community–company relations in gold mining in ghana

Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 571e586www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Communityecompany relations in gold mining in Ghana

Theresa Garvin*, Tara K. McGee, Karen E. Smoyer-Tomic1, Emmanuel Ato Aubynn2

Department of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, ESB 1-26, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2E3

Received 30 May 2006; received in revised form 15 November 2007; accepted 9 December 2007

Available online 1 February 2008

Abstract

As a result of Structural Adjustment Programme from the 1980s, many developing countries have experienced an increase in resource ex-traction activities by international and transnational corporations. The work reported here examines the perceived impacts of gold mining at thecommunity level in the Wassa West District of Ghana, Africa and discusses those perceived impacts in the context of globalization processes andgrowing multinational corporate interest in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Interview data compared community members’ perceptionswith those of company representatives in three communities. The results indicate that communities held companies responsible for a series ofeconomic, social, and environmental changes. While recognizing some of the benefits brought by the mines, communities felt that the companiesdid not live up to their responsibility to support local development. Companies responded by denying, dismissing concerns, or shifting blame.Findings from this work show that lack of engagement and action by government agencies at all levels resulted in companies acting in a surrogategovernmental capacity. In such situations, managing expectations is key to communityecompany relations.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Gold; Mining; Community development; Environmental impacts; CSR; Ghana

1. Introduction

While the exploitation of natural resources has traditionallybeen seen as a vital part of economic growth, it is now well rec-ognized that concern for environmental consequences must beincluded as a key component of development activities. Inmany lesser-developed nations, mining is an important contrib-utor to the national economy. However, the negative environ-mental impacts of mining are increasingly being recognizedas critical (Bridge, 2004). In response, many corporations eespecially international ones e are embracing Corporate SocialResponsibility (Garriga and Mele, 2004) as a fundamentalcomponent of resource extraction operations, including mining

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 780 492 4593; fax: þ1 780 492 2030.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T. Garvin), tmcgee@

ualberta.ca (T.K. McGee), [email protected] (K.E. Smoyer-Tomic),

[email protected] (E.A. Aubynn).1 Present address: Department of Geography, University of Delaware, 216

Pearson Hall, Newark, DE 19716, USA.2 Present address: Newmont Ghana Gold Ltd., C825/26 Lagos Avenue, East

Legon, Accra, Ghana.

0301-4797/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.12.014

(for example in a South African context see Hamann, 2004).Exercising social responsibility in small, remote centres, how-ever, often means that international and transnational corpora-tions must interact with rural or indigenous people who havestrong emotional and historical links to the land. Meanwhilethe same corporations are increasingly drawn to such remoteareas due to growing technological capacity, liberalization ofinternational markets, and new resource discoveries in previ-ously ‘unknown’ places (Brohman, 1996; Madeley, 1999;Veiga et al., 2001). As a result, the mining sector, while some-times strengthening the economy at the national scale, maypresent an entirely new set of problems at the scale of the localcommunity. This is particularly true in the case of gold miningin Ghana, West Africa.

2. Background and study context

2.1. Gold mining in Ghana

Ghana, known as the Gold Coast during colonial occupa-tion, has a long history of mining going back over 1000 years

mailto:[email protected]





http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

572 T. Garvin et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 571e586

(Annin, 1992; Dumett, 1998; Government of Ghana, 1980;Huqq, 1989; Sweeting and Clark, 2000). The country is wellendowed with substantial mineral resources, primarily gold,diamonds, manganese, and bauxite. Gold is the largest contrib-utor to the economy, accounting for about 38% of total mer-chandise and 95% of total mineral exports (Aryee, 2001) aswell as about 80% of all mineral revenue (Adadey, 1997).

Ghana presently has two types of gold mines: small-scaleand large-scale. Small-scale miners are primarily self-employed indigenous youth, with little financial backing andlimited mining expertise. Within the small-scale sector isa form of illegal mining activity known locally as galamsey ethe practice of discreetly gathering minerals found either at or

just below the soil surface and selling them in contravention ofstate laws (A.K. Aubynn, 1997). While illegal, this activitydominates the small-scale gold sector, with an estimated60,000 people involved in galamsey. In comparison, large-scale mines are generally operated by foreign owned, interna-tional companies (with the exception of one: AshantiGoldfields e Obuasi) with operations that are large both inphysical size and capacity, utilizing heavy equipment andthe latest mining technology (Aryee, 2001; A.K. Aubynn,1997). Large-scale mines are estimated to employ only20,000 people in Ghana (Aryee, 2001; Lewis, 1997; Suglo,1999).

Despite the lower numbers of Ghanaians employed by thelarge-scale gold mining sector, its impact on the national econ-omy is substantial. Gold mining is the largest foreign ex-change earner, contributing about 45% of the country’s totalforeign currency (Adadey, 1997; Aryee, 2001; Sweeting andClark, 2000). Between 1986 and 1998, large mines injectedover US$300 million into the national economy from salariesalone (Aryee, 2001). Despite this investment, however, the dis-tribution of income remains uneven with major centres reapingthe greatest benefits of mine employment. In the smaller townsand rural areas where the mines are located, companies makelimited use of local labour due to residents’ low educationlevels and lack of skills (Akabzaa and Darimani, 2001). Asa result, many large-scale gold mines employ highly trainedworkers brought into rural areas where they do little to supportlocal communities or foster a secondary economy (E.A. Au-bynn, 1998).

Related to the distribution of economic benefits are changesin the Ghanaian economy as a result of the Structural Adjust-ment Programme (SAP) enforced by the World Bank and In-ternational Monetary Fund (Kampfner, 2001) through the1980s and 1990s. Post independence in 1957 (but prior tothe SAP), Ghana underwent a nationalization exercise andmines became, predominantly, state-owned. As a part of na-tionalization, particularly between 1960 and 1985, the miningsector experienced a number of production, technical, and fi-nancial constraints. Output declined and the state-owned com-panies became globally uncompetitive (Akabzaa andDarimani, 2001; Aryee, 2001; Dumett, 1998; Sweeting andClark, 2000). By the early 1980s, persistent budget deficits,expansionary monetary and fiscal policies, and excessive bor-rowing plagued the economy (Government of Ghana, 1984;

Konadu-Agyemang, 2000). Like many other countries inAfrica and Asia, Ghana sought relief from the World Bankand the IMF. In order to qualify for funding from these lendingsources, Ghana was obliged to implement a set of economicand social policies that included devaluing the currency, adopt-ing a flexible exchange rate, reducing inflation, downsizingpublic services and cutting government spending (particularlyin education, health, and welfare), removing trade barriers,privatizing public enterprises, and promoting economicgrowth through export (Aryee, 2001; A.K. Aubynn, 1997;Brohman, 1996; Government of Ghana, 1984; Konadu-Agye-mang, 2000; Portes, 2000; Sweeting and Clark, 2000). To-gether, this suite of economic and social policies’ changesmet the World Bank/IMF requirements and allowed Ghanato qualify for funding and debt-relief.

Since its adoption in the early 1980s, structural adjustmenthas had both positive and negative effects. Supporters of SAPspoint to Ghana’s change from a negative to a positive eco-nomic growth rate in the late 1980s and a reduction in inflationover the same period. An increase in international confidencehas resulted in greater foreign investment and has increasedthe country’s industrial productive capacity (Akabzaa and Da-rimani, 2001; Aryee, 2001; A.K. Aubynn, 1997; Governmentof Ghana, 1984; Konadu-Agyemang, 2000; Sweeting andClark, 2000). However, structural adjustment has also resultedin some failures. For example, trade liberalization devastatedmany local industries e especially those responsible for thebulk of national employment (Konadu-Agyemang, 2000). Pol-icy reforms in the agriculture and mining sectors underminedthe viability of small farms and weakened food security(Akabzaa and Darimani, 2001), and the privatization of publicentities and cuts to social spending resulted in higher costs (forexample, for electricity) and user fees for services such ashealth care and education. Understandably, access to serviceshas not been felt evenly, with the poor taking on the bulk of thereduced access to services (Akabzaa and Darimani, 2001;Konadu-Agyemang, 2000).

Because of its importance to the national economy, themining sector received considerable attention under the SAP.In order to bolster investment and development, a set of regu-latory institutions and a new legal framework was initiated in1986 which streamlined the mineral rights licensing proce-dures and gave mining companies, among other things, gen-eral tax allowances, exemption from customs duties, a rebateon royalties, and fewer foreign ownership restrictions (Akab-zaa and Darimani, 2001; Aryee, 2001; A.K. Aubynn, 1997;Ghana Minerals Commission, 2001; Sweeting and Clark,2000). Due in part to these changes, Ghana’s mining industryunderwent rapid and significant growth between 1983 and1998, resulting in substantial growth in export earnings forthe national government, particularly in gold and diamonds(Table 1).

Despite trade liberalization and growth, control over min-eral development and the distribution of the earnings frommines in Ghana remains highly centralized, favouring the na-tional government. As in many other nations, the Governmentof Ghana has pre-emptive rights to minerals in or under its

Table 1

Ghana’s mineral export earnings 1983 and 1998

1983 (US$M) 1998 (US$M) %Change (US$M)

Gold 114.1 679.4 þ495.4

Diamonds 2.8 21.8 þ678.6

Manganese 3.1 11.0 þ253.6.

Bauxite 1.7 7.2 þ321.8

Total 121.7 719.3 þ491.1

Source: computed from Aryee (2001) and Addo (1999).

573T. Garvin et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 571e586

territory. Applications for an exploration or mining license gothrough a series of centralized committees and governmentagencies relating to mining, environmental protection, and for-estry (Akabzaa and Darimani, 2001; Al-Hassan et al., 1997;Boateng, 1997). In general, these discussions take placeamong national agencies, with little consultation with localcommunities. As a result, proposals, acquisitions, and miningrights are often conferred with little or no local input fromcommunities and sometimes without the knowledge of localleaders (Anaman, 2002; Antwi, 2002; Conduah, 1996).When communities are informed of potential development, itis usually by the mining companies themselves, rather thanby government agencies.

Mining companies pay a royalty to the central governmentthat equals 3% of gross sales. Eighty percent of this goes di-rectly to the central government’s consolidated fund, 10% toadministrative departments related to mining oversight, andthe remaining 10% is meant to be distributed to local commu-nities via the Office of the Administration of Stool Lands,which keeps a small amount, and rest shared among the dis-trict administration (5.5%), traditional councils (2%), and lo-cal chiefs (2.5%) (Ghana Minerals Commission, 2001). Inthe end, little of the royalties actually get into the hands of lo-cal communities and money that does get through is insignif-icant in terms of meaningful community development (GhanaMinerals Commission, 2001; Ghana News Agency, 2003;Kampfner, 2001). Meanwhile, companies undertaking explo-ration in remote and rural communities make promises that re-source development will bring benefits to local communities,and point to the growth potential of mining projects (Akabzaaand Darimani, 2001; E.A. Aubynn, 1999). However, suchpromises are seldom documented in any contractual agree-ment, and therefore are not legally enforceable, resulting infew visible development activities in Ghana’s mining commu-nities (Akabzaa and Darimani, 2001; A.K. Aubynn, 1997;Boateng, 1997; Salami and Tsekpor, 2000). In the end, Ghana-ian communities that house mining activities get little reallocal benefit of such operations.

2.2. Gold mining companies e the international context

The community-based impact of gold mining has been welldocumented using case studies from Kenya (Ogola et al.,2002), Peru (Muradian et al., 2003), Tanzania (Kitula, 2006),Indonesia (Hills and Welford, 2005), and Papua New Guinea(Banks, 2002). More recently, Kumah (2006) examined the

sustainability of the gold mining industry, using Ghana asa case study. He found that gold mining presents a paradox:it helps the general economy of the country (macro level),but social and environmental problems are experienced by in-dividual communities (micro level). In the case of Ghana, heconcludes that gold mining has employed a small proportionof Ghanaians while displacing farmers and resident small-scale miners. Environmental impacts include cyanidepollution, land degradation, and dust pollution; while socio-economic impacts include chronic impoverishment, socialdisruption, decreased access to essential social and public ser-vices, human rights abuses, and loss of land and resources dueto community relocation (Kumah, 2006). As a result of studieslike these, there is increasing recognition of growing commu-nity resistance to mining activities (Hilson and Nyame, 2006;Jenkins, 2004).

In attempts to ameliorate community resistance to extractiveresource activities, multinational corporations (MNCs) are in-creasingly adopting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)and sustainable development as the cornerstones of commu-nity-based activities (Jenkins, 2004; Schaefer, 2004). Thegold mining industry, in particular, has taken on the conceptsof sustainability (albeit to varying degrees e see Hilson,2001) and CSR (Jenkins, 2004). CSR requires companies to ac-count for the social and economic impacts of resource develop-ment, while at the same time ensuring corporate profits. CSRhas seen a substantial growth over the past decade e particu-larly in resource-based, multinational corporations (Idemudiaand Ite, 2006; Lyon, 2004). Sometimes referred to in conjunc-tion with sustainability and the ‘‘triple bottom line’’ (Elkington,1998), CSR requires companies not only to consider the im-pacts of business activities but also to work with communitiesto ameliorate those impacts. In return, CSR literature suggestscompanies will experience lower levels of community conflict(Jenkins, 2004) and an increased reputation as a ‘good’ corpo-rate citizen (Anderson and Bieniaszewska, 2005).

However, the relationship between CSR activities andcommunity satisfaction is far from clear. Even in the businesscommunity there is a polemic debate over the usefulness andlong-term effects of CSR (Idemudia and Ite, 2006). On oneside, researchers point out that companies are influenced by in-ternational and institutional trends in industry that promote theadoption and integration of CSR and that such activities are,for the most part, successful (Schaefer, 2004). In contrast,others point to potential problems with CSR including distor-tion of market forces (Ite, 2004), the employment of ‘experts’to manage community perceptions (thus confounding powerrelations e see Ballard and Banks, 2003), increased commu-nity dependency on company money and activities (Jenkins,2004), and the substitution of corporations in regional andnational governance resulting in companies acting as quasi-governmental and humanitarian organizations (Ite, 2004).

2.3. Purpose of this research

In order to better understand the relations between commu-nities and companies, this study examined community


members’ and mining company managers’ perceptions of theeconomic, socio-cultural, and environmental impacts of goldmining in the Wassa West District of Ghana. This examinationhopes to shed light on the nature of communityecompanyconflicts which, in Ghana’s case, have resulted in communitydemonstrations, mine roadblocks, vandalism of companyproperties, verbal threats to mineworkers, and mass arrest ofcommunity members (E.A. Aubynn, 1998; Boateng, 1997;General News, 2001; People’s Daily Graphic, 1996). The spe-cific research questions addressed in this paper are:

- What are the communities’ perceptions of the economic,socio-cultural, and environmental impacts of gold mining,and what do they perceive to be the causes of suchimpacts?

- How do local corporate managers perceive these sameimpacts and how do corporate perceptions differ from com-munity perceptions?

- How do community and corporate expectations influenceperceptions and mediate community conflict?

- What is the role of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)activities in communityecorporate relations?

3. Methods

The findings reported here were part of a larger study ex-amining community and company relations in the gold miningsector of the Wassa West District of Ghana (E.A. Aubynn,2003). This part of Ghana (see Fig. 1) contains the largest con-centration of surface gold mining activity in the country withan estimated 70% of total unoccupied land leased out as con-cessions to mining companies (Aidoo, 2002; Boateng, 1997;Salami and Tsekpor, 2000; WWDA, 1996). Only 30% of theland remains for agricultural purposes, yet agriculture employsover half of the district’s labour force (WWDA, 1996). Theregion is one of the most deprived economically, despite itsmineral wealth (Kampfner, 2001; Miniru, 2002). Importantly,this area has seen a considerable growth in gold mining overthe past decade and has experienced a concurrent rise incommunityecompany conflict over that development (Reich-ardt, 2007).

The broader study employed a combined quantitative andqualitative research approach to examine three mining compa-nies and their associated local communities in Wassa West.The work reported here is the result of interviews conductedin those communities (A, B, and C) and with the correspond-ing companies (A, B, and C). Table 2 provides basic socio-demographic and historical data about the three communities.

Purposive sampling was used to select 10 key informantsat each of the three research sites. Key informants includedseven community members made up of three opinion leaders(local community leaders such as chiefs and local orga-nizers), four community residents (a farmer, a trader, at leastone woman, and an unemployed resident), and three companyrepresentatives (corporate employees representing eachcompany’s departments of Human Resources, Public Affairs,and Environmental Management). In the three communities

combined, a total of 30 interviews were conducted: the 21community members consisted of 18 men and three womenand had an average age of 45. Fourteen of these participantshad elementary or secondary formal education, five had addi-tional training, and two had no formal education. Ten partic-ipants had been born in the community, whereas 11 (sevenfrom Community C) were not born in the community. Thenine company representatives included in the study weremanagers or senior officers. All except one were Ghanaians,all were male, and all had a university degree. All except onecompany representative had come to the area from elsewherein Ghana; one was a local resident.

Each interview ranged from 2 to 4 h and usually took placein the respondents’ home or office. Interviews were conductedby one male researcher from the region who had previouslyworked for mining Company A in communityecompany rela-tions for 3 years before pursuing graduate education. The re-searcher was trained in interviewing prior to commencementof graduate study and received additional training on commu-nity-based interviews and research prior to the start of the re-search. Interviews were in either English or the local languageand were tape-recorded, later transcribed verbatim and (if nec-essary) translated to English for in-depth analysis using com-puter-aided qualitative data analysis software (NVivo 2�).Accepted measures ensured rigour in data collection and anal-ysis (Baxter and Eyles, 1997) including prolonged engage-ment in the field (8 months in study area), the use of threecomparative research sites, and cross evaluation between theprimary researcher and co-researchers during the data analysisphase.

The data analysis process involved first identifying themesin the data and coding these themes, then grouping togethercodes into related themes or concepts (Bazeley and Richards,2000). The primary researcher’s field notes were also includedas a component of the data set to further contextualize findingsthroughout the data analysis process (Bazeley and Richards,2000). Comparisons were then made across companies andcommunities, in order to identify commonalities and differ-ences (Neuman, 2000).

Community member interviews consisted of three parts.First, respondents answered a set of open-ended questionsabout their perceptions of relationships between the miningcompany and community during the establishment and opera-tions of the mine, expectations about the mining company andgeneral impressions of the mining company. Participants werealso asked to describe the local economic, socio-cultural andenvironmental conditions of the community before the estab-lishment of the mines. Second, community respondents werethen asked to rate their perceived impact of local gold miningactivity on a scale from �5 (highly negative) to 0 (neutral) toþ5 (highly positive) for a set of economic, social, and environ-mental indicators developed based on the ‘three pillars of en-vironmental sustainability’ (Habirono, 2001; Hilson andMurck, 2000; Richards, 2002; Veiga et al., 2001). These indi-cators are consistent with other studies examining the impactof resource development, including sustainable mining (Burge,1995; Dalsted et al., 1980; Humphreys, 2001; McAllister and

D’IVOIRE

COTE^

GHANA

Western

Central

Eastern

Volta

Brong - Ahafo

Northern

Upper West

Upper East

Ashanti

TOGO

BENIN

BURKINA FASO

Accra

Greater Accra

Tarkwa

Study

Area

Atlantic Ocean

N

0 100 km

Fig. 1. Study area, Wassa West District of Ghana, West Africa.


Milioli, 2000; Rickson et al., 1995). Economic indicators in-cluded agriculture, trade and commerce, employment opportu-nity, personal income level, infrastructure, and cost of living.Socio-cultural indicators included education, housing/settle-ment, land issues, security and crime, cultural values, popula-tion, and health care. Environmental indicators included waterand sanitation, air quality, noise and land vibration, diseases,land pollution, and built environment. Finally, after this rank-ing exercise, community respondents were asked to explaintheir rankings (Dalsted et al., 1980). As a result, the data setconsisted of a set of ranked (quantitative) as well as explana-tory (qualitative) responses.

Within each community, community members’ ratingsof perceived economic, socio-cultural, and environmental

impacts of mining were summed to obtain a perceived net im-pact for each of the three sets of criteria (summarized in Figs.2e4). Those indicators with a small perceived net impact mayreflect consensus that impacts on a specific criteria are minor,or could also reflect a polarized set of perceptions amongstgroup members (with some ranking an impact as highly posi-tive, while others ranking it as negative). In such cases, thequalitative responses identified and clarified such disagree-ments. Cases where the perceived impact is strongly negativeor strongly positive generally reflect consensus.

Following interviews with community members, interviewswere conducted with company representatives. Company re-spondents were asked to explain their perception of the rela-tionships between the mining company and community

Table 2

Summary of Community and Company Characteristics

A B C

Communities

Relocated? Yes No Yes

Age of community 300 years 200 years 60 years

Primary pre-mining economic

activities

Agriculture and husbandry, Petty

trading, Small-scale mining, Charcoal

burning, Gin distilling







Pre-mining population 1500 500 1000

Approx population at time of study 6000 3000 3000

% Male at time of study 60 60 47

% Female at time of study 40 40 53

Companies

Region of Head Office South Pacific Western Europe Africa

Total employees at local site 700 350 550

Commenced local operations Late 1990s Late 1990s Early 1990s

Size of local mining operation (km2) 50e59 40e49 60e69


during the establishment and operations of the mines, theirperceptions of community expectations when the mine wasinitially being proposed, and current community perceptionsof the mining company. These participants were also askedto rank impacts and to comment on a summary of participatingcommunity members’ perceived economic, socio-cultural andenvironmental impacts. Due to the very low numbers (n¼ 9 inall three communities), numerical rankings for company per-ceptions are not reported in this paper; however, qualitativeresponses have been included.

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

Agric Trade &Commerce

Employ/JobOppty

Community ACommunity BCommunity C

Fig. 2. Perceived net economic impacts of mining. Net economic impacts were cal

may reflect consensus that there was none or little impact on a certain criteria. Thus

communities, five community members could have identified the impact as þ1 (sli

impact score may also reflect discrepancy in the views of community members, wit

ative impact. A high impact rating (e.g. infrastructure in Community A) reflects c

would require the seven community members to give an average rating of þ4 out

4. Research findings

4.1. Economic impacts of mining

4.1.1. Community members’ perceived economic impactsCommunities reported similar overall ratings (positive or

negative) for each set of economic indicators (Fig. 2). Agricul-tural and cost of living impacts were generally seen to benegative, while trade and commerce, employment, personalincome, and infrastructure were ranked positive.

Income Level Socio-EconsInfrst

Cost of Living

culated by summing the seven community members’ rating. A low net impact

in the case of employment, which received a net impact score of 5 in all three

ghtly positive) and the other two assigning an impact of 0. However, a low net

h some perceiving there to be a positive impact, while others perceiving a neg-

onsensus amongst community members. For example, an impact score of 28

of 5.

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

Education Housing Land Issue Security Cultural Population Health


Fig. 3. Perceived net Socio-cultural impacts of mining. Net socio-cultural impacts were calculated by summing the seven community members’ rating. A low net

impact may reflect consensus that there was none or little impact on a certain criteria. Thus in the case of culture, which received a net impact score of þ1 in

Community C, one community member could have assigned a slightly positive impact rating of þ1, whereas the other six community members could have as-

signed an impact of 0 (on a scale from �5 to þ5). However, a low net impact score may also reflect discrepancy in the views of community members, with some

perceiving there to be a positive impact, while others perceiving a negative impact. A high impact rating (e.g. education in Community A) reflects consensus

amongst community members. For example, an impact score of 30 would require the seven community members to give an average rating of þ4.3 out of 5

for impacts on education.


Participants in all three communities noted that mining op-erations interfered with agriculture with few economic devel-opment programmes to replace agriculture, which is anessential part of the local economy. Negative impacts on agri-culture were perceived as being more strongly negative inCommunity A, and interview results suggest that there wereat least three reasons for this difference. First, Company Ahad a much larger and more visible mine than the others. Sec-ond, Community A’s agricultural land area, though small incomparison with other communities in pre-mining times,was almost completely appropriated to accommodate themine and other developments. Following the community’s re-location, community members felt that Company A did not doenough to replace this land, nor provide adequate monetarycompensation. Finally, Company A’s stronger local recruit-ment programme meant that many youths previously em-ployed in agriculture were now unavailable as a laboursource. For all these reasons, Community A members sawthe mine’s impact as more negative in agriculture as comparedto the other communities.

All three communities also reported negative impacts fromthe rise in the cost of living. Residents had not anticipated howmining development might increase local demand for food,supplies, and housing. Nor had they been given an understand-ing of the nature of surface mining, so they had not fully an-ticipated the degree to which it would impact agricultural

practices and render some residents landless. Since land tenurein Ghana is based on a complex set of ownership rules amongstate actors, communities (stool land) and individuals, accessto lands was lost when agricultural land was ceded tocompanies:

We were subsistence farmers during pre-mining times.Land for farming was very easy to secure. Today, most ofthese lands have become the property of the companyand so have been destroyed in the process of mining. Wedo not have enough land to do our farms as we did before(Community A resident).

The residents interviewed agreed that companies pay inad-equate compensation to farmers, and that delays in compensa-tion are common:

.on the side of farmers, the negative things we see in thecompany’s operation are destruction of farms and relatedpayment of compensation. Even though compensation ispaid for farms destroyed, the process of payment takes con-siderable period of time to the dissatisfaction of farmers.Moreover, compensation paid for disturbed farms is verylow (Community A resident).

Community members did, however, identify positive im-pacts in the form of some new employment, an increase in in-come levels, and infrastructure development. Positive impacts

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

Water &Sanitation

Air Quality Noise & landVibration

Diseases LandDegradation

BuiltEnvironment


Fig. 4. Perceived net environmental impacts of mining. Net environmental impacts were calculated by summing the seven community members’ rating. A low net

impact may reflect consensus that there was none or little impact on a certain criteria. Thus in the case of water and sanitation, which received a net impact score of

�1 in Community C, one community member could have assigned a slightly negative impact rating of �1, whereas the other six community members could have

assigned an impact of 0 (on a scale from �5 to þ5). However, a low net impact score may also reflect discrepancy in the views of community members, with some

perceiving there to be a positive impact, while others perceiving a negative impact. A high impact rating (e.g. built environment in Community A) reflects con-

sensus amongst community members. For example, an impact score of 30 would require the seven community members to give an average rating of þ4.3 out of 5

for perceived impact on the built environment.


on employment were perceived to be fairly low likely due tothe few jobs given to local residents despite expectations tothe contrary. Notably, those in Community B saw a higherbenefit to personal income, primarily due to the faster rateof population and economic growth resulting from mining op-erations. Finally, Community A members perceived higherbenefits in infrastructure, primarily resulting from the commu-nity’s resettlement process and the related improvements tothe built environment such as roads and schools.

4.1.2. Company perceptions of economic impactsWhen asked to evaluate their company’s economic impact on

the host community, company participants generally saw theirimpact more positively than did residents. For example, com-munity concerns about companies not using local labour wereexplained as resulting from broader economic processes notcontrolled by the companies, unsatisfactory local skill levels,and lack of support from local leaders in identifying local peoplewho would be suitable for employment. From their standpoint,companies simply hire the most qualified applicants:

Unlike some companies, which offer preferences for localpeople, we do not discriminate on employment. Everyoneis a Ghanaian and so request for labour to work with usis sent to the District Labour Office, which provides

qualified people for interviews, and hence employment(Company C manager).

As for increases in the cost of living, mining company rep-resentatives attributed this to changes in the national economy,rather than local forces:

Compared with the past, our impact on cost of living is neu-tral because the higher cost of living today is a nationalphenomenon; it is not caused by the company. The highcost of living is normal with every developing economy.Even if you go to the developed world like the USA, Can-ada. the cost of living is also high (Company B manager).

Two other negative economic impacts associated with min-ing were the loss of agricultural activity and subsequent lackof or delay in compensation for farmland. From the companyperspective, disagreements over compensation came fromcommunity misunderstandings of survey and compensationprocesses. While company representatives acknowledged thatsome compensation payments might have been unnecessarilydelayed, they countered that the company was indeed a goodcorporate citizen acting with the best of intentions. Some com-pany officials went so far as to suggest that communities them-selves often exacerbated the compensation issue:

In late 1996/97 we did a survey and identified the peoplewho were living in the area because we were going to


mine the area. So the company demarcated a safety zone.We paid compensations for farms and villages which wouldbe affected. Within the next 3e4 months people startedbuilding in this safety zone so that they could get compen-sation. It’s a problem (Company C manager).

Company representatives did not explicitly deny communi-ties’ claims that mining operations had disrupted agricultureand that there had been limited economic development to pro-vide options to agriculture. However, they pointed out thatthey have limited budgets within which to undertake suchactivities:

We also think we are doing our best. They shouldn’t forgetabout the fact that we have a constrained budget withinwhich we operate. Those demands the company finds rea-sonable, we help (Company B senior officer).

4.2. Perceived social impacts of mining

4.2.1. Community members’ perceived social impactsCommunities identified much stronger impacts, both posi-

tive and negative, in socio-cultural indicators than they didin economic indicators, while also recognizing the intercon-nections between the two. For example, concerns about agri-cultural loss were related to social problems identified withland tenure. Equally, educational infrastructure improvementinfluenced school attendance. In general, community membersperceived positive impacts on education, housing, populationgrowth, and access to health services, and negative impactson land tenure and crime (see Fig. 3).

Respondents from all three communities identified positiveimpacts in education, housing, population growth, and healthcare. The mining companies were seen to have had a very pos-itive impact on educating local children due to an increase inthe quality of teaching, as well as provision of schools, supply-ing of books, transporting of students, and provision of fund-ing to hire good teachers. There was recognition that thenew national government policy of free, compulsory educationhad probably encouraged more parents to send their childrento school, however, community members also felt that miningcompanies had also had an important influence:

.so compared with today, education in the community isbetter than before. People have also seen the need to edu-cate their children than before. For instance, previously ifa person has 10 children, s/he would only educate two ofthem and use the rest as farm hands. Also because oflack of amenities at the pre-mining time, teachers were re-luctant to accept postings into the community. With the pro-vision of electricity and other amenities by the company,teachers now accept postings to teach in the community(Community C opinion leader).

In housing, both Communities A and C reported that thecompanies’ resettlement schemes had meant better qualityhousing for most people. Community B was not re-settled,however, community members also reported improvement in

the housing quality due to increased work opportunities andrelatively higher disposable incomes.

Community members also generally agreed that the mineshad an overall positive impact on population growth andhealth care. All three communities experienced populationgrowth, with Community A seeing an increase of 4500 resi-dents, and Communities B and C an increase of 2500 and2000, respectively (see Table 2). Most of this influx repre-sented trained employees moving to the community fromTarkwa in order to take up jobs in the mine. So, while popu-lation growth was seen as positive, it was also related nega-tively to the lack of use of local labour:

They [the company] employ people from outside the com-munity at the expense of our children. What is even moreannoying is that when the company disengages the servicesof community members (for no reasons), the company doesnot replace the laid off employees with people from ourcommunity. They look elsewhere [Tarkwa] for replace-ments. (Community C opinion leader).

Perceptions of health care impacts appeared to reflect theavailability of health centres. Community A was still waitingfor a promised health care centre whereas Company C hadprovided a specially built community health care centre forits community. In Community B, residents were able to accessthe mine employee’s health centre.

All communities reported negative impacts on land tenure,security and crime, and in some cases culture. In responsesthat related strongly to the agricultural impacts reported ear-lier, many community members believed that mining opera-tions had destroyed the arable lands on which communitymembers depend. There was some disagreement around per-ceptions of cultural effects, with Community A membersreporting a strong negative impact and those from Communi-ties B and C reporting weaker effects. In terms of culturalvalues, members in Communities A and B believed the miningdevelopments disrupted social norms and noted a decrease inthe sense of community, family ties, strict observance ofsome social norms, and traditional respect for the elderly.They also identified a rise in unacceptable criminal behavioursuch as prostitution and theft, and attributed these to the in-migration of a new population as well as a shift towards a mon-etary economy. In contrast, Community C members felt thatthe mining company had a positive influence on local culturedue to the influx of more cosmopolitan migrant workers, an in-creased access to consumer products (such as electrical appli-ances), and an increase in the number of local churches.Interestingly, at least one member in each community recog-nized the trade-offs that were inherent in the development oflarge mining operations:

There is a trade-off in every development activity. As al-ready explained, the mine has brought some form of devel-opment to the community, and so something unhealthycould result out of this development. You see, their opera-tion has led to scarcity of land in the community, but with-out this sacrifice, the community could not witness any


development, as we have seen today. I do not think the min-ing companies in Ghana together operate on 10% of thecountry’s land surface, but they contribute to the entire na-tion’s development, so we must lose something to gainsomething.’’ (Community C resident).

4.2.2. Company perceptions of social impacts of miningIn the continuing debates around agriculture, land use, and

compensation, companies argued that land disruption is inher-ent to their industry. They also argued that land tenure had notchanged outside of the mine, and that current land use changesdue to mining were only temporary. They also proposed thatpopulation increases in general, not mining per se, had causedpressure on farmlands. Company representatives suggestedthat visibility of their mine made it easy for community mem-bers to attribute problems to company operations, while allow-ing communities to overlook their own role:

One of the things that has been going on around here hasbeen the lack of control of the population in the local com-munity e and it is not associated with the mine. This hasresulted in increased pressure on land for farming and therehas been extensive deforestation of the land, including partof the forest reserve, by local communities (Company Amanager).

In response to concerns about crime and loss of security,companies responded that such problems are an inherentpart of all growing communities. Rather than seeing this asa problem of the mine, companies saw crime and security is-sues as related to growing urbanization in the community,therefore outside of the control of the company. One companyreported that they had built a police station to address issues ofcrime and security.

Although the three communities had mixed interpretationsof effects of the mine on local culture, all three companies re-sponded that cultural change in the communities was indeedtaking place, but was not necessarily the result of mining de-velopment. Rather, they argued, cultural change is always oc-curring, and that traditional Ghanaian life is being affected byglobalization, education, and many factors outside of the com-pany’s control. Company representatives also suggested thatcultural change did not have to be negative unless the commu-nity resisted such change:

We think as the community has embraced the company,they should move from their old mentality to a new mental-ity. That is, they should stop their usual comparison or com-plaint. We think the community should move away fromtheir traditional posture. (Company B senior officer).

4.3. Perceived environmental impacts of mining

4.3.1. Community members’ perceived environmentalimpacts

Communities unanimously agreed that the mining compa-nies had been responsible for a substantial improvement in

the built environment but that overall environmental effectswere primarily negative (Fig. 4). Most community respondentsnoted that mining activities were noisy and disrupted water,air, and land, resulting in concurrent decreases in environmen-tal quality and increases in disease.

The positive impacts on the built environment reported bycommunities stemmed from new facilities provided by themining companies, particularly housing, educational facilities,access to water (for Community A only), health facilities, andimproved transportation networks. Community members ex-plained that the provision of this infrastructure was expectedand, for the most part, reported that companies fulfilled theircommitments.

The initial expectation was that, since there was going to bea mining company in the community, there was going to beprovision of social amenities and social infrastructure likeprovision of schools, good drinking water, electricity, andso on. We requested these amenities from the company be-cause we thought provision of this infrastructure wouldmake the community lively (Community A opinion leader).

However, most community members also reported thatmining activities had associated negative health and environ-mental impacts. Members in all three communities identifiedan increase in diseases such as tuberculosis, catarrh, skin irri-tations, boils, eye problems, chronic coughs, and malaria e allof which they attributed to environmental impacts of miningactivities. Mining activities e drilling and blasting in particu-lar e resulted in vibration, noise, and dust. The result was airpollution and land degradation:

The waste oxide material from the mine is very close to ourfarms so when it rains, the material washes into our farms,covering the farms with mud. This affects our crops (Com-munity B resident).

Differences in opinions regarding impacts on water qualitywere related to each community’s specific context. In Commu-nity A, the company provided piped water to the new settle-ment and the community was generally happy with the new,better water quality. In comparison, Companies B and Cdrilled boreholes for their communities and neither commu-nity was pleased. For Community C, these boreholes were pro-vided as part of the resettlement process because miningactivities polluted the stream, the community’s traditional wa-ter source:

The company knows the stream is now poisonous for hu-man consumption but adequate water supply has not beenprovided for the community. The company has providedthe community with boreholes but all are not functioningnow. We have gone to complain to them to repair for usbut all to no avail. I wish you came here during the dry sea-son, the community experiences serious water shortage tothe embarrassment of everyone (Community C resident).

Community B’s experience with water was somewhat dif-ferent, as they were the only community to remain in its initiallocation. Previously they used water from a nearby stream,


augmented by rainwater. Because mining activities were ex-pected to divert and pollute the stream, the company providednew boreholes. In comparing water quality in pre- and post-mining times at the same location, Community B concludedthat their water quality was lower after mining operations be-gan. Respondents reported missing their stream water, and dis-trusting rainwater quality due to perceived air pollution.Therefore, the community saw itself as losing two high-qualitywater sources (stream and rainwater) and receiving only bore-holes in return:

Water supply from our stream was adequate and sustain-able during pre-mining days. Today, the boreholes thecompany provided to replace our stream water is woe-fully inadequate; this bothers a majority of communitymembers. Aside from this, we have also stopped usingrainwater, which hitherto supplemented our water sup-ply. It is rumoured that the rain is polluted becauseof smoke from the debris burnt by the mine and otherpollutants like cyanide and dust particulate (CommunityB opinion leader).

4.3.2. Company perceptions of environmental impactsIn response to concerns over air quality, noise, land vibra-

tion and overall degradation, company representatives coun-tered that all their activities are monitored by the GhanaianEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA), as well as meetingall international environmental quality guidelines. Therefore,companies did not see themselves as having further responsi-bility. In response to community members’ concerns over in-creasing disease, company representatives pointed out thatdiseases come from many sources, including the influx ofa new population (which they did not attribute to their opera-tions). Rather than ascribe all negative health concerns to themine, companies’ suggested that communities focus on edu-cating their members on better hygiene.

When discussions turned to water quality, company repre-sentatives overwhelmingly dismissed community concerns.In response to Community B’s reports that they were experi-encing water shortages, as well as having to use water ofa poorer quality, Company B representatives suggested anyproblems were primarily due to mismanagement and resis-tance to change:

In reaction to the community allegation of serious watershortage. The problem is that before the company camehere, the community was not using this type of water.The community had only the stream water and pit latrines.The company has provided them with an adequate numberof boreholes and wells. The issue is about management, ir-responsible behaviour. They are not managing the facilitieswell (Company B manager).

Company C responded to Community C’s concerns aboutinadequate water access in the dry season and local streampollution by testing the stream water, and concluded that com-munity concerns were unfounded:

If I have mined and the effect of my mining has impactedon you negatively, and I need to do certain things about it, itwould be done. But if you tell me we are polluting yourstream with chemicals and the chemicals we are using inthe mine, we test it in your area and it doesn’t exist there,how do you say that we have polluted the stream? (Com-munity C manager)

In general, all three companies concluded that the watersupply to their respective communities was much better as a re-sult of company actions. They argued that companies wereheavily monitored by government and water quality levels re-mained well within accepted pollution standards. Concernsabout long-term land degradation were countered by explain-ing that mining companies are required to rehabilitate the landand had paid a bond as security. In general, mining companyrepresentatives tended to dismiss most community concernsover environmental issues by either denying their existence,or countering that company mitigation efforts had been wellwithin accepted standards.

4.4. Differing expectations of mining companycontributions to development

As a part of the interview process, participants (both com-munity and company) were asked to identify and explain theirexpectations for development. When analyzed for emergentthemes, communities identified expectations centering ongovernmentality, compensation and respectful interaction. Incontrast, company representatives identified community ex-pectations as unrealistic and discussed the challenges of bal-ancing CSR with corporate profitability.

4.4.1. Community expectationsAlmost all 21 community respondents reported considerable

development expectations that centred on the role that the com-pany would play in assisting the community not just to develop,but to thrive. Residents believed that since communities bear thebrunt of the negative impacts of mining operations, communi-ties were entitled to compensation. They also indicated thatthe mineral resources ‘belonged’ to the community and there-fore companies were obliged to share profits with the commu-nity. Community members also appeared to embrace theconcept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and thereforeexpected the companies to be good corporate citizens:

.in addition, it was our expectation that the companywould respect us and also be a good partner. We expectedthat they would have a liaison committee to serve as a plat-form for regular meetings and consultations. The companyshould encourage this type of committee so they would beable to explain their activities to the community. The kindof dialogue and assistance the company would give to thecommunity would determine our relationship because ifthe company just moved to the community, do the miningand at the end of the day just pack and leave. the commu-nity would naturally become aggrieved (Community Copinion leader).


Therefore, community members saw the role of company asone of a patron and foresaw the company as assuming quasi-governmental responsibilities for ensuring the vibrancy of thecommunity. In particular, the poor pre-mining socio-economicconditions of the communities may have encouraged communi-ties to see the companies as surrogate government authorities(Aidan, 1999; Akabzaa and Darimani, 2001; Downing et al.,2002; Humphreys, 2001; McMahon and Strongman, 1999; Sa-lami and Tsekpor, 2000; Veiga et al., 2001; Ite, 2004). Histori-cally, the Ghanaian government has neglected ruralcommunities, such as those studied in the Wassa West District(E.A. Aubynn, 1998; Boateng, 1997), and communities there-fore shifted expectations to the mining companies:

We expect so much from the mine because the communityhas been a rural area and it is very difficult for the govern-ment to provide infrastructure to develop a rural commu-nity. I also think it is one of the responsibilities of thesecompanies. That is when they go to certain areas, theyare to help the community to provide socio-economic infra-structure (Community A opinion leader).

Community members also reported that issues of royaltiesfuelled their high expectations. In Ghana, as in many other de-veloping countries, royalties for mineral resources are paid bythe company directly to the central government (Aidan, 1999;Akabzaa and Darimani, 2001; Anaman, 2002; Humphreys,2001; Kampfner, 2001; McMahon and Strongman, 1999)and little of these royalties ‘trickle down’ to the affected com-munities. Since communities saw little of this money fromgovernment sources, they expected companies (especiallylarge multinational companies) to pay communities directly:

Our expectations are high because the ‘‘White men’’ [in-vestors] came all the way from their country to mine inour community. Even though they have entered into agree-ment with the government, they are undertaking their activ-ity in our community and have no doubt affected thelivelihood of some people in the area. So the communitydeserves at least 20% (though small) of annual earningsof the company as community benefits for hosting the com-pany. This benefit can be used or invested to offset the postclosure hardships that would afflict the community (Com-munity C opinion leader).

In a paradoxical reinforcing loop, community expectationswere also driven by both company promises and perceptionsof acceptable expectations shaped by access to informationvia media, social movements, and previous communities’ ex-periences (also see Aidan, 1999; Madeley, 1999). In short,companies entered communities and made promises basedon what they thought communities want to hear, while com-munities ratcheted up expectations based on what they learnedhad been provided to other communities. When communityexpectations were not met, disillusionment and lack of trustfollowed:

.the company should honour all promises made to the com-munity, especially about employment and development,

because breach of promise constitutes breach of trust andlack of trust brings about suspicion and misunderstanding be-tween the parties concerned. So if they want the communityto accept them as partners, then the company must not renegeon its promises to the community (Community B opinionleader).

Finally, the central and district governments’ ineffective fa-cilitation of companyecommunity interactions may also havecontributed to communities’ heightened expectations. For in-stance, in our interviews, community members said that theywere informed about neither the extent of the disruption norabout the range of impacts that surface mining would entail.In addition, they claimed that both the central and the districtgovernments failed to educate communities about their rightsin mining activity (i.e., what they can and cannot expect fromcompanies) during the consultation process. This purportedgovernment inaction may have provided some latitude to thecommunities to make demands on companies because com-munities had little understanding of the legal rights andresponsibilities of the various players.

4.4.2. Company expectations of developmentWhile community members saw company assistance as in-

adequate and/or unsatisfactory, companies reported the oppo-site, claiming that the company had provided considerablebenefits to the local community, and that community expecta-tions were unrealistic:

I think community measurements of acceptability are mostof the times far away from the realities, that is, what a min-ing company is expected to do as a legal right for the com-munity (Company C senior officer).

Managers’ expectations about their company’s contributionto development appeared to be affected by three main factors.First, most corporations still allocate relatively small budgetsfor community-based social development, which influencedability to respond to local demands:

We have experienced about three or four demonstrations.The main cause was that the community thought we arenot supporting them the way they expected. We also thinkthat we are doing our best. We have been explaining tothem that we have a constrained budget within which weoperate, but they [the community] do not understandus.. Those demands the company finds reasonable, wehelp. But those we find unreasonable, we agree in principleto honour them later (Company B senior officer).

The second factor influencing company managers’ viewswas a belief that meeting community demands would interferewith corporate profits. Despite head office claims of embrac-ing CSR, local managers continued to employ a market-basedapproach and considered investment in community develop-ment as unproductive. This dynamic led some local managersto focus exclusively on capital returns and to place little im-portance on non-mining ventures in local communities:


Even the coal mining companies which invested in otherventures in the same mining industry are now divestingthese ventures and are concentrating on their core business.So why should we invest in other ventures apart from ourcore business of mining? Our aim is not only to mine butalso to remain profitable (Company C manager).

Finally, corporate decisions made at headquarters far re-moved physically and culturally from the mining communitieshave left local company representatives to negotiate the fineline between high community demands, low community de-velopment budgets, and overall corporate profitability:

The community has the perception that once we are extract-ing gold, the company has a strong financial base; so theyexpect to receive every demand made on the company.The community does not have any sympathy for the com-pany. They have forgotten that the company is a profit-ori-ented organization that expects returns on capital, and thatwe are not here only to satisfy community demands (Com-pany A senior officer).

5. Discussion

The results of this study indicate that community membersconsider economic, social, and environmental impacts of de-velopment. These findings support Banks’ (2002) argumentthat local residents are worried about environmental impacts,but that social and economic impacts of mining are of equal,if not greater, concern. Company disregard for this broaderset of concerns may contribute to disagreements between com-munity members and local mines (also see Ballard and Banks,2003). Equally, expectations about the roles and responsibili-ties of both companies and communities can lead to growingmisunderstandings, mistrust and eventually conflict.

Throughout the research, the role of expectations and per-ceptions was increasingly evident. Both community membersand company representatives reported being disappointed anddisillusioned by the actions and behaviours of the other party.When it came to views of local economic, social, and environ-mental impacts of mining, companies and community mem-bers had very different perspectives. This finding is inaccordance with risk perception literature that recognizesthat groups within society perceive risks in different ways(Bickerstaff, 2004; Brown, 1992; Jenkins, 2004; Idemudiaand Ite, 2006; Muradian et al., 2003). Where communitiesidentified companies as the source of negative impacts, com-panies tended to attribute any problems to either the actionsor worldviews of community residents or to larger nationaland international forces over which the company had littleto no control (also see Jenkins, 2004). Interestingly, commu-nity members and company interviewees also implicated thatthe central and district governments as carrying some respon-sibility for negative impacts. In short, companies tended todownplay, deny, or shift blame about negative impacts. Com-panies downplayed environmental effects, community con-cerns over farm compensation, and destruction of farmlands.

They denied some of the community claims about poor waterquality, lack of sufficient community development activity,and the noise coming from mine activities such as drillingand blasting. Finally, companies also shifted blame for a num-ber of key issues including the rising cost of living and disrup-tion of local culture (attributed to global processes), risingdisease incidence (ascribed to poor personal hygiene) andnot using local labour (the fault of local leaders not identifyingqualified community members). This gap between communityand company perceptions became the source of considerablecontention and conflict.

Many factors appeared to influence community expecta-tions in our study, including socio-economic conditions andgovernment practices, perceptions of impacts of mining, per-ceptions of resource ownership, expectations about corporateresponsibility, and the short-term nature of mining. These fac-tors have also been identified by others (see, for example,Downing et al., 2002; Epps, 1997; Salami and Tsekpor,2000; Veiga et al., 2001). These expectations, when theywere not met by mining companies, exacerbated conflicts.

While Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is now beingtouted as an effective way to ameliorate communityecompanydisagreements at the community level, the work here suggeststhat CSR is more than simply a process for managing commu-nity relations. Rather, multinational corporations (such asthose examined here) use CSR as a tool for enacting globalprocesses in local places. Therefore, the local actions of thesecompanies are collectively creating, sustaining, and reinforc-ing the localeinternational linkages critical for ongoing glob-alization processes.

CSR activities in local communities created global pro-cesses first by providing the infrastructure (electricity, roads,and education) necessary to link communities with the outsideworld. The communities studied here welcomed and appreci-ated such infrastructure provision, and companies pointed tothese activities as examples of corporate largesse. This in-creased linkage, however, came at a cost to communitieswho expressed negative impacts including rapid populationgrowth, a growing cost of living, increases in crime, and exter-nal pressures on local cultural practices.

CSR activities in the study communities sustained global-ization by facilitating the expansion of multinational activityinto previously ‘unknown’ local places. Previous researchshows that communities with no previous history of large-scale mining tend to embrace incoming companies on the ex-pectation of future benefits (Downing et al., 2002: Humphreys,2001; Sumi and Thomson, 2001; Thomson and Joyce, 2000;Veiga et al., 2001). Community members in this project ini-tially welcomed the new companies but were soon disap-pointed by unmet expectations of insufficient localemployment and service provision, as well as unexpected en-vironmental impacts. Community members reported that com-panies made great promises during initial meetings, but thatthese promises were seldom fulfilled. Company representa-tives, in contrast, indicated their commitment to meeting localneeds as long as those activities did not interfere with interna-tional corporate constraints (particularly budgetary ones). In


this way, CSR activities were strategically employed by com-panies to ensure the commencement of expansion into localplaces, thereby sustaining increased global activity.

Finally, CSR activities reinforced globalization through theinsertion of multinational corporations into the governmentallacuna in the region. When engaging in community develop-ment activities, corporations run the risk of assuming therole of regional and national governments and, effectively, al-lowing those governments to abdicate responsibilities (fora discussion in the Nigerian context see Idemudia and Ite,2006). Community members reported feeling such a patronagerelationship with local mining operations, while company rep-resentatives equally insisted that their role was as a profit-making entity rather than service provider. This insertion ofthe corporation into a leadership role due to initial governmen-tal failure bolsters a patronage relationship between commu-nity and company, thus reinforcing localeglobal corporatestructures and reducing the power of governments to act asintermediaries in future relationships.

6. Conclusion

In the 1990s, the Government of Ghana underwent a struc-tural adjustment plan that included a liberalization of miningactivity. In response a number of transnational organizationsbegan mining developments in rural communities. The resultwas a strong boost to the national economy and unprecedentedgrowth in the mining sector with uneven benefits to resourcecommunities. However, the negative impacts of mining devel-opment were felt primarily at the local level.

The work presented here used a case study of gold miningin the Wassa West District of Ghana to highlight the nature oftensions that arise when international companies commenceactivity in small, rural communities in developing nations. Ad-ditionally it identified how such local development activitycreates, sustains, and reinforces broader scale globalizationprocesses.

In this study companies were challenged by the high expec-tations of communities, which were themselves facilitated inpart by the lack of engagement of local, regional, and nationalgovernments and coupled with a history of mistrust. As a re-sult, communities saw these incoming company operationsin a quasi-governmental relationship with concomitant highexpectations and strong criticism of any negative externalities.On the other hand, the company representatives interviewedhere denied, dismissed, or shifted blame by attributing com-munities’ perceived negative mining impacts to the communi-ties’ own behaviour (such as mismanagement of facilities, lackof maintenance, culture, personal hygiene), or to macro-scaleprocesses (like national economic malaise and local popula-tion trends), and environmental phenomenon (e.g. climatechange).

To reduce communityecompany conflict, we recommendthat communities be given a greater role in governmentecor-porate negotiations. Local players need to be engaged in theplanning process to voice their concerns and given a chanceto prioritize developmental needs. Communities also require

better understanding of the negative, as well as limitationsof the positive, externalities of surface mining projects. Fur-thermore, the roles of government, companies, and communi-ties need to be outlined and understood early in the planningprocess. Companies can do their part by increasing budgetsand efforts for local community development, although thiswill need to be done so as to balance Corporate Social Respon-sibility and global image with profitability. A more equitablebalance of both impacts and benefits (such as reallocation ofroyalties) would reduce tensions, but this prospect will be dif-ficult in many nations, such as Ghana, where uneven develop-ment and immense social disparities are so pervasive.

Acknowledgements

This research was made possible through financial supportfrom the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council ofCanada, the Community, Health and Environment ResearchCentre at the University of Alberta, and the Climate andHealth Research Program at the University of Alberta. A spe-cial thanks goes out to the many people in Ghana’s WassaWest District who kindly took the time to take part in thisproject.

References

Adadey, E., 1997. The role of the mining industry in the economy of Ghana.

In: Proceedings of the National Symposium on the Mining Industry and the

Environment. University of Science and Technology/International Devel-

opment Research Centre Environmental Research Group, Accra, Ghana,

pp. 10e17.

Addo, B.O., 1999. Problems and Solutions e Mining Sector. In: Proceedings

of the Western Region Investment Conference: The Key to Ghana’s Devel-

opment in the 21st Century. Available from: http://www.ghanachamines.

com/Ipa_print information.asp (accessed 14.01.02).

Aidan, D., 1999. Social responsibility and government. Mining Environmental

Management 7, 16e17.

Aidoo, J., 27 November 2002. Surface mining takes 70 percent of Tarkwa

land. Accra Mail (accessed 05.12.04).

Akabzaa, T., Darimani, A., 2001. The Impact of Mining Sector Investment:

a Study of the Tarkwa Mining Region. A Draft Report. Structural Adjust-

ment Participatory Review International Network (SAPRIN), Accra,

Ghana.

Al-Hassan, S., Mireku-Gyimah, E., Suglo, R.S., 1997. Mining and the environ-

ment in Ghana: an economic controversy. In: Proceedings of the National

Symposium on the Mining Industry and the Environment. University of

Science and Technology/International Development Research Centre Envi-

ronmental Research Group, pp. 95e102.

Anaman, J.K., 2002. Keynote Address by the President of the Ghana Chamber

of Mines at the Two Day Mining Conference on Mining, Environment and

Sustainable Development, February 21e22, 2002. Mining, environment

and sustainable development. Available from: www.ghanachamines.com/

Ipa_printinformation.asp (accessed 20.07.02).

Anderson, C.L., Bieniaszewska, R.L., 2005. The role of Corporate Social Re-

sponsibility in an oil company’s expansion into new territories. Corporate

Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 12, 1e9.

Annin, T.E., 1992. Gold in Ghana. Selwyn Publishers Ltd., London, UK.

Antwi, H., 2002. Mining and community relations: learning from the Prestea ep-

isode. General News. 15 November 2002. Available from:www.ghanaweb.

com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID¼29493(accessed

30.01.06).

Aryee, B.N., 2001. Ghana’s mining sector: its contribution to the national

economy. Resource Policy 27, 61e75.

http://www.ghanachamines.com/Ipa_printinformation.asp




www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=29493




Aubynn, A.K., 1997. Liberalism and Economic Adjustment in Resource Fron-

tiers: Land-based Resource Alienation and Local Responses. A Reflection

from Western Ghana. Working Paper 9/97. Helsinki, Finland: University of

Helsinki, Institute for Development Studies.

Aubynn, E.A., 1998. The Socio-economic and Environmental Implications of

Mining Activities of the New Abosso Goldfields Limited (AGL) on Dam-

ang Area. BA thesis, University of Science and Technology, Department of

General and African Studies.

Aubynn, E.A., 1999. The Process of Negotiation: Kyekyewere Resettlement/

Relocation Project. Abosso Goldfields Ltd, Damang, Ghana.

Aubynn, E.A., 2003. Community Perceptions of Mining in Ghana. Unpub-

lished Master’s thesis from Department of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences,

University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Ballard, C., Banks, G., 2003. Resource wars: the anthropology of mining. An-

nual Review of Anthropology 32, 287e313.

Banks, G., 2002. Mining and the environment in Melanesia: contemporary

debates reviewed. The Contemporary Pacific 14 (1), 39e67.

Baxter, J., Eyles, J., 1997. Evaluating qualitative research in social geography:

establishing ‘rigour’ in interview analysis. Transactions of the Institute of

British Geographers 22 (4), 505e525.

Bazeley, P., Richards, L., 2000. The NVivo Qualitative Project Book. Sage,

Thousand Oaks, CA.

Bickerstaff, K., 2004. Risk perception research: socio-cultural perspectives on

the public experience of air pollution. Environment International 30,

827e840.

Boateng, A., 1997. Some emerging concerns on surface gold mining in Ghana.

In: Environmental Protection Agency Newsletter, vol. 1. EPA-GHANA,

Accra, Ghana (7), pp. 5e8.

Bridge, G., 2004. Mapping the bonanza: geographies of mining investment in

an era of neoliberal reform. The Professional Geographer 56 (3), 406e421.

Brohman, J., 1996. Popular Development. Blackwell Publishers, London, UK.

Brown, P., 1992. Popular epidemiology and toxic waste contamination: land

and professional ways of knowing. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour

33 (3), 267e281.

Burge, R.J., 1995. A Community Guide to Social Impact Assessment. Social

Ecology Press, Middleton.

Conduah, C.A.K., 1996. Wassa Fiase Traditional Council Report on Surface

Mining Activities: A Preliminary Report on Findings. Tarkwa, Ghana:

Banamey Printing Press.

Dalsted, N.L., Leholm, N.E., Coon, R.C., Hertsgaard, T.A., Leistritz, F.L.,

1980. Economic effects. In: Leistritz, F.L., Hertsgaard, T.A. (Eds.), Envi-

ronmental, Economic, and Social Impacts of a Coal Gasification Plant in

Western North Dakota. North Dakota State University, ND, pp. 95e139.

Downing, T.E., Moles, J., McIntosh, I., Garcia-Downing, C., 2002. Indigenous

People and Mining: Strategies and Tactics for Encounter. International In-

stitute for Environment and Sustainable Development (IIESD), London,

UK.

Dumett, R.E., 1998. El Dorado in West Africa: The Gold Mining Frontier,

African Labor and Colonial Capitalism in the Gold-coast. Ohio University

Press, Athens, OH.

Elkington, J., 1998. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st

Century Business. New Society Publishers, Stony Creek, CT.

Epps, J.M., 1997. The social agenda in mine development. Industry and Envi-

ronment 20 (4), 33e35.

Garriga, E., Mele, D., 2004. Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping

the territory. Journal of Business Ethics 53 (1/2), 51e71.

General News, 2001. Cyanide spillage attributed to faulty design and heavy rain.

General News. Available from: http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/

NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID¼20159 (accessed 30.01.06).

Ghana Minerals Commission, 2001. Production and Revenue Statistics for the

Mineral Sector, the Second Quarter 2001. The Minerals Commission,

Accra, Ghana.

Ghana News Agency, 2003. Mining companies provide 100 billion cedis to sup-

port communities. Available from: www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/

economy/artikel.php?ID¼39194 (accessed 20.07.03).

Government of Ghana, 1980. Report of the Committee for Increased Gold

Output in Ghana. New York, NY: United Nations.

Government of Ghana, 1984. Economic Recovery Programme. Government

Printer, Accra, Ghana.

Habirono, H., 2001. Community based sustainable development: a corporate

social responsibility. Mining Environmental Management 9 (4), 87e97.

Hamann, R., 2004. Corporate social responsibility, partnerships, and institu-

tional change: the case of mining in South Africa. Natural Resources

Forum 28 (4), 278e290.

Hills, J., Welford, R., 2005. Profits, pollution and prison: a case study of gold

mining in Indonesia. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental


Hilson, G., 2001. Putting theory into practice: how has the gold mining indus-

try interpreted the concept of sustainable development? Mineral Resources

Engineering 10 (4), 397e413.

Hilson, G., Murck, B., 2000. Sustainable development in the mining industry:

clarifying the corporate perspective. Resource Policy 26, 227e238.

Hilson, G., Nyame, F., 2006. Gold mining in Ghana’s forest reserves: a report

on the current debate. Area 38 (2), 175e185.

Humphreys, D., 2001. Sustainable development: can the mining industry

afford it? Resource Policy 27, 1e7.

Huqq, M.M., 1989. The Economy of Ghana: The First 25 Years Since Inde-

pendence. Macmillan Press, Hong Kong.

Idemudia, U., Ite, U., 2006. Corporateecommunity relations in Nigeria’s oil

industry: challenges and imperatives. Corporate Social Responsibility

and Environmental Management 13, 194e206.

Ite, U., 2004. Multinationals and corporate social responsibility in developing

countries: a case study of Nigeria. Corporate Social Responsibility and

Environmental Management 11, 1e11.

Jenkins, H., 2004. Corporate social responsibility and the mining industry:

conflicts and constructs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmen-

tal Management 11, 23e34.

Kampfner, J., 2001. Ghana e prisoner of the International Monetary Fund

(IMF). BBC News. November 5, 2001.

Kitula, A.G.N., 2006. The environmental and socio-economic impacts of min-

ing on local livelihoods in Tanzania: a case study of Geita District. Journal

of Cleaner Production 14, 405e414.

Konadu-Agyemang, K., 2000. The best of times and worst of times: structural

adjustment programmes and uneven development in Africa: the case of

Ghana. The Professional Geographer 52 (3), 469e483.

Kumah, A., 2006. Sustainability and gold mining in the developing world.

Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 315e323.

Lewis, G.T., 1997. Addressing the galamsey problem: the view from the

Ghana Chamber of Mines. In: Proceedings of the National Symposium

on the Mining Industry and the Environment. University of Science and

Technology/International Development Research Centre Environmental

Research Group, Accra, Ghana, pp. 53e69.

Lyon, D., 2004. How can you help organizations change to meet the corporate

responsibility agenda? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental


Madeley, J., 1999. Big Business, Poor People: The Impact of Transnational

Corporations on the World’s Poor. Zed Books Ltd., London, UK.

McAllister, M.L., Milioli, G., 2000. Mining sustainability: opportunities for

Canada and Brazil. Minerals and Energy 15, 3e14.

McMahon, G., Strongman, J., 1999. The rise of communities. Mining Environ-

mental Management 7, 8e11.

Miniru, A., 2002. Monitor hits newsstand. General News. Available from: http://

www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID¼24748

(accessed 11.06.02).

Muradian, R., Marinez-Alier, J., Correa, H., 2003. International capital versus

local population: the environmental conflict of the Tambogrande Mining

Project, Peru. Society and Natural Resources 16, 775e792.

Neuman, W.L., 2000. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches, fourth ed. Allyn and Bacon, Boston.

Ogola, J.S., Mitullah, W.V., Omulo, M.A., 2002. Impact of gold mining on the

environment and human health: a case study in the Migori Gold Belt,

Kenya. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 24, 141e158.

People’s Daily Graphic, 7 November 1996. The threat of mine pollution. Sec-

tion 1. People’s Daily Graphic, 10e11.

http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=20159



http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/economy/artikel.php?ID=39194

www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/economy/artikel.php?ID=39194

www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/economy/artikel.php?ID=39194




Portes, A., 2000. Neoliberalism and the sociology of development: emerging

trends and unanticipated facts. In: Roberts, T., Hite, A. (Eds.), From Mod-

ernization to Globalization: Perspectives on Development and Social

Change. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK, pp. 353e372.

Reichardt, M., 2007. Mining in Ghana e golden future for the galamsey. The

Ethical Corporation. Available from: http://www.ethicalcorp.com/

content_print.asp?ContentID¼4984 (accessed 20.06.07).

Richards, J.P., 2002. Sustainable development and the minerals industry. Eco-

nomic Geologists Newsletter 48 (1), 8e12.

Rickson, R.E., Lane, M., Lynch-Blosse, M., Western, J.S., 1995. Community,

environment and development: impact assessment in resource-dependent

communities. Impact Assessment 13 (4), 347e370.

Salami, M.B., Tsekpor, A., 2000. Socio-economic Baseline Study of Com-

munities in the Catchment Area of Productive Mining Sites in Ashanti

and Western Regions in Ghana. The Ghana Chamber of Mines, Accra,

Ghana.

Schaefer, A., 2004. Corporate sustainability e integrating environmental and

social concerns? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Man-

agement 11, 179e187.

Suglo, R.S., 1999. Mining in Ghana: towards More Foreign Exchange Earnings

and a Green Earth. In: Chamber of Mines Day Seminar. School of Mines Press.

Sumi, L., Thomson, S., 2001. Mining in Remote Canada: Issues and Impacts e

a Community Primer. Mining Watch Canada. Available from: http://www.

miningwatch.ca/updir/mine_impacts_kit.pdf (accessed 31.01.06).

Sweeting, A.R., Clark, A.P., 2000. Slightening the Lode: A Guide for Respon-

sible Large-scale Mining. Conservation International, Washington, DC.

Thomson, I., Joyce, S.A., 2000. Mineral exploration and the challenge of com-

munity relations. The PDAC Communique 1, 1e9.

Veiga, M.M., Scoble, M., McAllister, M., 2001. Mining with communities.

Natural Resources Forum 25, 191e202.

WWDA, 1996. Development Plan: 1996e2000. Wassa West District Admin-

istration, Tarkwa, Ghana.

http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content_print.asp?ContentID=4984

http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content_print.asp?ContentID=4984

http://www.miningwatch.ca/updir/mine_impacts_kit.pdf

http://www.miningwatch.ca/updir/mine_impacts_kit.pdf

community–company relations in gold mining in ghana

Documents