Social and environmental litigation against transnational firms in Africa

As elsewhere in the world, Africa has experienced a rise in litigation against transnational corporations for adverse environmental and social impact. Cape plc and RTZ have been sued in British courts for environmental damage and for breach of employment rights in Africa. Companies which sold products to South Africa’s former apartheid regime, such as Fujitsu and IBM, are now being sued in US courts. Shell and Chevron are being sued in US courts for human rights abuses in Nigeria. At the same time, foreign firms have been successfully sued in African courts for social and environmental damage. This article outlines the main relevant court cases and attempts to assess the significance of this litigation. The discussion of litigation in this article is divided into three parts : court cases filed in English, American and African (mainly Nigerian) courts. This is followed by an explanation of the triggers of legal change, a discussion of the impact of litigation and the conclusion. I N T R O D U C T I O N As elsewhere in the world, Africa has experienced a rise in litigation against transnational corporations (TNCs) for adverse environmental and social impact. Cape plc and RTZ have been sued in British courts for environmental damage and breach of employment rights in Africa. Companies which sold products to South Africa’s former apartheid regime, such as Fujitsu, UBS and IBM, are now being sued in US courts. Shell and Chevron are being sued in US courts for human rights abuses in Nigeria. At the same time, foreign firms have been successfully sued in African courts for social and environmental damage (see Table 1). This rise should be seen in the context of changing global governance and the rise of corporate social responsibility (CSR). As Newell (2001) has * Lecturer in International Management, Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham. The author would like to thank two anonymous referees for helpful comments on an earlier draft. J. of Modern African Studies, 42, 3 (2004), pp. 363–388. f 2004 Cambridge University Press DOI: 10.1017/S0022278X04000230 Printed in the United Kingdom