|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
For decades, Africa has been portrayed as a continent in need of external assistance, with aid programmes often positioned as the primary solution to its economic and social challenges. However, as former African Union Ambassador to the US Dr Arikana Chihombori-Quao argues, Africa does not lack resources; rather, it suffers from the organised exploitation of its wealth which continues to benefit foreign powers while leaving African nations underdeveloped.
In March, Dr Chihombori-Quao pointed out that during the post-World War II recovery, Africa was a major contributor to the European Recovery Plan (ERP) commonly known as the Marshall Plan. The US contributed US$13 billion (equivalent to US$175 billion today), yet Africa’s mineral wealth significantly bolstered Europe’s economic resurgence. Despite this, Africa itself was left without meaningful development, raising questions about who truly benefits from the continent’s resources.
This historical pattern of resource exploitation continues today in various forms including corporate social responsibility (CSR) which is widely touted as a way for businesses to give back to society. In Kenya, companies frequently launch well-publicised initiatives such as providing scholarships, supporting environmental projects and making food donations, framing themselves as champions of social good. However, many of these same corporations engage in harmful practices that undermine the very communities they claim to support. While businesses highlight their philanthropic efforts, questions arise about the true impact of their core operations on indigenous communities, the environment and workers’ rights. In this piece, I address an issue that is the subject of growing concern: the disconnect between corporate generosity as demonstrated through CSR and the harmful impacts of the companies’ primary business activities.
One of the most disturbing aspects of CSR is how companies give with one hand and take with the other. One industry where this is most evident is the extractive sector where companies have been exploiting natural resources while presenting themselves as community benefactors. They sponsor social programmes and high-visibility events to project an image of responsibility. However, they fall short of addressing population displacement, environmental degradation, poorly remunerated labour and the socio-economic disruptions mining brings with it. Communities that have lost their ancestral lands and traditional livelihoods have been left with minimal compensation and little say in the decisions affecting their future. In this way, CSR has become a tool for corporations to manipulate public perception and silence critics. What this really means is that companies use CSR as a form of “greenwashing” – a strategy for businesses to engage in superficial efforts to appear environmentally or socially responsible while continuing their harmful practices behind the scenes.
Prime examples are Mombasa Cement and Base Titanium in Kwale whose operations vividly illustrate the contradiction between corporate generosity and the environmental and social harm they cause. Like many corporations in the extractive and industrial sectors, Mombasa Cement publicly emphasises its commitment to corporate social responsibility. According to its Social Responsibility Policy, the company claims to provide “limited financial and material support” to local projects, invest in youth development programmes and promote health and safety for employees and subcontractors. It even prides itself in being the safest company in its sector.
The company has also been widely recognised for its CSR programmes, including school renovations, water distribution, feeding programmes and beautification projects, most notably the transformation of the Kibarani dump site in Mombasa into a green park. This high-profile initiative earned the company significant praise, cementing its image as a socially responsible corporate entity. It has also earned awards such as “Best Company in Corporate Social Responsibility”. In January 2025, The Star newspaper reported on Mombasa Cement’s renovation of Mkwajuni Primary School in Kilifi County where classrooms were repaired, desks provided and new facilities built to improve learning conditions.
This philanthropic image has been further reinforced by endorsements from political leaders and community members who have praised Mombasa Cement’s contributions as a lasting legacy. When the head of Mombasa Cement passed away, social media overflowed with tributes, with some calling for official days of mourning and others describing the defunct as a “hero” who had taken Mombasa’s well-being to be a personal duty. This public response exposes how corporate power extends beyond business to shape social narratives, supporting the belief that charity, not accountability, is the measure of responsibility.
While the company’s CSR activities paint a picture of corporate goodwill, they mask the long-term adverse impacts linked to Mombasa Cement’s operations. For instance, communities have long voiced concerns about the respiratory illnesses caused by dust pollution, the loss of agricultural land, and the destruction of water sources. Additionally, complaints about cracks in houses caused by blasting, road damage caused by traffic from heavy trucks, and inadequate compensation for land taken for limestone extraction have also been raised. Once reliant on fertile soils, farmers now struggle with declining crop yields due to soil contamination. Crops such as maize, cashew nuts and coconuts that are central to the community’s livelihood have suffered, leaving locals struggling.
The contradiction and the irony of this situation is painfully clear; land is seized, air and water are contaminated, yet food is handed out, labelled as charity. Homes are destroyed by blasting only for a few classrooms to be erected and hailed as development. Farms are destroyed and then scholarships are offered to children as though education can somehow replace a lost livelihood. The pain suffered by these communities is undeniable as they watch their land, their homes and their way of life crumble before their eyes. Their desperate cries for help fall on deaf ears, their pain compounded by the failure of government institutions and administrative negligence.
Yet this carefully crafted image of benevolence has taken root among many families who often say, “Mombasa Cement imesaidia watu wengi. Watu wengi wanapata chakula. Watoto wangu wamelipiwa fees na Mombasa Cement. Mungu aibariki Mombasa Cement,” that the company has assisted multitudes, that it has paid school fees for many… However, instead of providing communities with sustainable solutions, these programmes reinforce dependency and corporate self-promotion.
This brings us to another troubling aspect of corporate philanthropy. Beneficiaries from Kwale, Kilifi and Mombasa who receive Mombasa Cement’s food aid are often forced to queue for hours under the scorching sun in dehumanising conditions and with little regard for their dignity. What is presented as charity is in fact an exercise in control, where vulnerable individuals must endure hardship to receive basic necessities that should be their right and not a privilege granted at the discretion of a corporation
Base Titanium in Kwale County
According to a report of the Kenya Human Rights Commission titled “Assessing Gaps in the Revenue and Royalty Frameworks in the Mining Sector in Kenya”, the mining industry in Kenya generates substantial revenue but the distribution of royalties and benefits remains skewed. Communities living in resource-rich areas – such as Kwale County where Base Titanium operates – often see little in return for the extraction of their natural resources. The report exposes how mining companies, including Base Titanium, have been able to profit from Kenya’s mineral wealth while leaving local communities with only a fraction of the benefits.
During a post-mining land use workshop organised by Base Titanium on 16 September 2024, I had the opportunity to raise a question regarding the company’s approach to addressing the concerns of displaced communities, particularly in terms of fair compensation and sustainable resettlement. In effect, although compensation was offered to those displaced by the mining activities, many argued that it was insufficient and failed to reflect the true value of their land and their deep cultural connection to their ancestral territories. Moreover, the displaced were not provided with viable alternative means of earning a livelihood and nor was the necessary infrastructure to support the displaced communities put in place.
One of the most concerning revelations during the workshop was that it would take an estimated 50 years to rehabilitate the land to its original state, emphasising the long-term environmental degradation caused by mining activities – damage that far outweighs the temporary relief offered through compensation or resettlement. This prolonged degradation not only disrupts ecosystems but also deprives communities of sustainable futures for generations to come.
Additionally, I noted with concern that even after this extensive rehabilitation process, displaced indigenous communities will be denied the opportunity to reclaim their land despite having once depended on it. Instead, the land will remain under state control. Many might argue, “Why should the communities claim the land after receiving compensation?” However, this argument fails to acknowledge that no amount of compensation can truly replace the loss of ancestral land, cultural ties and the long-term consequences of displacement.
Base Titanium continues to position itself as a responsible corporate entity, claiming to have a “net positive impact” on the environment through rehabilitation and biodiversity programmes. The question is, what exactly constitutes a net positive impact? Does land restoration, after decades of destruction, truly compensate for the scale of ecological and social harm caused?
To strengthen its public image, Base Titanium has invested in community empowerment programmes such as cotton and poultry farming for displaced families. While these projects provide some income, they do not restore the economic independence that communities had before displacement. Whereas it has been receiving awards and recognition for undertakings such as scholarships, infrastructure projects and environmental conservation programmes, Base Titanium’s claims of corporate responsibility do not translate into real sustainable development for the affected communities. Once the minerals are exhausted and the company moves on having reaped immense profits, the community will be left with degraded land, economic uncertainty and a future shaped by loss rather than progress.
As Base Titanium plans to expand its operations, it must learn from the lessons of its past activities. Should it move to new areas like Lamu and Tana River, the company must ensure that the affected communities are treated with fairness and respect. After more than a decade of mining activities in Kenya, the company has the responsibility of ensuring that its operations do not just bring economic benefits to the government and profits for the company but also uphold the rights of local communities, protect the environment and contribute to long-term sustainable development. By adopting a more holistic approach that addresses the fundamental aspects of community needs and environmental considerations, Base Titanium can minimise the negative impacts of its operations and build a more responsible and positive legacy in these regions.
The shift in the provision of public services
Many African nations have the financial capacity to provide basic services such as education, housing, food and healthcare, yet mismanagement and corruption often divert funds away from development priorities. When corporations take over responsibilities such as building schools or hospitals, they enable governments to abdicate their fundamental duties. Besides, while corporations often promote CSR as a tool for community development, most programmes provide symbolic gestures rather than lasting solutions. A mining company might build a single classroom in a village but will not invest in training teachers or improving the education system. Similarly, a cement factory may repair classrooms and provide desks but will not hire teachers or ensure long-term education quality.
This complex dynamic between corporate philanthropy and governance in Kenya took centre stage when the High Court halted a directive by the Mombasa County Government barring Mombasa Cement Company from covering the medical bills for the disadvantaged communities. The court’s decision to halt the Mombasa County Government’s directive against corporate-funded medical aid set a dangerous precedent. While it may appear that the court aimed to protect charitable giving, it effectively legitimised a system where corporations fill gaps left by the government, further eroding the state’s duty to provide essential services. By allowing a private company to dictate access to healthcare for the poor, the court supported corporate influence over public welfare rather than holding the government accountable for strengthening healthcare systems.
Politicians enabling corporate harm to communities
Beyond corporate influence, political leaders play a key role in shaping the landscape of corporate accountability or the lack thereof. Many politicians strategically position themselves alongside big companies, praising their CSR activities while ignoring the long-term harm caused by their operations. Ribbon-cutting ceremonies for donated classrooms, water projects or scholarships become convenient photo opportunities masking the displacement and destruction that corporations leave behind. Instead of pushing for stronger environmental regulations, fair compensation and meaningful community participation, some leaders choose to defend corporate interests, often citing “investment and job creation” as justification for turning a blind eye to violations. They fail to acknowledge the unsustainable nature of these jobs that are often low-paying, temporary or reliant on exploitative conditions, and the irreversible damage to land, water sources, and traditional livelihoods. This pattern ensures that land injustices, environmental degradation and exploitative labour practices persist, with politicians becoming enablers rather than defenders of their constituents’ rights.
A human rights-based approach demands corporate accountability not corporate-driven aid models that reinforce dependence and inequality. Mining companies must be subject to stronger legal frameworks that guarantee fair compensation, environmental protection and community participation in decision-making. True development is not about scholarships and food donations; it is about securing land rights, sustaining livelihoods and ensuring that communities control their own futures. Anything less is exploitation masked as generosity.
