By Gillian Schutte
I recently came across a public Facebook post by former ANC Minister Without Portfolio, Jay Naidoo, which read:
"I met the German Ambassador Peschke yesterday to discuss a range of issues but also to brief him on the challenges we are facing in protecting the Magaliesberg Biosphere and to ensure that communities living in the Platinum Belt have their human and environmental rights respected. We have seen the collapse of much of the enforcement capacity across the Platinum Belt. We are struggling with illegal mining activity in our rich citrus and food basket that threatens thousands of jobs in the agricultural sector. Much of our underground water is being contaminated with industrial and agricultural chemicals and crime has exploded. We are facing an emergency in many communities. And no one is listening in power. So it’s always positive to meet a diplomat who embraces the country they are posted to. We shared stories of struggling communities in the platinum belt who are determined to protect their environment and Magaliesberg Biosphere and build livelihoods for themselves. We are calling on the diplomatic community to visit our communities and come and talk to residents in our communities. Thank you Ambassador @AmbPeschke for listening and your desire to visit us and to hear the pleas of our people. And to share your advice and how Germany embraces its reunification process and deal with the inequality gap. 🙏🏾"
As a social justice writer and filmmaker who has been deeply involved in pro-poor, pro-worker activism—particularly in areas like Marikana where struggles over environmental transgressions, worker rights, and social justice are prominent—Naidoo's message prompted a series of reflections. While his words may convey concern, they seem to align with familiar patterns of corporate greenwashing and narrative framing that appeal to "global diplomacy" rather than directly addressing the urgent issues faced by workers and dispossessed communities.
Naidoo's emphasis on illegal mining, water contamination, and rising crime, though legitimate concerns, are said in a vacuum that fails to draw attention to the more destructive activities of major multinational corporations in the area like Sibanye-Stillwater and Tharisa Mines. These giants operate extensively in the Platinum Belt, employing methods such as open-pit mining, notorious for its devastating impact on air quality, land, and surrounding communities. This process leads to deforestation, soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, and exposes the environment to airborne pollutants, contributing to cancer and respiratory health issues among locals. Water sources become contaminated with heavy metals and chemicals, rendering the soil unsuitable for agriculture and displacing communities reliant on these resources.
These corporations, with their substantial budgets for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and public relations campaigns, wield immense power and influence. Meanwhile, local communities bear the brunt of their exploitative practices. Naidoo's appeal to Ambassador Andreas Peschke is likely perceived by his followers as a well-intentioned effort to garner international support, yet it is important to consider the broader context. Germany's economic ties with Sibanye-Stillwater—through companies like BASF, which purchases platinum for automotive catalysts used in brands like BMW, Volkswagen, and Mercedes—suggest that diplomatic engagement may not be free from vested interests.
Given these economic dependencies, Ambassador Peschke's engagement will most probably not be merely a gesture of goodwill but could, in partnership with local neoliberal political elites, also aim to manage and pacify social unrest in the region to secure supply chains. Frequent retrenchments, high unemployment, poverty, and desperation create conditions ripe for unrest. In this context, Naidoo's call for diplomatic visits risks maintaining narratives that placate foreign investors while sidestepping the pressing issues faced by those most affected by corporate exploitation.
Furthermore, Naidoo's approach of engaging with diplomats rather than directly with communities—especially those aligned with more militant, worker-led unions like the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU)—raises questions. Diplomats often represent state or corporate interests that prioritise stability and resource security over the rights of workers or the environment. While diplomacy has its place, relying solely on such channels will not effectively address the systemic exploitation and environmental degradation perpetuated by these corporations.
Corporate greenwashing is a well-documented tactic where multinationals allocate significant funds to CSR initiatives, creating an illusion of responsibility and sustainability. These campaigns work to overshadow the lack of substantial investment in actual community development or environmental remediation. As environmental activist Vandana Shiva critiques: "Corporations destroy nature, and then they create fake solutions to present themselves as saviours." Such initiatives serve to secure donor support and maintain a social license to operate without addressing the systemic harm inflicted by legal mining operations.
Naidoo's mention of the "collapse of enforcement mechanisms" frames it as an unfortunate oversight, yet we on the left argue that regulatory environments are systematically weakened to accommodate powerful multinationals. Weak regulations and lax enforcement are deliberate features exploited by corporations to operate with impunity. Focusing on illegal mining obscures the more expansive and destructive licensed mining operations that continue unchecked.
The rise in crime, as mentioned by Naidoo, is another area that warrants critical examination. Crime in areas like the Platinum Belt is linked to broader socio-economic factors such as poverty, unemployment, Ill health and frequent displacement —conditions exacerbated by massive retrenchments and exploitative practices of mining giants. Fuzzy framing of crime as an outcome of failing enforcement overlooks these underlying causes.
In a conversation with Naidoo last year he alluded to starting a food growing partnership with Sibanye Stillwater for Marikana communities. This also raised red flags for me because it is my opinion that food-growing projects around mining sites, while seemingly beneficial, serve as part of CSR strategies that do not address the root problems. Vandana Shiva warns of such initiatives: "When corporations start to control food systems, they undermine local autonomy and perpetuate dependency under the guise of empowerment." These projects do not tackle the systemic environmental damage caused by mining and could lock communities into using contaminated lands, exposing them to health risks.
While often outsourced to individuals or NGO’s, these ‘community initiatives’ can become owned as private land touted as locally-led food-growing initiatives. These projects may appear to offer genuine, long-term solutions, but Vandana Shiva and other critics warn that these can also be a strategic ruse. In such cases, the initiator may secure substantial corporate or donor funding by framing the project in alignment with these popular tenets, using them as a hook to attract international support and resources.
Shiva highlights that such initiatives often promise community empowerment but end up serving as a way for organisers to access and control funds while maintaining power over the communities involved. She argues that even the language of agroecology and biodiversity can be co-opted when used in projects where the true intention is not to empower the local population but to gain funding and maintain influence over resources and land.
In these instances, the projects may employ the terminology of "regenerative agriculture" and "sustainability" to appear ethical and community-focused, but the underlying structure remains exploitative. Shiva insists that unless the projects are genuinely led by the community and focus on addressing structural inequalities and environmental damage caused by previous industrial activities, they risk becoming another tool for maintaining corporate or NGO dominance while creating dependence under the guise of empowerment.
In light of these complexities, it's worth considering whether Naidoo's approach, though perhaps well-intentioned, supports narratives that align with corporate interests rather than championing the needs of the communities. His focus on engaging with international diplomats and his seeming alignment with CSR-like initiatives could be seen as performative, neoliberal activism, which often secures donor funding and international approval without challenging systemic exploitation at its core. Only time will reveal the true impact of his strategy.
From my perspective the Platinum Belt requires more than diplomatic engagement and CSR projects; it needs a radical shift that prioritises workers, communities, and the environment over corporate profits. Genuine change demands stringent enforcement of environmental regulations onto mining giants, transparency in corporate practices, and accountability measures that hold corporations responsible for the damage they inflict. Strengthening grassroots movements and empowering militant unions like AMCU, rather than the corporate aligned union NUM, is crucial in challenging systemic exploitation and advocating for workers' rights as well as community land rights.
As we reflect on the path forward, Vandana Shiva's words offer a poignant reminder of authentic activism as opposed to the fake activism of greenwashing and CSR projects: "As usual, in every scheme that worsens the position of the poor, it is the poor who are invoked as beneficiaries."
* Gillian Schutte is a film-maker, and a well-known social justice and race-justice activist and public intellectual.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.