence a mindset to develop a new mining industrialisation cluster and an inclusive modernisation framework that is people-centred.
But it should also entail an action plan for how the industry will take a leadership role in mitigating the adverse impact of past practices and how it will take a leading position relating to transformation; an industry committed not only to shareholder value but to stakeholder value enhancement.
Brian Currin is Executive Director of Concentric Alliance. He is a human rights lawyer, international mediator and peace process facilitator.
