Africa’s mineral abundance has made mining a critical industry in much of the continent. But the models and structure of traditional firms often means that few of the benefits spill over into the wider economy. Is that now changing? Using case studies from Morocco and Zimbabwe Inas El Aidi asks how Africa’s mining firms can move beyond corporate success to become genuine drivers of development.
In Africa, mining produces commodities ranging from bulk minerals and precious metals as well as industrial and technology minerals and rare earth elements. These resources generate export earnings, public revenues, formal employment and foreign investment. Yet their development value depends heavily on whether extraction is linked to domestic supply chains, processing, skills and technological capabilities.
Traditionally, extractive industries in Africa have been capital‑intensive islands: they generate foreign exchange and fiscal revenues, but they purchase equipment abroad, import expertise and ship out unprocessed ore.
The concept of a mining “champion” challenges this pattern. Drawing on the wider industrial-policy idea of national champions, it refers here to a capable domestically rooted firm, whether privately owned, state-supported or formed through strategic partnerships, able to anchor domestic manufacturing, logistics and service networks. Upstream, they can cultivate engineering, maintenance and equipment suppliers. Downstream, they can expand processing, refining and specialised products rather than exporting raw materials. Sidestream, they can invest in infrastructure, energy, water and logistics that benefit multiple users. And through knowledge linkages, they can support universities, training centres and research and innovation systems.
But none of this is automatic. Procuring local equipment will not guarantee technological upgrading if domestic firms stay confined to low‑value services. And big industrial platforms do not ensure structural transformation if they merely internalise more value within the firm rather than dispersing it through domestic production networks.
“Corporate champions” versus “developmental champions”
This leads to the distinction between firms that we call corporate champions and those that we call developmental champions.
A corporate champion is easy to recognise. It has large production capacity, advanced technology, global competitiveness and the ability to mobilise capital at scale. The label of developmental champion is harder to earn. It implies that corporate capabilities are deliberately transmitted into the domestic economy. This can happen in several ways. One is local embeddedness, through deep, long‑term relationships with domestic suppliers, producers and knowledge institutions. Another is economic spillovers, or measurable diversification into new sectors, productivity gains for local firms and resilient employment beyond the mine itself. A third is social inclusion, where fair labour regimes can be implemented across the entire workforce, including contractors and subcontractors, and the firm takes part in meaningful community participation in development priorities. And the last is ecological justice, where the company shows credible environmental commitments that reduce risks and improve conditions for host communities, not just enhance operational efficiency.
Corporate capability is one necessary condition for developmental impact. But it is not sufficient to move the firm from one category to another. A mining champion can be world‑class in engineering and finance but if linkages remain shallow, labour arrangements are segmented and environmental practices prioritise cost over community it may still reproduce “upgraded enclaves”, operations that are technologically sophisticated and commercially competitive but remain weakly integrated into the domestic economy and surrounding communities.
Labour dualism in mining
One example of the difference between the corporate and the developmental approach can be seen in labour. Mining in Africa can be a route to decent jobs and wages, especially when firms pay above national averages and offer formal contracts with benefits. Yet the reality is typically more fragmented. Large operations rely heavily on subcontracted and contracted workers, from maintenance and transport to specialised services, who experience shorter contracts, weaker social protection and limited voice.
This dual labour regime creates a quiet but consequential divide. For mining champions aspiring to developmental status, this distinction is critical. Social inclusion cannot be assessed only through conditions for permanent staff; it must encompass the entire labour ecosystem.
Examples of different models
The following case studies draw from research carried out at the LSE Firoz Lalji Institute for Africa to examine whether, and under what conditions, major mining firms can function as developmental champions. OCP Group in Morocco and Zimplats in Zimbabwe are two globally connected, resource-based companies operating in strategically important sectors, but within markedly different national political economies, ownership structures and industrial-policy environments.
OCP is selected because its state-linked governance, downstream fertiliser strategy, investments in research and African agricultural partnerships make it a prominent example of a firm whose corporate strategy is closely aligned with wider national development objectives.
Zimplats provides a useful test of the limits of corporate capability and formal localisation commitments in a platinum-mining context marked by enclave risks, contested beneficiation expectations and uneven local spillovers. The comparison therefore does not assume that both firms are already developmental champions. Rather, it assesses each firm against the four dimensions of development performance: local embeddedness, economic spillovers, social inclusion and ecological justice.
The state‑anchored phosphate champion
OCP Group is a state‑controlled phosphate producer in Morocco that has shifted from raw rock exports to a fully integrated fertiliser and chemicals business, leveraging a reserve base of about 68% of global phosphates. In 2025 OCP generated roughly 113.9–114 billion Moroccan dirhams ($11–12 billion) in revenue, up about 17–21% year‑on‑year, consolidating its role as a global fertiliser leader. Fertiliser activities now account for over two‑thirds of revenue, with capacity planned to rise from 12 to 20 million tonnes.
On ecological justice, OCP has invested in environmental and water-management measures intended to reduce the ecological footprint of its phosphate value chain. A key example is its phosphate slurry pipeline, which transports phosphate rock from the Khouribga mining area in central Morocco to the Jorf Lasfar processing and export complex on the Atlantic coast. By replacing more carbon-intensive transport, the pipeline is estimated to cut annual emissions by around 620,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide and saves about 3 million m³ of water annually. Non‑conventional water already covers more than 65% of needs and desalination plants divert roughly 43% of output to nearby cities.
OCP has also built domestic knowledge and innovation linkages through investment in research, higher education and applied technology development. In 2025 OCP invested around $208.5 million in research and development. On the social side it also backs around 270 university research programmes, and has trained 15,000 young people, with some 5,800 hired by OCP or partners. Its agronomic programmes have delivered over 60,000 training sessions in Morocco and reached about 500,000 farmers across Africa.
In terms of local embeddedness and economic spillovers, roughly 70% of intermediate supply chains are reserved for domestic SMEs and micro‑enterprises. Supplier ecosystems have grown from just over 500 firms to around 5,800, although many remain focused on services and maintenance rather than higher‑tech engineering.
On social inclusion, the record is mixed. Almost all (99.7%) of core staff are permanent and around more than 30% of senior managers are women. The OCP Foundation, OCP Group’s philanthropic and social-impact arm, has reached large numbers of beneficiaries.
But these achievements should not obscure the limits of OCP’s developmental contribution. Subcontracted workers may face shorter contracts, lower pay and weaker employment protection. According to a 2015 study, OCP accounted for around 60% of dividends paid by Moroccan public enterprises; alongside its corporate-tax payments, this strengthens public finances but also highlights the concentration of economic power in a single state-controlled firm.
Across the four dimensions, OCP is a strong but qualified candidate for developmental-champion status. Its state anchoring, domestic value addition, supplier networks and knowledge investments indicate relatively deep local embeddedness and meaningful economic spillovers. And its water and emissions initiatives provide some evidence of ecological justice. Yet lower-value supplier linkages, insecure subcontracted work and concentrated economic power limit social inclusion and make its developmental contribution incomplete.
The foreign‑owned platinum champion
Zimplats Holdings Limited is a foreign-controlled platinum producer operating in Zimbabwe’s Great Dyke. It is ultimately controlled by South Africa’s Impala Platinum Holdings (Implats), which holds 87% of Zimplats through Impala Platinum B.V. Zimplats Holdings is incorporated in Guernsey and listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX). This ownership structure gives the firm access to international capital, technology, managerial expertise and global platinum-group-metals markets. At the same time, it raises a central developmental question: whether the value generated from Zimbabwe’s mineral resources is retained, reinvested and embedded locally, or is primarily directed through an externally controlled corporate network.
With an annual production of just over 600,000 ounces of six-element platinum-group metals and gold (“6E”), comprising platinum, palladium, rhodium, gold, ruthenium and iridium, Zimplats is clearly a corporate champion in productive scale and technical capability. It combines large‑scale mining with a smelter expansion that has increased concentrate processing from about 135,000 tonnes to around 380,000 tonnes per year.
On ecological justice, Zimplats has invested in sulphur-dioxide abatement and a 35MW solar plant as part of measures intended to reduce emissions and reliance on conventional grid electricity. It also reports high levels of recycled‑water utilisation.
In terms of local embeddedness, procurement is the clearest evidence. Local sourcing now accounts for slightly over half of total procurement and a Local Enterprise Development programme supports more than twenty indigenous firms and over 3,000 jobs. It remains unclear, however, whether these suppliers are moving into higher‑value, technologically intensive activities.
On governance and sustainability, Zimplats publishes financial statements in US dollars under International Financial Reporting Standards and is subject to disclosure requirements associated with its ASX listing. It also maintains ISO certifications for environmental management, occupational health and safety, and quality management. These measures indicate formal systems for financial transparency and operational environmental management. However, such systems do not by themselves ensure locally embedded development.
On social inclusion, however, contractors slightly outnumber direct employees and limited publicly available evidence on pay, skills upgrading and community-level benefits leaves open important questions about domestic value retention, labour inclusion and the breadth of local developmental spillovers.
Zimplats is a strong and increasingly embedded corporate champion. But its progression to developmental champion status hinges on deeper supplier upgrading, full realisation of downstream beneficiation ambitions and more inclusive labour and community outcomes.
The contrast is clear. OCP’s state anchoring and domestic fertiliser strategy give it stronger potential for local value retention and capability-building, whereas Zimplats’ external control makes domestic spillovers more dependent on enforceable Zimbabwean policy and corporate commitments. Neither case shows that scale or processing investment alone produces developmental champions.
Corporate champions or developmental champions?
Africa’s mining firms increasingly demonstrate the capabilities of corporate champions: they mobilise capital, adopt advanced technologies, expand processing and participate in global markets. But corporate capability is not the same as developmental impact. Corporate success should be treated as a starting point for assessing developmental impact, rather than as evidence of it. The decisive question is whether governments can translate corporate commitments into enforceable obligations, and whether workers and host communities can secure and hold companies accountable for meaningful implementation on local procurement, skills transfer, job quality, environmental performance, community benefit-sharing and domestic value retention.
Without those arrangements, even sophisticated mining operations risk remaining upgraded enclaves. With them, mineral wealth can support diversified, inclusive and environmentally credible development. The task is not to produce better mines, but to ensure that mining produces broader development.
This article gives the views of the author, not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School of Economics. You are agreeing with our comment policy when you leave a comment.
Image credit: Parliov provided by Shutterstock