Most of the companies of China with operations in the Katanga province utilise the local workers of DRC and also make extensive use of Chinese workers. The working circumstances differ between the two groups, as most of the Chinese workers are generally paid more and provided with accommodation (Maphaka 2021, interview;
Jansson, 2010). It has been clear that “even if, by Western standards, the conditions for Chinese expatriate staff are tough, they are distinctly superior to those of the Congolese workers.” (Rights & Accountability in Development, 2009: 23). The conditions of work for the latter are mostly understood as second-rate. In a survey that was carried out earlier in 2009, by the Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID) also an NGO, that examined the job security, primary remuneration, freedom of safety, health, association, and social benefits “only a few respondents had anything positive to say about conditions in Chinese companies” (Rights & Accountability in Development, 2009: 8). This finding is endorsed by the experiential research by the DRC NGO, Action against Impunity for Human Rights (ACIDH) (Jansson 2010).
146
There are also undeviating acts of criminality instigated by the Chinese employers against the DRC workers that have been reported too. These include physical abuses of some of the DRC workers at the hands of the Chinese companies' representatives and the liquidation of hospital bills of some of the local workers who have buttressed injuries at work. These are coupled with the various incidents that have been reported to the Congolese NGO ACIDH that pertained to the Chinese companies. Such reported incidents mostly related to the problems of illegal retrenchments of workers affiliated to trade union activities, outstanding indemnities for injured workers, and the various workplace accidents (Jansson, 2010). Additionally, the issue of child labour when it comes to the criticisms levelled against the Chinese companies cannot be avoided too as the latter have been accused of buying goods from artisanal miners including children. When it comes to environmental management, not a lot of initiatives have been delineated on the Chinese companies’ side.
All-inclusive information is not yet availed on this issue. It has been propounded that the Chinese MNCs and SOEs with operations in the mining sector of the DRC have neither concluded the necessary environmental impact assessments, nor the compulsory environmental management plans for the projects of mining, as outlined in the article 15 of the DRC mining code. It has additionally been proposed that the Chinese MNCs and SOEs disregards the regulatory conditions relating to the transport, storage and sales of the mineral products. Within the context of governance, it has been revealed that in the complex environment of Katanga, “Chinese companies are both the beneficiaries and victims of this system.” (Jansson, 2010). Whilst the representatives of the Chinese companies have demonstrated their despair at the persecution directed at them by the dishonourable local government officials, disgruntlement has been demonstrated by the DRC civil society representatives and workers over the Chinese company representatives’ tendency of recompensating bribes to “get out of situations” and this has intensified their CSR problems. It is in this context that the RAID as quoted by Jansson (2010: 3) indicated that:
Congolese workers spoke about the complicity between the Congolese authorities and Chinese companies and denounced the widespread practice among Chinese managers of bribing labour
147
inspection agents, security services and members of the judiciary as a means of settling labour disputes to their advantage.
One of the driving forces is the issue of the language barriers which is mostly recognised in terms of the relations of Chinese companies with local community stakeholders and employees at large. The combination of the communication problems and residential segregation is collectively reinforcing factors within this context. Chinese managers and workers do not feel safe in the DRC environment and on that account, barely leave the compounds where they are accommodated. This implies that they then have limited exposure to the local culture and languages (Rights
& Accountability in Development, 2009). Likewise, most Chinese Company representatives are mostly distinguished as reluctant to participate in dialogue with the DRC stakeholders such as community and trade union representatives. This is a by- product of the four principal drivers characterised by cultural differences to avoid the costly execution of the improvement of working conditions and alternative CSR initiatives, language barriers and the experience of the corrupt activities within the DRC government making the Chinese stakeholders wary of unnecessary engagements (Jansson, 2010).
One of the critiques relates to the difficulty to validate Chinese ethical conduct in the extractive sector of the DRC. Squarely, there is a piece of evidence that proclaims that Chinese influence in the DRC has back-pedalled a positive trend. Whilst the DRC mining practices have had a trajectory that is positive since the dissolution of the civil, Premicongo (Lubumbashi-based NGO) released a report in November 2018 detailing socially and environmentally unscrupulous conduct by the Huachin (China Nonferrous Metal Mining Corporation) with operations in the Mabende in the Haut-Katanga region.
This report catalogues various issues that relate to waste-water land pollution, deforestation, restricted movement of the local people, and contamination of the drinking water. More or less, the 2017 Amnesty Report detailed adults and children mining cobalt in the tapered man-made tunnels at the DRC mine sites that are inter- linked to the Huayou Cobalt (Chinese Processing Company).
The report assessed the development that the other 28 mining companies together with Huayou Cobalt had made since the 2016 Child labour risks emerged. Instead, it
148
had initially concluded that not much has been done by the companies to take sufficient action for the compliance with the global standards (Karlsson, 2019).
Antithetical to this, there are several indications that China made progress in accountable sourcing and production beyond some areas. The China Chamber of Commerce of Metals Minerals and Chemicals Importers and Exporters (CCCMC) instituted the Chinese Due Diligence Guidelines for accountable supply chains of minerals in the year 2015 and it was also influential in initiating the 2016 Responsible Cobalt Initiative (RCI). In line with RCS Global, there are an escalating number of Chinese processors and producers who strive to bring company enactments in line with the global standards (Karlsson, 2019).
7.7. Overall analysis of the low Chinese CSR environmental and social