Steelmaker ArcelorMittal SA (Amsa) came under fire from non-governmental organisations at its shareholders’ meeting on Tuesday over its environmental transgressions and lack of transparency.
The tense 2020 annual general meeting (AGM) of Amsa, the country’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, follows a similarly fraught meeting last year as part of a growing trend at AGMs that has seen activists demanding accountability from corporates, particularly on environmental matters as climate change concerns grow.
Though participants could join the AGM online, community activists demonstrated outside the gates of Amsa’s Vanderbijl operations.
The media was not permitted to observe Tuesday’s meeting, but environmental justice organisations the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA) and the Life After Coal coalition said the AGM afforded them an opportunity to confront Amsa on its environmental transgressions, lack of transparency and community consultation.
In 2014, activist lawyer group the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), acting on behalf of VEJA, took successful legal action and the Supreme Court of Appeal forced ArcelorMittal to release the information relating to its plans to reduce its pollution to communities. Despite the ruling and undertakings by Amsa to be more transparent, VEJA on Tuesday said environmental information has not been made readily accessible.
VEJA representative Samson Mokoena said in a statement: “Amsa has over the years maintained a steady reputation as environmental criminals through water abstraction and pollution, land contamination, air pollution, all complemented by lack of transparency and refusal to invest in sustainable solutions.”
Mokoena said communities have long suffered the effects of pollution in the area.
“We want ArcelorMittal to comply with the supreme court decision made [in] 2014 that they must be transparent and disclose information to the community on how they plan to improve air quality around our communities where they operate” he said.
The CER, meanwhile, said the steelmaker failed to uphold commitments it made last year on transparency. Instead, “Amsa’s willingness to engage and to share information — which is clearly in the public interest — has declined,” the group said.
For example, the department of environmental affairs recently levied a R3.6m fine on Amsa for exceeding hydrogen sulphide minimum emissions standards. Amsa has failed to share information with the CER on the problems with its old sulphur abatement plant, and would it provide information about the new one it is building as part of a “sustainable solution” to address the emissions issue.
The company has also failed to share an annual progress report relating to contamination at its Vanderbijlpark site, and communities have not been informed of the risk or remediation of the issue, the CER said.
The activist law group took issue with the company’s poor progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which it said were lower year on year only because of lower steel production and not because of any strategy to mitigate climate risk.
Amsa spokesperson Tami Didiza said the company acknowledges that there are challenges, including substantial environmental compliance challenges, and that environmental performance is a material issue receiving “significant leadership focus”.
Didiza said the company continues to invest to mitigate its environmental impacts and compliance levels. In 2019, Amsa’s capital expenditure on environmental controls was R151m, which was 44.5% higher than 2018. In March 2019, the company began disbursing R1bn on further minimising its environmental impacts, the bulk of which concerns the Vanderbijlpark Works’ coke gas-cleaning facility to reduce sulphur-related emission by 30%.
Amsa, Didiza said, strives to be transparent and accountable and its 2019 integrated annual report seeks to address most of the environmental issues raised in previous engagements.
Amsa said it remains open to engaging with stakeholders and has previously reached out to various NGOs to engage on key issues. It, however, said the VEJA, in particular, appeared “more interested in public platforms than constructive engagements”.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.