文章 Articles

China’s African encounter

China’s rising involvement in Africa has brought opportunity and investment, says Ben Schiller. But poor standards of corporate responsibility present a real danger to the continent’s environment and development.
Article image

China has long enjoyed good relations with the southern African state of Angola, during the Cold War the two regimes shared ideological sympathies. But the relationship has taken on a new closeness in recent years, as China’s economy has expanded and Beijing has encouraged its companies to scour the world for natural resources. From being a blip on China’s strategic map, Angola is now central to China’s strategic plans – a country to be flattered and indulged through a mix of military support, aid, and cheap loans.

Earlier this year, Angola – Africa’s second largest oil producer - became China’s number one source of crude oil, overtaking Iran, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. In May, Sinopec, one of China’s three leading oil companies, struck a US$2.2 billion deal with Sonangol, Angola's state-owned oil company, to develop two new blocks with estimated reserves of 4.5 billion barrels, adding to its previous concessions. By 2008, Angola will supply the People’s Republic with up to two million barrels a day. And, by all accounts, the plan is for more.

Accompanying its investments in oil, China has extended a series of low-interest loans, pledged investments in Angola’s telecoms sector, railways, and military communications network. Chinese companies have also been active in various infrastructure projects, including roads, bridges, schools, shopping centers, office buildings and low-cost housing. Most dramatically, Chinese firms are heavily involved in building a new city south of Luanda, which the government hopes will house up to four million people and help to alleviate extreme overcrowding in the capital.

China’s largesse - while beneficial to Angola’s post-war reconstruction - has not come without criticism. A US$2 billion loan, signed with China’s export credit agency in 2004, was especially controversial, with NGOs and others complaining that China had helped Angola to renege a putative deal with the IMF, which came with conditions to cut corruption and improve transparency surrounding the country’s oil revenues. Global Witness, a British NGO, has lambasted China for eschewing governance in the negotiation of such financing, while Western oil companies have said Chinese companies have effectively hampered efforts to introduce anti-corruption schemes like the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative – which Angola has signed but has yet to implement. At the same time, development experts have questioned whether China’s money, while helping to build hospitals, will actually start the country on the road to self-sufficiency. A feature of much of China’s investment in Africa, they say, is the use of Chinese, rather than local workers.

China’s involvement in Angola is hardly unique. Over the past few years, Beijing has been extending soft credit to numerous countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia, as part of its push to secure energy supplies and develop its companies’ interests overseas. The “big three” of Chinese energy companies – CNPC, Sinopec, and CNOOC – have been buying up dozens of oil and gas blocks, and as in Angola, Chinese construction firms have been busy building major infrastructure all over Africa and Latin America. China’s aim, observers say, isn’t necessarily profits – at least in the short term – but rather to build influence in the developing world, undercutting western governments and companies.

This model of development, which forgoes any “interference” in the internal affairs of foreign states, is of increasing concern to NGOs, international financial institutions, and western companies trying to improve transparency, human rights, and develop “capacity” in poor countries. The worry is that Beijing will let nothing get in the way of its “go global” policy, turning a blind eye to the activities of its companies overseas, even as it tightens corporate responsibility standards at home (as it has done on issues of corruption, worker safety and the environment). In turn, there are those who fear what this will mean for western companies trying to compete with their Chinese counterparts; whether – backed by cheap loans, diplomatic pressure, and military assistance – China’s companies will lower the bar for all comers.

On the other hand, many African leaders point out that, far from corrupting the development process, China is presenting Africa with opportunities. They argue that it was precisely the meddling of western powers - such France, Portugal and Britain - that contributed to the extreme poverty on the continent. By contrast, China’s approach, focusing less on governance and more on getting things done, stands more chance of success than endless foreign interference.

China and corporate responsibility 

Nonetheless, the activities of Chinese companies in Africa have raised eyebrows. Experts say that, compared to western companies, Chinese multinationals are only beginning to understand corporate responsibility. Some believe greater engagement with institutions like the World Bank, the need for western capital (including stock-market filing requirements), as well as the reputational benefits of corporate responsibility, will all encourage Chinese companies to begin to take the area more seriously – at least at home. More worry surrounds the companies’ behaviour abroad. On transparency, China has yet to sign up to international anti-bribery initiatives like the OECD’s anti-bribery convention, and the EITI. Says Peter Rooke, director of the Asia department at Transparency International: “As Chinese companies expand their investment into other countries, there is a need for better international standards.”

The weaknesses of Chinese corporate-responsibility standards are most evident in developing world – where the majority of Chinese investment is now focused – and are frequently oil-related. Most egregious is the relationship with the regime in Sudan – where China has ignored US sanctions, the genocide in Darfur, and a full-scale divestment campaign from NGOs. Burma and Zimbabwe have also benefited from numerous Chinese loans.

NGOs and other observers are also very concerned about China’s international environmental impact. A report from the International Rivers Network and Friends of the Earth last year criticised Exim Bank, China’s export credit agency, for funding projects such as the Yeywa Dam in Burma, Merowe Dam in Sudan, and the Nam Mang 3 Dam in Laos. It says Exim has failed to sign up to the environment guidelines adopted by many export-credit agencies from OECD countries, including Korea and Turkey. These guidelines, known as the “common approaches”, compel export-credit agencies to subject projects to environmental review, as well as relevant host country and international standards. In late 2004, Exim adopted environmental guidelines of its own; but NGOs point out that they are not available to the public, or to commercial banks that arrange funding on Exim’s behalf. The report notes that Exim also has no apparent policy on human rights, despite loaning to countries with poor human-rights records, such as Burma and Sudan. Meanwhile, concerns have been raised over the environmental impact of various Chinese-run mining operations in Africa, including copper mines in Zambia and Congo, and titanium sands projects in ecologically sensitive parts of Mozambique, Kenya, Tanzania, and Madagascar. Chinese miners have also come under fire in South Africa.

Moreover, China is a major importer of illegal timber from forests in places like Burma, Indonesia, Cameroon, Congo, and Equatorial Guinea. Last year, Global Witness said that China’s imported timber – most of it illegal – was worth some US$350 million annually. Up to 70% of that ended up being re-exported abroad as furniture, plywood and other processed products, according to a report this year by Centre for International Forestry Research.

Elizabeth Economy, director for Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington and author of The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China's Future, says there are two ways of understanding China’s impact on the global environment. One, is what she calls the “unintended consequences” of China’s rapid economic advance: its impact, for example, on ozone depletion and climate change, and its pollution of the Pacific Ocean.

The second phenomenon, she says, is more recent and concerns its multinationals working abroad. “If you can accept that Chinese companies engaged domestically are some of the most egregious in the world in terms of labour and safety standards and environmental standards, then there is very little reason to anticipate that what they are doing abroad is any better,” she says.

There are signs, however, that Chinese companies and the Chinese government are beginning to take concerns over corporate responsibility more seriously. For example, following Global Witness’s report on Burmese logging, the Yunnan Provincial Government closed its border to illegal imports from that country. In Peru, where CNPC’s subsidiary SAPET has come under fire for impinging on the habitats of indigenous peoples in the Amazon, the company recently requested that the government remove an affected area from their oil concession. Such examples may be the first evidence that Chinese companies understand that to operate over the long-term they need to adjust to the concerns of local people.

Economy says some government agencies is beginning to wake up to the potential for difficulties. She says: “I think there is some concern within the Foreign Affairs ministry about how to keep track of China’s growing presence abroad. I think the idea of corporate responsibility among Chinese companies is just beginning to take hold. But it’s going to take some time, because the companies haven’t felt these concerns domestically.”


Ben Schiller is a freelance journalist based in London. He specialises in US politics, eastern Europe and corporate responsibility issues.

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

争鸣与探讨

我认为企业责任问题是一个客观的问题,本文观点也比较客观。但是,中国的企业现在正处于一个发展的过程中,只有发展了,有了生存与发展的空间,才能切实负起自己该负的责任。如果中国的企业完全执行发达国家的标准,一个个全破产倒闭了,还谈什么责任。发达国家如果真的担心能源问题、生态问题,那么在资金、技术、人才等方面多帮助发展中国家。让他们也能够有一个好的发展平台,这样可能许多问题就能形成共识,而不是一味的指责和制裁主,因为那样只会形成恶性循环。
山娃

Argument and discussion

I think corporate responsibility should be treated objectively, and the above article is relatively objective. However, Chinese corporations are in the process of development. Only if they are developed and capable of surviving and growing further will they really be able to shoulder their responsibilities. If forced to adopt the standards of developed countries, they will have to go bankrupt and close down one by one, and there will be even less chance to talk about their responsibilities. If their concerns over energy and ecology are real, developed countries should help the developing world by financial support, technological advice and human capital building, to help them set up a better platform for future development. That will probably contribute to consensus building in many areas. Don't merely complain, which can only lead to a vicious cycle.

Shanwa

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

未看先论

说实话,我只看了一眼摘要,第一映象就是想反驳:那你们发达国家即使在现在还仍然生态殖民呢~~把污染企业全部转嫁给发展中国家,我们中国也是一个大的受害者呢~~

Argue without reading

Honestly I've only read the abstract, but I immediately feel an urge to argue: You developed countries, even now, you are still the ecological colonizers~~ transferring polution intensive factories to the developing world. Our China is also a victim~~

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

同意楼上观点

有是一个只许州官放火,不许百姓点灯的例子。西方国家把污染严重的企业都转移到中国去生产,然后又指责中国的发展加重了世界污染...中国刚刚要去非洲投资,西方国家又眼红了,跳出来威胁中国要将污染扩大到非洲。不知道他们自己都在非洲作了什么呢???

Agree with the above

This is another example of the Chinese proverb "While the magistrates were free to burn down houses, the common people were forbidden to light lamps." Having shifted the production of their pollution intensive industries to China, western countries now starting to blame us for environmental degradation of the world...China is about to invest in Africa, and the western countries get green-eyed again. They jump up and threat that China is going to expend its pollution into Africa. What have they done in Africa themselves???

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

与中国的观点有同感

对中国所述的观点: “你们, 西方富裕的国家, 致富了但把环境给糟蹋了。如今,却要我们共同承担责任? 付出代价吗? ” 我有同感。我希望我们能够朝着京都协议后所说的: “每一个人, 不管是什么地位, 每年只允许某公吨的碳排放量。” 这些碳排放额是由个人所属。对于最终的排放程度, 是可以售买的。由此以来,美国和英国的人口, 如果要保持他们的碳用量, 就必须向一些准备减排的人士购买排放额。

sympathy with view from china

I sympathise with the view from China that says: "you, the rich west, got rich and messed up the environment. now you want us to share in the burden of cleaning it up? and get us to pay for it?"

I hope we move to a post Kyoto agreement that says: "each person, wherever they are from, is allowed x tonnes of carbon per year". The carbon allowance is per person, and owned by each individual. the carbon content of final consumption is paid for in this allowance - which can be traded. That way, the US and UK population, if they want to maintain their consumption levels, will have to buy carbon from _individuals_ who are prepared to do with less.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

西方在非洲的足迹

西方没有给非洲带来真正的民主和繁荣.还用殖民地的眼光在看着非洲

Food print of the West in Africa

The West does not bring the actual democracy and prosperity to Africa. And they still look Africa as their colony.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

反思

我们不应该走西方国家治理环境的老路,但是我们自己确实不应该以西方曾经犯下的错误来使自己推托,虽然目前我们在非洲只是以能源优先的思路,但是作为一个负责任的大国,眼光不应该只是至于破坏不发达国家的环境为达到自己的目的,如果是这样的,其实不光光是企业的责任。在其背后有着深刻的国家主义的行为。

申绿

Reflection

We should not follow the old path western countries have been taken to regulate the environment, but we indeed should not neglect our responsibility and do not take action just because the West had made similar mistakes before. At present, despite we only adopt the strategy of "energy priority" in Africa, but China, as a great nation with responsibility, should not fulfill its development targets by destroying the environment in undeveloped countries. If so, this is not only
an issue of CSR but also a nationalism behaviour.