See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327308549

Multinational corporations’ (MNCs) engagement in Africa : messiahs or

hypocrites?

Article · April 2018

DOI: 10.31920/2056-5658/2018/v5n1a3

CITATIONS READS

5 3,736

1 author:

Lere Amusan
North-West University
82 PUBLICATIONS   239 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Politics of Development and Underdevelopment in Africa View project

Smallholding farming as an agent of sustainable development in Africa View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lere Amusan on 08 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of African Foreign Affairs (JoAFA)
 Indexed at: EBSCO, ProQuest, J-Gate and Sabinet.
 Accredited by IBSS.

Volume 5, Number 1, April 2018

pp 41-62

Multinational Corporations’ (MNCs) Engagement in

Africa: Messiahs or Hypocrites?
Lere Amusan
Department of Politics and International Relations,
North West University, South Africa.
E-mail: Lere.amusan@nwu.ac.za
……………………………………………………..........................................

Abstract

MNCs‟ activities in Africa have dominated academic discussions from the

1970s till date. Their corporate social responsibility (CSR), in the form of
bringing development to areas of their operations, has received mixed reactions.
While some believe that MNCs are sources of economic development,
employment opportunities, and general development to the host communities,
others hold a view that the reverse is the case. Supports received from home
governments because of their economic development in the form of profit
repatriation to the tune of almost 100% as well as the creation of employment
through outsourcing for the citizens of their home countries explain why their
philanthropic activities are questionable. It is the intention of this paper to
examine their activities in Africa. In doing this, issues of mal-development, de-
industrialisation, unemployment, and environmental crises are to receive
academic interrogation. Employing critical theory, qualitative analysis and
secondary data collection, the paper concludes that CSR hardly brings
development to Africa. Therefore, there is a need to look for African solution
to Africa problems.

Keywords: MNCs; Africa; CSR; Economic development; Globalisation

41
 Multinational Corporations’ (MNCs) Engagement in Africa…

Introduction

Like most concepts in the humanities and social sciences, MNCs do not
enjoy a universally acceptable definition. Some define it narrowly as
ownership and day-to-day control provided by any company that has
substantial investment in foreign countries and engages in active
management of such foreign companies (Cohen, 2007; Coll, 2012;
Westra, 2013). This paper sees it as:

a coordinated system or network of cross-border activities, some of

which are carried out within the hierarchy of the firm, and some of
which are carried out through informal social ties or contractual
relationships. Thus an MNC is not defined solely by the extent of
foreign production facilities it owns, but by the sum total of all of its
value-creating activities over which it has a significant influence. These
activities may involve foreign sourcing of various intermediate inputs,
including the sourcing of knowledge, as well as production, marketing
and distribution activities (Cantwell et al., 2010: 569).

Many works are, no doubt, available on the activities of MNCs in

developing states (Cohen, 2007; Ivanović, 2015; Nölke, 2014; Schutter,
Swinnen & Wouters, 2013). Liberalists who wrote about MNCs (Cohen,
2007; Dicken, 2015) see them as agents of development, employment,
clean environment, development of the underdeveloped rural areas
through their adherence to ethical, social and environmental
responsibilities. Some have the opposite view that their operations in
their host countries constitute underdevelopment, unemployment,
misery, human rights abuses, environmental degradation, capital flight,
tax evasion, and unconstitutional change of government. They further
observed that they perpetuate “according-to-rule and against-the-rule”
corruption through bureaucrats and politicians (Wilks and Nordhaug,
2013: 301). These two schools are not far away from the reality for
obvious reasons. In a state with stable political system where law and
order are the imperative of the day, the MNCs may not be able to have
their way because of the existing legal frameworks that check their
activities coupled with functional, incorruptible, civil servants who
execute the laws. At the same time, states that are experiencing political
instability, economic malaise and heterogenic environment are fertile
grounds for the MNCs for resources pillage. This explains why some

42
Lere Amusan/JoAFA, Vol. 5, No. 1, April 2018, pp 41-62

hotspot African states are the primary focus of their operations (Coll,
2012: 59).
MNCs, through globalisation pushed forward by developed states,
aid Africa‟s underdevelopment through the unequal exchange entrenched
in the arrangement (Axford, 2013; Dicken, 2015; Korten, 2015).
Globalisation, capped with World Trade Organisation (WTO), arrogates
more powers to MNCs (Stiglitz, 2013). Other institutions such as
Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), Trade-Related
aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs, technology) and Trade-
Related Investment Measures (TRIMs, trade in service) are some of the
intuitions that concretised the exploitation of Africa (Amin, 2003: 92-
120; Bayne and Woolcock, 2011; Nwoke, 2013: 89-91; Onimode, 2004:
25-7). Negotiation dexterity, diplomatic power, economic preponderance
and socio-cultural upper hands that developed states have in alliance with
their MNCs, have undermined African nation‟s bargaining prowess
during trade negotiations; this has been found to be detrimental to
economic development of the continent (Soobramanien, 2011). A
plethora of instances abound on this in countries like Nigeria,
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Gabon, Angola, Niger, South
Africa, Zimbabwe and Botswana (Burgis, 2015).
MNCs are accused of suffocating indigenous knowledge systems
(IKS) (Amusan, 2014), in control of the knowledge and making it theirs
through patenting despite globally acknowledged geographical
indications (GIs), access, benefit and sharing dicta in international trade
(Amusan, 2014; McGown, 2006).
Also of concern about the activities of the MNCs is the much
publicised three-level Chandler-Redich‟s scheme (Gooderham et al.,
2013). Level one focuses on strategy rather than tactics, level two
comprises sub-regional offices that are geographically situated as a
regulator of level three. The activities of production, extraction based on
availability of factors of production and type of government in a state of
operation.is the area of focus of level three that this paper explores
below. This communication channel explains why MNCs usually deny
any wrongdoings in host countries under the pretext of not being directly
involved in the day-to-day operations of their subsidiaries.

43
 Multinational Corporations’ (MNCs) Engagement in Africa…

Basic theoretical approaches to the study of MNCs

This paper intends to contextualise realist, transnational, neo-classical,

oligopoly (conservative and radical), dependency and neo-Marxist
schools (Olukoshi, 1989). The realist approach sees states as the only unit
of analysis. It posits that the use of force by states is the only credible
means of allocating resources. Olukoshi (1989) opines that states can use
MNCs to achieve their foreign policy objectives in host states in the form
of a change of government and economic control. As a state-centric
theory, realists believe in the use of the law of the land and coercive force
to control MNCs.
As appealing as this position is, it has its own lapses. For one, it
cannot translate the organic linkages between state and MNCs into
reality. Because of the political power of MNCs both in the home and
host states, they form part of decision-making structures on both sides.
This is prominent both in the developed and developing states. Rather
than states using MNCs to achieve their objectives, there are instances
where MNCs use their home states to promote their profit motives at
home and abroad. MNCs, in some cases, provide the munitions for
states to achieve certain objectives and use their CSRs to force states and
their citizens to support their activities in the form of product
consumption and general acceptability.
The transnationalist school sees MNCs as bigger than the state,
which in most cases provides public goods that states find hard to
provide (Wilks and Nordhaug, 2013). It posits that MNCs have more
resources than states, and can determine how, when and where to
allocate resources. In many instances, they employ staff that are more
than the population of many states in Africa such as The Gambia and
Sao Tome and Principe. Because of their familiarity with latest
information technology, they serve as ears for their home states
(headquarters) in relation to security information. They know the
economic potentiality of every state and use the same to bargain for
favourable economic relations with their host states. Transnationalists
maintain that MNCs command the loyalty of their staff, not the
government in power. This is mainly achieved through the highly-
incentivised work packages MNCs offer but which governments cannot
equal. This translates to unalloyed loyalty to their job and establishment.
In addition to salaries, staff members get a chance to travel the world in
the course of work, getting paid in foreign currencies that translate to

44
Lere Amusan/JoAFA, Vol. 5, No. 1, April 2018, pp 41-62

plenty units of the currency of their home nation and the attendant
prestige. They are also better managers where waste, corruption, graft
and cronyism, the major cancer in many states governance, are brought
down to the barest minimum. Also pushed forward by this school, in line
with Porter‟s (1990) diamond model is that CSRs promote infrastructural
development, human capital improvement, utilisation of local suppliers
and contractors, and establishment of micro-credit finance for
stakeholders in host environments.
Nonetheless, despite all the attributes pointed out by the
transnationalist school, there are problems associated with this theory. In
line with the realist school, MNCs may be asked to close down or
nationalise with the employment of „Hull formula of prompt, adequate
and effective compensation‟ in tune with relevant laws of the host states
(Amusan and Van Wyk, 2011; Boas, 2012:300). The theory also sees
MNCs as more powerful than their host government/state. In the real
world, this may not hold water as their relationship usually is symbiotic.
This mutual relationship is concretised through WTO, which is an
offshoot of the neo-classical school.
Neo-classical theorists see MNCs as price-taker through the forces of
demand and supply and push non-involvement in any form of CSR as
long as tax rates and other legally paid funds are paid to the government
(Friedman, 1970). This translates to a position of ultra laisser farism
(Amusan, 2016a). It calls for free competition where firms may not be
able to grow beyond a certain stage when the law of diminishing return
sets in. It implies that issues of monopoly and oligopoly may not be
options in a perfect competition environment. The theory opines that
small and medium enterprises are always crowded out in Africa because
they do not have the means to compete with MNCs. Also of import in
this theory, aside from the power of monopoly, is the use of
advertisement and CSRs to the advantage of shareholders. This leads to
the manipulation of prices, bribery, insider trading and a disregard for
environmental health in oligopolistic and monopolistic markets (Epstein,
1998; Humphreys, Caulkins & Felbab-Brown, 2018). To maintain prices
against the law of liberal market, MNCs may merge or acquire potential
competitors to form a conglomerate. This leads this discussion to the
twin concept of radical and conservative types of oligopolistic market.
Based on the problems associated with the neo-classical school, the
oligopolistic school looks into alternatives for tackling developing states‟
predicaments. This school realises the unrealistic thesis of neo-classical

45
 Multinational Corporations’ (MNCs) Engagement in Africa…

position regarding the forces of demand and supply. The conservative

oligopolistic school is of the view that MNCs are of more benefit to
developing states because they serve as providers of capital which may
not be readily available in Africa for the exploitation of untapped
resources especially in the mining and drilling sectors. They are also said
to be agents of technological innovation and development, though this is
subject to academic interrogation. This school further sees MNCs as
sources of balance of payment since their goods and services in host
states are exported, thereby attracting foreign exchange.
Furthermore, the school believes in the CSRs embarked on by MNCs
in the form of establishing schools, health centre and provision of social
amenities that may not otherwise be available “in limited states with
unlimited quest” (Amusan and Oyewole, 2012). It is also said that MNCs
are veritable sources of employment of factors of production that may
have otherwise remained untapped. Research and Development (R&D)
is another plus attributable to MNCs to the general development of
Africa.
All the attributes of a conservative oligopolistic market receive a
critique from the radical oligopolistic school. This school, as pointed out
by its adherents, see MNCs as industries that kill local initiatives to
economic development. They are also described as sources of economic
disarticulation as people in the host state will be forced to eat what they
do not produce and produce what they do not consume. The school also
describes MNCs as sources of de-capitalisation and de-industrialisation.
On MNCs bringing capital to the host state through foreign direct
investment (FDI), they pointed to the fact they source for financial
capital from local financial institutions. For instance, Barclays and
Standard Banks in Africa are from the UK, any firm from London can
easily gain access to loan facilities from these banks with little or no
collateral as against indigenous companies that may not be able to. The
employment they claim to have created is meant for a selected few as
against a teeming African population with little education that needs
labour-intensive types of employment.
The radical oligopolistic school believes that financial resources from
host states, through their meagre savings, are made available for the
MNCs to finance their investments. Through the Washington Consensus
and WTO, MNCs are allowed to take almost a 100 percent of their
profits back to their home states instead of ploughing it back as posited
in the neo-classical and conservative oligopolistic theories. Balance of

46
Lere Amusan/JoAFA, Vol. 5, No. 1, April 2018, pp 41-62

payment claims by the conservative and neo-liberals hardly hold water as

MNCs in Africa rely on importation of inputs from home states or
through horizontal production. Vertical integration of their production,
that is, exportation of raw materials without added value except perhaps
for diamond production in Botswana is a common practice.
This thesis also focuses on the issue of technology transfer, which is
too far from reality as inappropriate technologies are always imported to
Africa. When appropriate technology is in place, local employees may not
have access to such technology. Between five and ten percent of profit
from technology transfer to Africa do go to patenting payment. Also of
import is the ruse associated with employment creation. When locals are
employed, this widens the already inequality gap in Africa due to the
special salary paid my MNCs to their workers. Environmental and health
hazards such as climate change impact and HIV/AIDS are prevalent in
mining and oil drilling areas for reasons we are going to discuss below.
Africa is identified as a global food basket and source of raw materials,
causing MNCs to scramble for the continent‟s resources and, recently
land grabbing for production of food and raw materials for the North
and Middle East markets (Pearce, 2012). As discussed below, MNCs are
associated with coup d‟états and counter-coup in mineral-rich states and
the positive impact of their philanthropic/CSRs gestures on the
continent remain subject to academic interrogation. Many of them focus
on the conservative aspects of the programme where MNCs only want to
maintain their hegemonic ambition through market domination. On the
other hand, proposed radical perspective of CSRs is hardly achievable as
poverty reduction or eradication remains a pipe dream.

MNCs and corporate governance in Africa: instances of

hypocritical behaviour

As mentioned in first part of this paper, corporate governance in MNCs

is, in most cases, divided into three broad levels. Level one is focused on
strategy rather than on tactics. Level two focuses on peculiarities such as
geographical needs of their operations. Level two serves the interest of
level three where extraction, drilling, manufacturing and services are
taking place. There are two opposing views concerning the activities of
MNCs in Africa. One school is of the opinion, as discussed above, that
they are agents of employment, transfer of technology that would have
otherwise eluded Africa, and sources of development in the form of the

47
 Multinational Corporations’ (MNCs) Engagement in Africa…

provision of social amenities such as water, electricity and

communication in their areas of operation. The second school disagrees
and describes them as agents of underdevelopment, criminality, abuse of
basic human rights and environmental degradation in the age of climate
change. Companies such as BP and Shell came up with the principle of
clean alternative energy, but in reality promote the use of fossil fuel (Coll,
2012). Coal, considered the dirtiest source of energy, is financed in South
Africa by the World Bank to build the Medupi Power Station (Amusan &
Olutola, 2016). Not only that, this is contradictory as the international
financial institutions are promoting clean environment practices but
doing the opposite for African development just for financial reward
(Amusan, 2010a and 2010b; Rubin, 2010: 162-66). The much-publicised
“Beyond Petroleum” campaign by BP is a ruse. ExxonMobil, in its
approach to climate variability, sponsored series of campaigns to
underplay anthropogenic causes of climate change (Coll, 2012: 184).
In their bid to maximise their profit and satisfy shareholders, fracking
was introduced by oil giants (such as Shell) in the age of finite fossil fuel.
In South Africa, the Northern Cape Province is battling with
environmental crisis as the process will contaminate underground
aquifers. This technology is anti-human development because it will
facilitate displacement and the indigenous peoples (Khoi San) will face
further human rights abuses irrespective of the relevant protocols,
treaties and conventions that protect them (Amusan, 2017; Hafner III,
2014: 9-14; Krupp, 2014: 15-20; Morse, 2014: 3-8; Swanepoel, 2014: 10-
11; Zuckerman, 2014).
Unsustainable fossil fuel exploration and opening of forest areas for
cereal production for food, biofuel and animal feeds through genetically
modified seeds are instances of killing Africa in the name of secured
food production as promoted by Monsanto, Panner, Pioneer and
Syngenta (Amusan and Odimegwu, 2015: 132-3). Through MNCs‟ home
states, GMO food exportation was forcefully pushed through the WTO
despite a clause on national environmental and safety regulations. States
that are not in support call for labelling and declaration of origin of such
products. For the sake of profit, MNCs are of the view that it would not
be cost-effective for them to embark on labeling (Mansbach and
Rafferty, 2008: 528). This implies that MNCs are not up to their
acclaimed CSRs. The welfare and health of stakeholders are secondary
(Pedersen, 2015: 6-7). By crowding out organic foods and animals, food
producers will not only upset biodiversity, they may introduce new

48
Lere Amusan/JoAFA, Vol. 5, No. 1, April 2018, pp 41-62

allergies and security risks in terms of the health conditions of consumers

(Amusan, 2018).
As was the case with anti-retroviral drugs (ARV), multinational
pharmaceutical companies (MPCs) and South Africa when the state
questioned a one-size-fits-all approach to HIV/AIDS medication
(Amusan, 2015), GMO producers fail to label which of their products are
for feeding, food or industrial input (Carmodi, 2010; Chikane, 2013;
Drapper and Khumalo, 2007). As against the much-publicised
investment agents in Africa, the school observed that MNCs hardly go to
Africa with foreign currency, but rather borrow, in most cases from
African banks, to finance their environmentally-unfriendly activities.
Their outsourcing of employees is a way of dodging labour laws and
employment opportunities for Africans; by extension, this compromises
human resources. They are also perceived as agents of bad governance in
Africa through their political actions in their host states. This comes
through various means. MNCs are effective in putting pressure on their
home government to change or alter host state policies that affect their
operations and profit motives. When South Africa refused to budge on
the issue of ARV, in 2014, America contacted Rwanda and Tanzania,
then friends of South Africa, to put pressure on Pretoria to leave the
production and sale of generic ARV drugs to the forces of demand and
supply (Amusan, 2015: 74). A few months after this, South Africa was
again approached, this time with stick diplomacy that if the issue was not
resolved in favour of MPCs, leadership power would be shifted to
another country. A few weeks after the threat, Nigeria was declared the
largest economy in Africa (Amusan, 2015: 74). In March of the same
year, before a new politically-motivated rebasing was released, the World
Bank (an appendage of America) placed Nigeria among the poorest
nations according to the poverty index released (Mordi, 2014: 74-5). By
April 2014, the economy was rebased and Nigeria declared a GDP of
$510 billion while South Africa stood at $384 billion GDP.
Another strategy embarked on by MNCs to receive favourable terms
for their operation is to raise general policy questions in various
international organisation fora. This is done through questionable NGOs
that receive financial support from MNCs. NGOs are very much visible
in the activities of the UN, EU, World Economic Forum and Africa‟s
regional institutions. They always pretend to be true representatives of
the masses so as to achieve their hidden agenda in various international
organisations. Very many NGOs are pseudo-government and at best, a

49
 Multinational Corporations’ (MNCs) Engagement in Africa…

surrogate of Western powers described as new colonisers to promote

certain values that are alien to the African continent. They are able to do
this because “they have access to regulators, lobbyists, other NGOs, and
legislators, they are also very efficient at gathering and disseminating
information throughout these networks” (Wilks and Nordhaug, 2013:
296). This is not limited to foreign NGOs, as local ones are also
promoting the interest of the West and their MNCs (Sankore, 2005: 12-
15; Manji and Carl, 2005: 16-20; Onyanyo, 2005: 20-21). For instance,
Belinda and Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett Foundations that are active in
Africa are fronting for MNCs that are active in the production of
genetically-modified (GM) plants and animals. Their financial support for
agricultural production calls for questioning. They always insist on GM
seeds and fertiliser as means of increase in food production as against
healthy organic foods. Because of the nature of economic
underdevelopment on the continent and food crisis, Monsanto keeps on
supplying “Frankenfood” that are “potentially dangerous to health and
biodiversity” (Mansbach and Rafferty, 2008: 529; Lymbery and
Oakeshott, 2015).
Through diplomacy, MNCs usually employ their home state
diplomats‟ services to achieve their shareholders interest with little regard
to stakeholders‟ concern. Neglecting stakeholders concern is always at
the peril of MNCs (Freeman, 1984). This is common in African mineral-
resource states as observed by Steve Coll (2012) when he discussed the
activities of ExxonMobil merger. He pointed out that the company
moved its Washington, DC office from Pennsylvania Avenue to K Street
in the heart of the capital‟s lobbying district so as to have first-hand
information and make use of contiguity paradigm in achieving economic
interest.
Government support through their foreign missions and trade
representatives also bolster MNCs underdevelopment strategies in
Africa. Through the US trade representative, a powerful institution in
the presidency in America headed by Robert Zoellick (later seconded to
the World Bank as its president), Susan Schwab and Michael Froman
protected the interest of America‟s MNCs by all means available to it. In
2016, South Africa was coerced into importing GM chicken from
America through a threat of delisting Pretoria from AGOA membership
(Fabricius, 2016).
Many scholars see MNCs as a government on their own as they,
before issuing currency, have their own army to supress many African

50
Lere Amusan/JoAFA, Vol. 5, No. 1, April 2018, pp 41-62

pre-colonial kingdoms, empire and villages for economic reasons. The

Royal Niger Company and East Indian Companies were able to form
their own government/empire through the help of their home
governments. When they realised that they could not bear the cost of
their territory, Britain picked up the bills of administration and supplied
necessary security to support the pillaging of resources of Africa. In the
20th and 21st centuries, their mode of operation changed from trading to
physical presence in the production of goods and services to curb
competition from other European states. This sphere of influence
syndrome came to an end when America emerged as a hegemony in the
international system. After the end of the World War II, the mode of
governance and operation of MNCs drastically changed. As much as they
retained their headquarters (home states) in a state, MNCs moved their
administrative capitals to tax-haven states. This explains why Mauritius
has become a destination for many MNCs interested in developing
states. Also because of their negative record on human rights, they prefer
to operate in an environment where there is political instability and
economic chaos so as to have a blank cheque in their operations.

MNCs and Africa

Through the influence of the Washington Consensus, there is an organic

link between MNCs, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), and WTO in the further exploitation of Africa (Amin, 2003;
Chang, 2010; Toussaint, 2008). In trying to perpetuate this, the MNCs
not only rely on expatriates from home states, but also international
financial institutions (IFI). Through institutions such as International
Financial Corporation, MIGA, TRIPs, TRIMs and International Centre
for Settlement of Investment Dispute (ICSID), MNCs are protected
irrespective of the economic development of their host states.
Through IFIs and in line with the neoliberal school, MNCs are
agents of development, and by extension, reducing poverty or at the
extreme end, eradication of poverty. This has not yielded any dividends
since the introduction of structural adjustment programme (SAP).
Rather, it perpetuates underdevelopment and reduces mineral-producing
states in Africa to mono-cropping states with all its implications on
sustainable development, employment opportunity and development in
general. Free interaction of market forces where free trade, limited state
intervention on what, where, who and when to produce goods and

51
 Multinational Corporations’ (MNCs) Engagement in Africa…

services are the veritable grounds for anti-welfare states. The economic
system encouraged by the MNCs enhances reproduction of poverty,
increases inequality and inequity on the continent, fall in living standards,
concentration of wealth to the North and accelerates environmental
degradation.
Human rights is another major area MNCs usually disregard when it
comes to Africa. The West agrees that human rights is limited to the first
generation of rights (to vote and be voted for), right to freedom of
movement, speech, to life, which are reduced to political and civic rights
(Elfstrom, 1991; Nölke, 2014). Other rights such as economic rights as
promoted by the United Nations Economic and Social Council
(ECOSOC), International Labour Organisation and other relevant
international institutions and various pro-Africa development NGOs are
ignored by MNCs. Rights to basic needs, housing, clothing and food are
believed to be within the provision of market forces as against social
contract tenets. Violation of human rights cannot be more than lack of
access to the means of production. MNCs are always after their
shareholders‟ interest, against Carroll‟s (1991: 42) pyramid of CSR of
economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities. Politically and
militarily-connected Africans are always appointed as directors though
hardly know much about the companies.
It has been the interest of MNCs to operate in dangerous zones of
Africa where they would be accorded a blank cheque for their
operations. This explains why many oil companies are effective in South
Sudan, Sudan, Niger Delta area of Nigeria and scrambling for fossil fuel
in The Gambia despite former President Yahaya Jammeh‟s questionable
human rights records (Villar, 2016). In a bid to promote American oil
companies in Banjul, the 1794 Neutrality Act introduced by George
Washington was imposed on the coup planners who were American-
Gambians to save the face of America and its oil companies. It was the
intention of the oil MNCs to control oil reserve in the state despite
Jammeh‟s draconian laws in Banjul (Bekele and Smith, 2015, Africa
Confidential, 2011: 11). Propping up sit-tight leaders in Africa with
reference to Omar Bongo (Gabon) and Cameroun‟s Paul Biya by Total
Oil calls for questioning in this era of democracy.
The much-publicised CSRs of MNCs that focus on ethical, social and
environmental responsibilities are to satisfy Freeman‟s (1984)
stakeholders theory in granting social license to operate and further
shareholders‟ economic interest (Louche, 2015: 207; Wilks and

52
Lere Amusan/JoAFA, Vol. 5, No. 1, April 2018, pp 41-62

Nordhaug, 2013: 294). It is also a diversionary attempt to promote the

interest of the political and economic elite within their state of operation.
On September 6, 2015, the government of President Muhammadu
Buhari in Nigeria discovered $9.4 billion worth of illegal deductions by
oil giants in Nigeria in joint ventures operations by Shell, Agip, Chevron,
Texaco and Mobil (Nnodim, 2015, 6 September).
The politics of merger is being introduced by the oil giants so as to
share the risks in many African states and also prevent new entrants
despite a call for perfect competition by the neoliberal school (Stiglitz,
2013: 53-8). Their partnership with other oil giants does not stop them
from partnering with the host states‟ oil corporations which serve as
regulators of their activities. This is because economic risk is more a
major concern for them in the attainment of their profit-making goals
than political risk (Coll, 2012: 58; Gooderham et al., 2013: 104-5). The
Niger Delta (Nigeria), Cabinda (Angola), Doba (Chad) and cement-
producing areas in South Africa are instances of human rights violation
hidden under the CSR-tied provision of schools and health centres
without putting in place sustainability strategies. On many occasions,
CSRs are actually disguised profit-making ventures; knowing that doing
well by doing good is to go beyond Michael Porter and Mark Kramer‟s
(2011) win-win situation. This contributes to the health crisis in South
Africa in relation to ARV provision which led to a political crisis in the
country, and was believed to have been sponsored by the MPCs
(Amusan, 2015). Alternatives provided by MPCs to make HIV/AIDS
medication available to indigents in South Africa through subsidised
prices, supply through NGOs and donation are not only unsustainable
but will, on the long run, drain the financial resources of recipient states.
Not only is this against the basic human right to life, it is also against any
known international declarations on health issues including the provision
of basic medication through outlicensing to produce generic drugs in
times of emergency, when it is not for commercial purpose and to
address critical health challenges (Amusan, 2015: 69).
Cement/asbestos production in Africa is a source of
underdevelopment and environmental crisis. Not only are people
working in these companies exposed to ailments such as tuberculosis and
other related diseases, people living around these plants are also
subjected to cement-related ailments and they also live hand to mouth
even when opportune to work in these factories. In May 2017, South
Africa‟s gold mining companies preferred out-of-court settlements with

53
 Multinational Corporations’ (MNCs) Engagement in Africa…

over 100,000 miners who developed silicosis, „caused by the inhalation of

microscopic dust particles of crystallised silica‟ (Davenport, 2017: 10). It
increased the budgetary allocation to the health sector, though the
Washington Consensus is against the provision of education and health
services to Africans under the guise of economic development of small
states in the midst of unlimited quest. Not too far from this is the
problem of child labour that is associated with many MNCs in Africa.
African children who engage in employment in most cases involved
performing hazardous work tasks, which impede their education and
development and by extension jeopardises their physical and mental well-
being (Cregan and Cuthbert, 2014: 57; Wilks and Nordhaug, 2013: 302-
3).

Politics of over-pricing and under-pricing continues to rob Africa of

billions of dollars in the form of income accruable through series of
taxes. The acclaimed source of employment runs contrary to reality as
they source for their employee through the outsourcing principle at the
global level in the name of globalisation and an attempt not to
subscribe to host state‟s employment laws. Host communities always
experience series of protests due to a lack of employment
opportunities, poor service delivery, hazardous business practices as is
the case in Marikana (South Africa), Niger Delta (Nigeria), Doba region
(Chad) and Cabinda separatist in Angola (Cilliers and Dietrichi 2000;
Gunyer 2002:111; Villar, 2016).

When crisis broke out in Chad against Idris Deby‟s government, the
president was advised to withdraw five percent from revenue for
sustainable development by America to prosecute the war against anti-
government rebels for the benefit of oil MNCs in drilling oil without
political crisis in the area (Burgis, 2015: 154-155). The money withdrawn
was used to import munitions from America to suppress Baka pygmies
minority in Doba and Doseo basins whose land/territory houses the
fossil fuel. This exploitation was embraced as parliamentarians, top
government officials and secret agents from America were involved in
the interest of oil companies (Amusan, 2016b: 210; Obasanjo, 2014: 141-
188).
In September 2015, there was a mass protest in Ga-Mapela village
near Mokopane in Limpopo Province of South Africa against Anglo-
American companies that are very active in gold, coal and platinum
mining for denying villagers access to employment. In the same province,

54
Lere Amusan/JoAFA, Vol. 5, No. 1, April 2018, pp 41-62

in the same month, but at Marapon village in Lephalale, there was a

violent protest concerning unemployment of community members on
the Medupi power plant. This is a part of environment-unfriendly
investment in the energy sector sponsored by the World Bank despite its
negative effects on climate change which the world is trying to reverse.
Infrastructural facilities developed through taxpayers‟ monies such as
libraries, buses and other structures were burnt down by the unemployed
youth. The production of solid and liquid finite minerals to the
international market without value-added and beneficiation as observed
by SADC 2014 Victoria Agreement appears to have relegated many
African states to input producers (Mbeki, 2009: 80-3). South Africa alone
mines about 70% of platinum and 80% of rhodium at the global level
(Morgan, 2013: 62). Despite that, the country remains a sinking titan in
terms of economic development.

Conclusion

Africa is in a quandary when it comes to the issue of development. From

the time of the continent‟s contact with the Caucasians till date, the issue
of class struggle continues to be to the detriment of the blacks in general
as it was observed by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson (2012: 70-
95) when they interrogated the genesis of poverty in developing areas.
Globalisation, which started in the 5th century when the Chou Dynasty
and Greek city-states were flourishing, did not, unfortunately, bring
about development in Africa. The level of technological development
that could have appreciated on the continent was asphyxiated through
zero-sum approaches. The IKS that could have solved a myriad of
problems of on the continent was mortgaged for foreign technology that
has little impact on Africa economically, socially and politically.
As long as the lait motif of every business is to make profit and to
satisfy the interest of shareholders, the CSRs touted by globalisation
proponents, hardly holds water and the same is antithesis to the concept
of WTO. Activities of MNCs are so much entrenched that some of the
palliative measures put forward by the Western-inspired IFIs, such as
development of agriculture, and small and medium scale manufacturing
industries, are already crowded out by the multinationals who have all
what it takes to conquer the international system. Attempts to resist their
activities by many African states always lead to failing, failed and pariah
status.

55
 Multinational Corporations’ (MNCs) Engagement in Africa…

As long as Africa remains within the WTO, Washington Consensus,

the Bank and the Fund arrangements, the continent will remain a hewer
of wood and drawer of water. The need to support south-south
development strategy is now, though this has its own challenges as the
BRICS may not be able to satisfy Africa‟s demand for equity, fairness,
development and sustainability of the state going by the environmental
hazards that have been perpetrated on the continent (Katz, 2015: 70-93).
The polluters-should-pay strategy put forward by some students of
environmental politics was jettisoned by the West for an obvious reason:
the cost implication. China, which some African states rely on, is not a
solution, as the question of unemployment and quality of products may
not be guaranteed from Beijing (Robinson, 2015; Wallerstein, 2015).
This paper recommends development through promotion of small
and medium industries. This will provide the much needed labour-
intensive approach to the employment problem. It is also known that in
the interdependent complex global system, states may not remain as an
island for a very long time, the activities and operations of the MNCs as
well as the type of technology to be imported to the continent should be
given critical scrutiny. Issues of intellectual property rights (IPRs) should
be revisited. Imposition of this regime on Africa with little or no
contribution or at best through arm-twisting approach as displayed in
rounds of negotiation that led to Marrakesh Treaty in 1995 perpetuate
underdevelopment. CSRs, as it is known in the West, is not only
adequate to address the challenges of unemployment, poverty, conflicts
and fall in the standard of living. There is a need to encourage
development from the bottom. Development from the top through FDI
has not addressed the daunting rate of economic depression, political
uncertainty and poor social welfare in Africa.

References

Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. A. (2012),Why Nations Fail: The origins of

Power, Prosperity and Poverty,London: Profile Books.
Africa Confidential, (2011), “No monster‟ Jammeh heads for victory”, 18
November, Vol. 52 No. 23 p: 11.
Amin, S. (2003),Obsolescent Capitalism: Contemporary Politics and Global
Disorder.New York:Zed Books.

56
Lere Amusan/JoAFA, Vol. 5, No. 1, April 2018, pp 41-62

Amusan, L. (2018), “Reap whatyouhave not Sown‟, „Architect of

Poverty‟: The Political Economy of Biodiversity Patenting in Africa”
Anthropologist, Vol. 31 No. 1-3 pp: 25-33.
Amusan, L (2017), “Politics of Biopiracy: An Adventure into
Hoodia/Xhoba Patenting in Southern Africa” African Journal of
Traditional, Complementary and Alternative MedicinesVol. 14 No. 1 pp:
103-109.
Amusan, L. (2016a),“Social Sciences as Imperialism: Analysis of the
Global Economic Crisis of 2008 and Development Gaps in the
Third World States”Journal of Administrative Sciences Vol. 14 No.27. pp:
13-31.
Amusan, L. (2016b),“Marsupial Babies in the Midst of Plenty: America‟s
Dominance by Design in the Gulf of Guinea”Journal of Social Sciences
Vol. 48 No. 3 pp: 203-212.
Amusan, L. (2015),“Imposed Socially Responsible Pricing on
AIDS/HIV in Developing Areas: South Africa and Multinational
Pharmaceutical Companies”Indian Quarterly Vol.71 No. 1 pp: 67-79.
Amusan, L. (2014),“The Plight of African Resources Patenting through
the Lenses of the World Trade Organisation: An Assessment of
South Africa‟s Rooibos Tea‟s Labyrinth Journey”African Journal of
Traditional, Complementary and Alternative MedicinesVol. 11 No. 5 pp: 41-
47.
Amusan, L. (2010a),“Climate-smart and security challenges in the Oil and
Gas Industry in Africa: an Assessment of the Marginalized Niger-
Deltans” in Ojakorotu, V and Isike, C.A. (Eds.) Oil Politics in Nigeria:
Niger Delta, Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrücken. pp: 41-59.
Amusan, L. (2010b),“Climate-smart and the Failure of the Washington
Consensus: Human Security Dilemma in Africa” Climate Change
Impacts and Adaptation: Developmental Issues D‟Environs/Nigerian
Meteorological Society, Akure. pp: 110-148.
Amusan, L. and Odimegwu, F. (2015),“Development at the Cross Road
in the age of Climate Change in Africa: Crises of Adaptation and
Human Security in the 21st Century”Environmental Economics Vol. 6
No. 2 pp: 125-133.
Amusan, L.and Olutola, O. (2016). “Paris Agreement (PA) on Climate
Change and South Africa‟s Coal-Energy Complex: Issues at Stake”
Africa Review Vol.9 No. 1 pp: 43-57.
Amusan, L. and Oyewole, S. (2012),“Global Democratisation and
Capitalism: Discovering the Third WorldStates in the Era of Limited

57
 Multinational Corporations’ (MNCs) Engagement in Africa…

State and Unlimited Quest” Canadian Social Sciences Vol. 8 No. 5 pp:
57-64.
Amusan, L. and van Wyk, J.(2011),“The Complexities of Bilateral
Relations: the Nigeria-SouthAfrica Relationships (2000-
2006)”PoliteiaVol. 30 No. 1 pp: 38-55.
Axford, B. (2015),Theories of Globalization.Cambridge:Polity Press.
Bayne, N. and Woolcock, S. (Eds.) (2011),The New Economic Diplomacy:
Decision-Making and Negotiation in International Economic Relations,
London:Ashgate,
Bekele, D. and Smith.J. (2015), Too Small to Care in Gambia? Banjul‟s
Hidden Rights Crisis.Foreign Affairs.Retrieved from
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/west-africa/2015-04-
13/too/small-care-gambia.Accessed: 21st May 2015.
Boas, G. (2012). Public International Law: Contemporary Principles and
Perspectives. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, Massachusetts:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Cantwell, J., Dunning, J.H. and Lundan, S.M. (2010). An
Evolutionary Approach to Understanding International
BusinessActivity: The Co-evolution of MNCs and the
Institutional Environment. Journal of International Business
Studies,41(4), pp. 567-586.
Carmody, P. (2011). The New Scramble for Africa.London: Polity Press.
Carroll, A.B. (1991). The Pyramid of corporate social responsibility:
Towards the moral management of organizational stakeholders‟.
Business Horizons, July-August, 42-53.
Chang, H. (2010). 23 Things they don’t tell you about capitalism. London:
Penguin Books.
Cilliers, J. and Dietrichi, C. (2000).Angola’s War Economy: the role of oil and
diamonds. Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies (ISS).
Cohen, S.D. (2007), Multinational Corporations and Foreign Direct Investment:
Avoiding Simplicity, Embracing Complexity, Oxford, Oxford University
Press.
Coll, S. (2012),Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power.New York:
Penguin Books,
Cregan, K. and Cuthbert, D. (2014),Global Childhoods: Issues and
Debates,London:Sage.
Davenport, J. (2017),“Dust to Settle?”Mining Weekly.May 5-11, 23(16):
10-11.

58
Lere Amusan/JoAFA, Vol. 5, No. 1, April 2018, pp 41-62

Devetak, R. (2013),“Critical Theory”inLinklater, L.(Ed.) Theories of

International Relations, Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan, pp: 162-186.
Dicken, P. (2015),Global Shift: Mapping the Changing Contours of the World
Economy, London: Sage..
Draper, P. and Khumalo, N. (Eds.) (2007),Trade in Genetically Modified
Foods: Decoding Southern African Regulatory Approaches, Johannesburg:
SIIA.
Elfstrom, G. (1991), Moral Issues and Multinational Corporations, New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Epstein, E.M. (1998),“Business Ethics and Corporate Social Policy:
Reflections on an Intellectual Journey, 1964-1996, and Beyond”
Business Ethics and Corporate Social Policy, Vol. 37 No. 1 pp: 7-39.
Fabricius, P. (2016),“Agoa: First US chicken imports hit SA” Retrieved
from http://www.iol.co.za/business/news/agoa-first-us-chicken-
imports-hit-sa-1992553. Accessed: 1st April 2018.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach,
Boston: Pitman.
Friedman, M. (1970), The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase
its Profits, New York Times Magazine13 September, pp:122-126.
Gooderham, P. N., Grogaard, B. and Nordhaug, O. (2013),International
Management:Theory and Practice,Cheltenham, UK and Northampton,
MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
Gunyer, J.I. (2002),“Briefing: the Chad-Cameroon Petroleum and
Pipeline Development Project”AfricanAffairs. Vol. 101 No. 402 pp:
109-115.
Haass, R. (2008),“The Age of non-polarity: what will follow U.S.
dominance?”Foreign Affairs Vol.87, No. 3 pp: 44-56.
Hefner III, R.A. (2014), “The United States of Gas: Why the Shale
Revolution Could Have Happened Only in America”Foreign
AffairsMay/June pp: 9-14.
Humphreys, K., Caulkins, J.P. and Felbab-Brown, V. (2018), “Opioids of
the Masses: Stopping an American Epidemic From Going Global”
Foreign Affairs May/June pp: 118-129.
Ivanović, I. (2015), “Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on Domestic
Investment in Republic of Croatia” Review of Innovation and
Competitiveness Vol. 1 No. 1pp: 137-160.
Katz, C. (2015),“Capitalist mutation in emerging, intermediate and
peripheral neoliberalism” ” in Bond, P and Garcia, A. (Eds.) BRICS:
An Anti-Capitalist Critique, Johannesburg: Jacada Media. pp: 70-93.

59
 Multinational Corporations’ (MNCs) Engagement in Africa…

Korten, D.C. (2015),When Corporations Rule the World. Berret-Koehler

Publishers, Oakland, CA.
Krupp, F. (2014),“Don‟t Just Drill, Baby-Drill Carefully”Foreign Affairs.
May/June pp: 15-20.
Louche, C. (2015),“CSR and Shareholders” in Pedersen, E.R.G. (Ed.)
Corporate Social Responsibility, Sage, London. pp: 205-239.
Lymbery, P. and Oakeshott, I. (2015),Farmageddon: The True Cost of Cheap
Meat,London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Manji, F. and O‟Coill, C. (2005),“NGOs: A Tainted History”New African
August/September pp: 16-20.
Mansbach, R. W. and Rafferty, K. L. (2008), Introduction to Global
Politics.London and New York.Routledge.
Mbeki, M. (2009), Architects of Poverty: Why African Capitalism Needs
Changing.Johannesburg:Picador Africa.
McGown, J. (2006), Out of Africa: Mysteries of Access and Benefit
Sharing,Washington & Richmond:Edmond Institute & African
Centre for Biosafety.
Mordi, F. (2014),“Nigeria overtakes rival South Africa” African Business,
No. 409, June, pp: 74-75.
Morgan, M. J. (2013),“Are Russia and South Africa planning a platinum
„OPEC‟?”African Business May, No. 397.
Morse, E. L. (2014),“Welcome to the Revolution: Why Shale Is the Next
Shale”Foreign Affairs.May/June, pp:3-8.
Nnodimu, O.(2015),“NNPC to recover $9.4 billion deductions by oil
giants”The Punch,6 September.
Nölke, A. (2014), Multinational Corporations from Emerging Markets:
State Capitalism 3.0, New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
Nwoke, C. N.(2013),“Nigeria‟s National Interest in a Globalized World:
Completing the Independence Project”Nigerian Journal of International
StudiesVol. 38 No. 1&2 pp: 89-91.
Obasanjo, O. (2014), My Watch: Political and Public Affairs Vol. 2 Prestige,
Lagos.
Olukoshi, A. O. (1989),“Theoretical Approaches to the Study of
Multinational Corporations in the World System”Nigerian Journal of
International Affairs Vol. 15 No. 1pp: 1-30.
Onimode, B. (2004),“Mobilisation for the Implementation of Alternative
Development Paradigms in 21st Century Africa” in Onimode, B.
(Ed.) African Development and Governance Strategies in the 21st Century:
Looking Back to Move Forward.London & New York Zed Books.

60
Lere Amusan/JoAFA, Vol. 5, No. 1, April 2018, pp 41-62

Onyanyo, M. (2005), “NGOs Pseudo Governments or Surrogates of

Western Powers”New African, August/September, pp: 20-21.
Pearce, F. (2012), The Land Grabbers: The New Fight Over Who Owns The
Earth. Boston:Beacon Press
Pedersen, E.R.G. (2015), “The Anatomy of CSR” in Pedersen, E.R.G.
(Ed.), Corporate Social Responsibility. London:Sage, Pp: 1-36.
Porter, M.E. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, New York:Free
Press.
Porter. M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2011),“Creating Shared Value. How to
Reinvent Capitalism – and unleash a Wave of Innovation and
Growth” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 89 No. 1 pp: 62-77.
Robinson, W.(2015),“BRICS and transnational capitalism” in Bond, P
and Garcia, A. (Eds.) BRICS: An Anti-Capitalist
Critique.Johannesburg:Jacada Media, pp: 205-230.
Rubin, J. (2010),Why Your World is about to get a whole lot
Smaller,London:Virgin Books.
Sankore, R.(2005),“What are the NGOs Doing?”New African,
August/September, pp: 12-15.
Schutter, O.D.; Swinnen, J., and Wouters, J. (Eds.) (2013), Foreign Direct
Investment and Human Development: The Law and Economics of
International Investment Agreement, New York:Routledge.
Soobramanien, T. (2011), “Economic Diplomacy for Small and Low
Income Countries” in Bayne, N. and Woolcock, S. (Eds.) The New
Economic Diplomacy: Decision-Making and Negotiation in International
Economic Relations, Ashgate Publishing, Fanham and Burlington.pp:
187-203.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2013),The Price of Inequality.London: Penguin Books.
Swanepoel, E. (2014),“Fracking Down Under”Mining Weekly August 1-7,
pp:.10-11.
Toussaint, E. (2008),The World Bank: A Critical Primer.London: Pluto
Press.
Villar, J.L. (2016), Living in Fear: Wars, conflict and natural resources in the heart
of Africa, Ibadan: Kraft Books,
Wallerstein, I. (2015), “Whose interests are served by the BRICS” in
Bond, P and Garcia, A. (Eds.) BRICS: An Anti-Capitalist Critique,
Johannesburg:Jacada Media.pp: 269-73.
Wilks, L. and Nordhaug, O. (2013),“Ethical, social and environmental
responsibilities in MNCs”in Gooderham, P.N. (Eds.) International

61
 Multinational Corporations’ (MNCs) Engagement in Africa…

Management Theory and Practice, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton,

MA, USA: Edward Elgar,pp: 286-305.
Westra, L. (2013), The Supranational Corporation: Beyond the Multinationals.
Leiden and Boston:Brill.
Zuckerman, G. (2014), The Frackers: The Outrageous Inside Story of the New
Billionaire Wildcatters. London: Penguin.

62

View publication stats