Business
Anglo American faces backlash over environmental liabilities in South Africa
As Anglo American reshapes itself on the global stage, a storm is brewing back home.
This week, Mining Affected Communities in Action, widely known as MACUA, publicly accused the mining giant of walking away from South Africa without fully settling its environmental and social responsibilities. It is a charge that cuts deep, especially for a company founded here in 1917 and long woven into the country’s industrial and political history.
At the heart of the dispute is a looming corporate shift. Anglo American agreed in September 2025 to merge with Canada’s Teck Resources, creating a new entity called Anglo Teck. The move will see the company’s global headquarters relocate to Vancouver. For many in mining communities, that relocation feels symbolic.
A merger that stirred suspicion
MACUA believes the merger signals what it calls a “slow motion exit” from South Africa. The organisation argues that before any corporate reshuffle becomes final, Anglo must settle outstanding Social and Labour Plan commitments and what communities describe as a substantial historical social debt.
According to MACUA, environmental damage linked to Anglo’s historic operations includes land sterilisation, water contamination, and acid mine drainage. The group says publicly available regulatory data suggests environmental and closure liabilities tied to Anglo’s footprint could amount to between R40 billion and R55 billion.
Their concern is simple. Profits must not leave while damage remains.
Sabelo Mnguni, MACUA’s national coordinator, has called for strict public interest conditions and full accountability before any exit takes place. During a protest outside Anglo’s offices, the organisation handed over a memorandum demanding a public, independently verified Exit Impact Assessment. That assessment, they say, should examine environmental liabilities, incomplete development commitments, long-term socioeconomic impacts, and plans for post-closure sustainability.
On social media, the debate has been intense. Some South Africans argue that mining companies have long externalised environmental costs onto vulnerable communities. Others caution against alarmism, pointing out that the company insists it is not going anywhere.
Anglo pushes back
Anglo American has strongly rejected the claim that it is exiting South Africa. The company says the merger is about building a stronger global critical minerals business and that it remains committed to investing locally.
Crucially, Anglo Teck will continue Anglo American’s listing on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. The company has stressed that no South African assets, licences, or companies are being relocated as a result of the merger. It also emphasised that obligations under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, environmental legislation, and Social and Labour Plan requirements remain fully enforceable in South Africa, regardless of where its head office sits.
In other words, a change of address does not erase legal duties.
A long restructuring journey
This tension did not emerge overnight. Since 2018, Anglo American has been steadily restructuring its South African portfolio.
It exited thermal coal operations tied to Eskom in 2018 through a sale to Seriti Resources. In 2021, it demerged its remaining export coal business, creating Thungela Resources. In May 2025, it completed the demerger of its roughly 79 percent stake in Amplats, which was renamed Valterra Platinum Limited and now operates independently with listings in Johannesburg and London.
The company is also reportedly in advanced negotiations to sell its 85 percent stake in De Beers, with a deal expected in 2026.
For critics, this pattern strengthens the perception of withdrawal. For the company, it represents strategic refocusing.
Government response and the legal question
The Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources has called on MACUA to formally report its allegations. The department says the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, alongside the National Environmental Management Act, clearly sets out obligations for mining right holders and outlines compliance processes.
In short, if liabilities exist, there are legal tools to enforce them.
Yet MACUA argues that the issue is not simply legal but political. The organisation believes the state has become reluctant to assert authority against powerful multinational capital, particularly capital built on South Africa’s land and labour.
The group also raises historical concerns, claiming that decades of racially suppressed wages under apartheid generated immense profits at the expense of Black mineworkers and their families. It argues that any exit under current conditions risks becoming, in its view, an act of debt evasion rather than a neutral business decision.
A defining moment for mining accountability
Mining has always been central to South Africa’s story. From the gold rush that shaped Johannesburg to the platinum belts that still anchor local economies, communities and companies are deeply intertwined.
What happens next could set a precedent. If Anglo remains and invests under its new global structure, it may reshape perceptions. If communities feel abandoned, the backlash will likely grow louder.
For now, the debate is less about geography and more about responsibility. Where a company is headquartered matters symbolically. What it leaves behind matters materially.
And in mining towns across the country, that distinction is everything.
Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter, TikT
For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com
Source: IOL
Featured Image: The Chemical Engineer
