NEVER AGAIN MARIKANA-WE ARE WATCHING YOU!
Opening address at the showcasing of the work of the Bench Marks Foundation,
Willow Park Conference Centre, 14 th October 2013, Bishop Jo Seoka
Almost fourteen months ago, August 16 th 2012, conflict between capital and state cost the nation forty four (44) lives. Thirty four (34) workers were killed in a labour dispute with their employer, with another 10 workers, including police and security personnel who lost their lives. The often asked question is, “What did this massacre change in the mining industry?” I must hasten to tell you here that, just after Marikana massacre, the Bench Marks Foundation was asked by the Chamber of
Mines, ‘what our recommendations for the industry were?’ We responded by submitting short, medium and long term proposals which we thought would immediately help the industry become more socially responsible. Safe to say that was the last time we heard from the Chamber. So, we wonder what the motive was to even ask when nothing was to be done. We can now assume it was another public exercise to give impression that the mining houses have the interest of workers at heart.
The BMF and most South African citizens thought that Marikana opened a window of opportunity for the mining houses to really improve the lives of their worker and surrounding communities. This window seemed to have closed after the ANC Manguang conference, where business heavy weights linked to mining were elected onto the ruling party leadership. Not so long thereafter in January
2013, Harmony Gold locked out workers, ‘saying we are now seizing the agenda’. This acrimonious act was followed by Anglo Platinum threat to cut 14 000 permanent jobs. We must remind you here that by then Anglo Platinum had already dismissed 36 000 contracted labour between 2007 and
2011. These voiceless workers had no recourse to the so called protection of the labour relations framework. They have been forgotten, un-unionised and unorganised, and not compensated for the loss of their livelihoods. All this is of equal concern to us. This response by mining and the backlash for the strikes in 2012, tells us a different story, one of an industry that is completely insensitive to the needs of workers and their communities. We hear all this talk about stakeholders, as if all role players in the industry are treated equally, fairly and as if Mining houses has worker’s concerns at heart. Friends, reality tell us that nothing could be further from the truth.
If we examine the need for retrenchment of workers from the side of the mining industry and then compare it to the agenda of sustainable development, we immediately see huge contradictions. For instance, in January 2013 Anglo Platinum announced the possible retrenchment of 14 000 workers which was reduced to 6 000 by May due union and public pressure. The reason for retrenchments was said to be unprofitability of operations. The plan was to mothball some of their mines such as
Khuseleka and Khomanani in Rustenburg. This announcement gave the public a perception that these mines were unprofitable but, ironically in June 2012, the Interim Report from Amplats gave a different picture which confirmed the workers belief that these two mines were productive and contributed positively towards the balance sheet. Per square meter milled per worker and refined
PGM metal per worker was at level with the rest of production and had risen by 20%. Interesting at the time Anglo Plats said that productivity at the two mines doubles the average productivity levels

of all its mines.
This has taught us that unprofitability does not mean making loss but means making less profit. Historical records show us that over 20 years before the 2008 recession, the three biggest platinum producers made close to 30% average returns on their operating margins. The return on equity was high and the IMF in 2012 said the return on equity for non-financial firms was highly profitable with average returns of about 12% to 13%, coming third among 19 developing countries.
So we have to ask what is all this stakeholder talk about. Let us be clear the only real stakeholder that benefits is the shareholders and government to some extent in the form of taxes. It is also worth noting that taxes to government were severely curtailed since the recession begun and that about 60% of mines pay no taxes. It is further worth noting that mining areas are some of the most undeveloped areas in the country. The big three platinum producers claim to operate with community consent, that mining brings development to host communities and that communities are better off than before mining. This is questionable to us.
Now let’s begin by looking at workers, the most important stakeholder group other than impacted communities and raise some critical questions. For instance, why are wages and income of workers not part and parcel of sustainable development and sustainability reporting? In the northern hemisphere, wages and incomes of workers are part of the sustainable development paradigm as living wage provides for social stability, security and economic development. In South Africa this approach is counted as a cost to the industry and to shareholder value, while in terms of the national income of the country this is counted as income. Therefore we must ask, ‘what happens when mass retrenchments take place in order to restore very high profitability margins?’ Again what is the cost to the country overall balance sheet in this doing this? Well we know from COSATU research that every mine worker supports up to 12 dependents.
Earlier on this year Again Anglo American consulted the Bench Marks Foundation on their socioeconomic benefits they bring to South Africa. We believe the question was asked with an intention to counter all the negative publicity around mining and to give impression that it was bringing real development to the country. We noted with interest that they excluded costs on the environment and impacts on communities. We also noticed that in 2012 they claim to have employed 82 000 workers directly and indirectly 302 000, of which 126 000 jobs are supplier related and 176 000 through what they call induced jobs. To us this means, in simple terms, that the amount in wages paid has a positive spinoff of creating demand in the economy and this is how they arrive at their grand figure. So when they retrenched 36 000 employees they had a negative impact on the economy and if they further retrench, the national economy suffers. How many supplier jobs and induced jobs were lost? These negative measurements are not included in their reporting, nor are their social and environmental impacts costs.
According to the information we have we have concluded that during the boom years the big three
Platinum producers returns going to shareholders was 70% and 30% to workers – this is a big discrepancy that cannot be left unchallenged. There is no evidence that during good times, of high profits, that wages matched workers contribution to the economy, yet we wonder why workers are fed up with waiting for the trickledown effect. We cannot argue that the Anglo American calculations look impressive, but we must be honest about what workers are paid. If truth be spoken, workers do not get paid a living wage. If they were we would not have had the Marikana

massacre and they would not still be carrying placards demanding R12 500.00 as a living wage. This was the cause of Marikana – miners died for a living wage thus those left behind say, “Never Again”.
Turning to the question of how communities benefit from mining we remain shocked that not much is budgeted for developmental work compared to Executive salaries. Our research informs us that nine to twelve top executives at Lonmin up to 2010 earned more than what the company contributed towards tens of thousands people in surrounding communities. Lonmin is not the highest payer when it comes to executive management, and yet for a worker at Lonmin it will take
325 years to earn the value of what the CEO earned in one year. This is a wage gap or inequality of
325 to 1 .
This is what we mean when we say “Never again Marikana, we are watching you.” We are watching how returns to shareholders override the national interest of the country, of workers, communities and environment . It’s outrageous that one person can be afforded so much while others live in dire straits. South African born, Ivan Glasenberg, CEO of Glencore according to Forbes in 2012 was worth
US$7.3 million, while Nick Holland of Goldfields in 2012 earned R45, 300 000. These excessive packages have dire consequences and come at the expense of communities. It is unacceptable that communities welfare, their water and air quality, their livelihoods are all sacrificed at the altar of ever increasing profits. Are profits unethically earned? How can CEO’s sleep at night knowing there are benefiting at the cost of communities welfare. We have to ask uncomfortable questions when we become aware that the wages paid do not meet the needs of workers. When communities are deprived of their land and health, we have to challenge this. When about 66 000 workers in the platinum sector are sub-contracted employees and get paid only 60% of what other workers earn, who themselves cannot survive. We have to ask how things can be done differently to ensure a more equal and just society. These are moral and ethical questions that the Church and all justice loving people must ask.
Today I open this conference knowing that the work of the Bench Marks Foundation is crucial to serving the voiceless that are not heard, the poorest of the poor surrounding wealthy mines. We must once again here today reiterate that we are unashamedly on the side of the poor and oppressed, and through our community monitors we aim at giving voice power to the workers and affected communities. We shall continue through our evidence based research to articulate what needs to be done.
Today we pleased to announce that tomorrow we will release a revealing study on Lonmin, looking at their sustainability reporting over 10 years. In this study we look at the promises made by the company , what was achieved from year to year. We must say that we have arrived at shocking findings. Our belief is that this report is reflective of mining on a whole. We want all the mining corporations to know that we are committed to avoiding another Marikana, thus our theme, “Never again Marikana, we are watching you! We are the only organisation doing the kind of evidence based research to see whether these companies live up to their stated intentions and we will examine them all and put them under a microscope for the world to see what is being done with its investments. We will examine the story telling, the false assertions, the so called sustainable development and reporting awards won by many of the biggest culprits to name and shame them.
We must say so far which ever company we look at, we see words, intentions, targets set then broken, discarded or new ones set, yet only to be broken again. Jobs that are promised to locals don’t meterialise and in the end is its communities who sacrifice for shareholder returns.

Friends more questions must be asked and answers sought. We need to continuously ask what is the value of sustainable development reports or integrated reporting if these reports are not adequate measurements of what is truly happening. It seems to us these reports are written by script writers, public relations people, and are aimed at creating a good perception of the corporation. Four years ago our theme for our conference was Beyond Reporting, 3 years ago, Beyond Compliance, and 2 years ago, CSR the Truth and last year Whose Resources?
Tomorrow’s study that will be released on Lonmin bears testimony to what we are saying here. In addition today we will speak to what we consider the key messages that all corporations should take a way with them. These messages are key to the industry and say what needs to be done and how.
Finally, we have to ask what has changed since Marikana, are workers better off, and were their sacrifice of lives enough to jolt the industry into action to address poverty wages and both dangerous working and appalling living conditions. Are communities better off and is their land, water and air been managed properly?
We conclude with some final comments arising out of our studies over the years that show big corporations inflict huge damage on society.
Friends and colleagues, we believe that Companies represent a danger to society if they inflict damage on society. This is a critical issue that the state needs to confront. It seems once large investment by corporations becomes operationalised, the state is weakened on what it can actually do. Small and large transgressions take place. With all our studies so far, companies contravene this or that law or countless laws and yet their social licence to operate remains in place. Socially, environmentally and politically unsustainable industrial projects eventually reach a breaking point.
They accumulate pollution, sickness and anger among the many, in the project and in its surrounding communities. There are no excuses. There are only culprits and victims; there is only the arrogance of power, with community members and workers suffering the consequences. Allow me to quote our esteemed icon leader, Nelson Mandela;
“We know that political freedom alone is still not enough if you lack clean water. Freedom alone is not enough without light to read at night, without time or access to water to irrigate your farm, without the ability to catch fish to feed your family. For this reason the struggle for sustainable development nearly equals the struggle for political freedom. They can grow together or they can unravel each other. Threats to our governments in the century ahead
will come from poverty, if anything” (Nelson Mandela, 2000). And goes on to say,
Overcoming poverty is not a task of charity, it is an act of justice…it is man-made and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings. This is a challenge for us here today –to end poverty for those who dig the wealth of this country.
We leave you with these words to think about at this conference. Thank you for taking time to be with us and for listening.
Rt Rev Dr Jo Seoka
Chairperson Bench Marks Foundation