Fast Company Contributor | 6 January 2026 Elon Musk’s SpaceX has unleashed one of the most ambitious consumer broadband experiments in history, beaming high-speed internet from low-Earth orbit via its Starlink satellite constellation. Globally, the service now counts millions of subscribers across roughly 100 markets. Yet in Africa, a region where affordable, reliable internet could transform economies, Starlink’s rollout is proving far more turbulent than the hype suggested. Africa: A Market Full of Potential — and Complex Challenges Starlink doubled its footprint in Africa in 2024, adding several countries to its coverage map. But for every successful launch in places like Ghana, Sierra Leone, Botswana and Zimbabwe, the company has had to push back launch plans for many more, and even withdraw services entirely in some markets. Overwhelming user demand has outpaced network capacity in many regions. In parts of Kenya, Nigeria, Zambia, Ghana and elsewhere, users saw new subscriptions paused for months as satellite bandwidth hit constraints. While some cities have since reopened registration, access remains limited in major hubs like Abuja, Lagos, Nairobi and Harare. Regulation: The Central Obstacle in South Africa Perhaps nowhere is Starlink’s Africa trouble more obvious than here in SA.  Despite early excitement, Starlink still has no formal licence to operate locally, a position that has left its service in legal limbo for years. South Africans have long exploited a workaround by buying hardware and signing up using foreign roaming plans , but regulators have now cracked down on this grey market According to MyBroadband, SpaceX has begun suspending services, warning customers they are operating in “unauthorised territory” pending local regulatory approval. The root cause? SA’s telecommunications licensing rules include requirements for participation by historically disadvantaged groups, a condition SpaceX’s global corporate structure has so far declined to meet. In late 2025, the Communications Ministry issued a policy directive encouraging the telecom regulator ICASA to update its licensing frameworks,  including recognition of Equity Equivalent Investment Programs (EEIPs). SpaceX says if ICASA adopts these changes, Starlink could be licensed within weeks, promising full compliance with South African Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) requirements.  But implementation is the key: ICASA must still act to amend its regulations. Collateral Damage: Disconnection and Customer Hardship The regulatory standoff has real consequences for end-users: Service cut-offs — South Africans on roaming plans have faced abrupt suspensions, according to TechAfrica News. Illegal resellers shut down — Unauthorised distributors that once promised kits and connectivity have collapsed, leaving many customers without service or migration support.  Broader African Headwinds South Africa is not alone. Uganda’s regulator has compelled Starlink to block all terminals nationwide after finding the service lacked a licence. And in neighbouring Namibia, authorities ordered Starlink to cease operations while a licence review remains pending.  Regulatory uncertainty, spectrum allocation issues, and debates over local economic participation are recurring themes across the continent, and they underscore how different African markets are rewriting the rules for global tech entrants. Starlink’s setbacks illustrate a larger truth: Africa’s digital divide isn’t simply a problem of technology, but of policy, economics and local control. For all its potential to bridge connectivity gaps, Starlink is still learning, sometimes the hard way, that scaling next-generation infrastructure across a diverse continent requires far more than satellites in orbit. ‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’. https://www.businessday.co.za/companies/2026-01-06-starlink-pushes-potential-customers-to-pressure-icasa-to-change-empowerment-regulations/

Molefe Seeletsa | 5 January 2026 The ANC veteran urged them to take initiative and actively seek employment, rather than basking in the sun. Mineral and Petroleum Resources Minister Gwede Mantashe has come under fire after suggesting that South Africans have become overly reliant on the state. His remarks, made during an interview on Sunday ahead of the ANC’s 8 January birthday celebrations, have sparked widespread debate online. Mantashe argued that the ANC has often downplayed its achievements, citing initiatives such as the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (Nsfas), which has enabled underprivileged children to graduate. He also highlighted the party’s role in building a social security system to support the most vulnerable. “We don’t talk about that,” Mantashe told SABC News . Mantashes claims ANC created a ‘passive society’ Comparing South Africa to China, Mantashe claimed the ANC committed a mistake by developing a “passive society” where citizens expect the government to solve problems for them. “The difference is that Chinese people put their skin in the fire. “South Africa has developed a theory of delivery, which means you sit back, you sit in the sun and expect the state to deliver, and people are not involved,” the ANC national chairperson said. He said greater citizen participation could help the country reach its potential. Mantashe expressed pride in the ANC’s strides in government since 1994, but seemed to criticise citizens for not making full use of the opportunities provided. “I am happy that we have delivered. We have changed the outlook of the country. “I am unhappy that many of our people don’t use the advantages of an ANC government. Instead, they expect that government to take them there.” He cited the example of a young woman from the Eastern Cape who studied to become a pharmacist through Nsfas funding, but struggled to find a job. Using an analogy, the minister claimed he reminded the woman that the ANC provided her with the tools, but it cannot do the work for her. “I said to her, ‘The ANC has given you a fishing rod; it must now catch fish for you,’ and she says, ‘No, I never looked at it from that angle.'” ‘They don’t look for jobs themselves’ Mantashe emphasised the ANC government’s policies have inadvertently fostered passivity, drawing from his own experience with a community farming project in his hometown of Cala in Eastern Cape. “Many thought that was a government project, but it was my project. I was ploughing the land for villages and said to them, young people must participate in the production of maize. “They refused. They wanted me to rent the piece of land. They didn’t want to be part of the project until after three years. I said, ‘If you are not part of the project, then I give up on the project.’ I gave up.” He described the lack of engagement as “a big disappointment”. “They don’t want to be part of the improvement, and I’m unhappy about that. I would prefer a society that is doing things themselves.” Mantashe urged South Africans to take greater responsibility for solving national challenges rather than relying on government. “We must all be part of the solution and not depend on the state or the ANC for solutions. The more people get involved, the better the country will be.” Reflecting on his own life, Mantashe noted: “I am now over 70. I’ve never had a government looking for a job for me. “The difference is that today, because there is a progressive government, people expect that government to go and give them jobs. They don’t look for jobs themselves, and that must change.” “Let’s move out of being a parcel society and become an active society,” the ANC veteran added. Social media backlash Mantashe’s comments have drawn criticism on social media. Former public protector and MK party member Busisiwe Mkhwebane condemned his remarks, saying he is out of touch with the realities of unemployment and poverty. “Gwede Mantashe, if you can know how many applications the unemployed graduates and those who are not qualified, you will never utter such irresponsible statement. “Your family and those close to you are not exposed to the poverty and unemployment our families are going through. “You are so distant to reality and it is sad. #unemployment #poverty and #inequality,” Mkhwebane posted on X. Defending BEE Earlier in the interview, Mantashe defended black economic empowerment (BEE) amid criticism of the policy over the past year. “I’m not expecting a John Steenhuisen to be a fan of the ANC. I still expect them to say, ‘BEE is not right for us’ because they prefer white supremacy.” He argued that entrepreneurship is not created by politics but by individuals. “The loose talk that people who get benefits from BEE are connected politically, which is a farce, actually. Politics don’t create entrepreneurs,” Mantashe remarked. He added: “Entrepreneurs are born, and they develop their own skills and develop into big empires, and we must do that as black South Africans and not expect to be given gifts called wealth. That is not a gift.” ‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’. https://www.citizen.co.za/news/mantashe-south-africans-dependent-government-jobs/

Mthobisi Nozulela | 8 December 2025 Minister of Finance Enoch Godongwana has revealed that hundreds of companies that were flagged for blacklisting by the government are still under review, with only 18 formally restricted so far. This comes as the government looks to crack down on corruption, fraud, and non-performance in public procurement. Last month, the Minister of Public Works & Infrastructure, Dean Macpherson, also said that 40 contractors had been blacklisted since June 2024, compared with just one over the previous 22 years. Godongwana said that the National Treasury cannot blacklist suppliers on its own and can only act once the affected government departments submit complete and legally compliant requests. "On 20 September 2025, a list of 509 referrals was received by the National Treasury from the Presidency. Of the referrals, 18 have been blacklisted, and 491 are still under review," Godongwana said. Godongwana also explained that delays in blacklisting are largely procedural, with some departments submitting incomplete information or failing to comply with legal requirements. "These companies were either restricted or referred back (as per the attached list on question 1 above) due to non-compliance with legislative requirements such as the Instruction Notes, General Conditions of Contract, and Preferential Procurement Regulations. However, several organs of state have yet to submit their request for restrictions to National Treasury". He added that the Treasury’s role is limited to administering the system rather than initiating action. "It should be noted that National Treasury does not initiate the restriction but facilitates the process of loading the restriction on the database of restricted suppliers". "The process is initiated by the organs of state, and in the absence of requests from the organs of state, National Treasury cannot restrict the affected suppliers, though SIU has issued a report, organs of state must still follow the restriction process". ‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’. https://iol.co.za/business/2025-12-08-more-than-500-companies-face-possible-blacklisting-in-south-africa/

SAHRC | 3 December 2025 Today we commemorate the International Day of Persons with Disabilities under the theme “Fostering disability inclusive societies for advancing social progress.” This theme speaks directly to South Africa’s ongoing journey. Our Constitution guarantees the rights, dignity and equal protection of all people. Yet for many persons with disabilities, these rights remain unrealised in daily life. South Africa has strong policies and a substantial legal framework on disability such as the Constitution, the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, the White Paper on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Real progress depends on turning commitments into action and ensuring participation, accessibility and equal opportunity across every sector of society. This will not happen if we work in silos. Government, civil society, the private sector and communities must move together with shared purpose and accountability. Disability inclusion demands coordination, not fragmentation. The Commission is concerned that South Africa does not have a comprehensive legal framework for persons with disabilities. Persons with disabilities continue to be systematically discriminated. Our monitoring work and complaints trends have revealed that persons with disabilities continue to face discrimination in the country in the form of stigma, lack of disability accessibility tools such as ramps, sign language interpretation, lack of wheelchairs and translation of materials to brail. As a result, the Commission has prioritised the rights of persons with disabilities to develop mechanisms to create awareness, lobby, empower and protect their rights.  The South African Human Rights Commission has taken steps to strengthen oversight and participation by establishing a Section 11 Disability Committee in terms of SAHRC Act 40 of 2013. This committee brings together representative voices from the disability sector and serves as a mechanism to guide, monitor and advance the realisation of rights. In terms of the Un Convention CRPD the Commission is required to set up an Independent Monitoring Mechanism. It is an imperative in compliance with the UN Convention on CRPD. The Commission has developed concept note which is being considered by the full cohort of commissioners. The Commission stands ready to contribute to the national effort. It is our hope that the necessary funding is secured so this mechanism can operate effectively and carry out its mandate. On this day we affirm that disability inclusion is not an act of goodwill but a constitutional imperative. It is a measure of the kind of society we aspire to be. We must build a country where persons with disabilities are not spoken for but are active participants in policymaking, development and leadership. We honour the contributions, resilience and knowledge of persons with disabilities, and we recommit to our mandate which is to protect, promote and monitor human rights and the culture thereof. In line with the Theme: True social progress requires that no one is left behind and that every barrier fallen becomes a step forward for all. ‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’. https://sahrc.org.za/index.php/sahrc-media/news-2/item/4407-media-statement-south-african-human-rights-commission-commemorates-international-day-of-persons-with-disabilities

TygerBurger | 3 December 2025 CAPE TOWN – South African workplaces are failing to deliver on the promise of inclusion for persons with disabilities, despite legal obligations under the Employment Equity Act (EEA) and global commitments such as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). According to the 25th Commission for Employment Equity (CEE) Report, persons with disabilities make up only 1.4% of the workforce, well below the national 3% target. Representation at senior levels is even lower — 1% in top management and 1.3% in senior management. Only 1% of promotions go to employees with disabilities, leaving many talented individuals with limited opportunities for career progression. On International Day of Persons with Disabilities on 3 December, Prof Armand Bam, head of social impact at Stellenbosch Business School, warns that business-as-usual is no longer acceptable and that meaningful action is urgently needed. Globally, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) confirms that persons with disabilities are twice as likely to be unemployed as non-disabled persons. “Disability inclusion is not charity, it’s a legal requirement and a matter of social justice,” says Bam. “When disabled employees rarely see themselves in leadership roles, it reinforces the damaging stereotype that persons with disabilities are not leadership material.” Bam emphasises that intersectionality is critical: “A Black woman with a disability faces layered marginalisation such as racialised, gendered and ableist barriers. Organisations must recognise these compounded disadvantages if they are to achieve true inclusion.” South Africa’s stagnant 1.4% workforce representation shows that awareness alone is not enough. “Organisations must move from compliance to measurable action, embedding disability into strategy, policy, and leadership culture. Immediate practical steps can make a real difference: accessible communications, ergonomically adjustable workstations, and inclusive procurement are all implementable today,” says Bam. Systemic change needed He says that even with legal protections, the daily experience of employees with disabilities is shaped by structural and cultural barriers. This includes persistent bias, particularly against invisible, psychosocial, or episodic disabilities and high rates of non-disclosure due to fear of stigma or job loss. According to Bam, over 60% of workers with invisible disabilities choose not to disclose globally. Digital and physical inaccessibility, worsened by rapid technological adoption, and limited participation in decision-making, and lower confidence and higher turnover intention, play a role too. “Globally, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) confirms that persons with disabilities are twice as likely to be unemployed as non-disabled persons, a reality reflected in South Africa’s stagnating workforce representation.” Prof Bam notes that inclusion is more than compliance and that it requires systemic change. He says that common obstacles include managers lacking knowledge about disability rights and accommodations, and HR systems and workplace cultures that fail to integrate disability into mainstream strategy. Inclusion strategies “Meaningful inclusion requires a shift from tokenistic interventions to systemic redesign, from “fixing the person” to fixing the environment, and from reactive compliance to proactive universal design. In addition, persons with disabilities must participate in decisions that affect them. This is the only way to create workplaces that are equitable and just.” Prof Bam says that there are key strategies that organisations can actively drive. These include transparent, fast and employee-friendly accommodation processes; accessibility audits of buildings, websites and digital systems; flexible hours, hybrid working, and sensory-friendly spaces; integrating disability into KPIs, reporting, leadership development and procurement and mandatory disability confidence training for managers. ‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’. https://novanews.co.za/sa-workplaces-are-failing-persons-with-disabilities-says-academic/

Siphiwe Ndlovu and Zweli Zwane | 3 December 2025 The policy is not perfect, but it needs to be improved, not abandoned. Recent media commentary has featured calls to scrap the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) Act, with critics arguing it has only benefited a small, connected elite. While the policy is not perfect, discarding it entirely would be a severe setback for redressing historical economic injustice and building an inclusive society. BBBEE’s objectives extend beyond financial enrichment. The legislation is fundamentally about promoting gender equality, women’s emancipation and equitable representation across all levels of the workforce. It aims to rectify historical imbalances through mechanisms such as affirmative action and preferential procurement from black-owned enterprises. In practice, companies often align their BBBEE strategies with their employment equity plans to comply with both the BBBEE Act and the Employment Equity Act, contributing to SA’s transformation while also ensuring a more equitable workplace. A significant achievement is the growth of the black middle class, which now numbers about 3.4-million people. This demographic plays a vital role in stimulating consumer demand and driving growth in sectors such as real estate, retail and banking. The policy has also driven increased black ownership. Black South Africans held 45% of directorships in JSE-listed entities in 2018, with female directors outperforming their male counterparts. BBBEE has fostered entrepreneurship, job creation and skills development, providing opportunities for black-owned businesses to participate meaningfully in the economy. In realising the urgent need to boost the economy and job creation, the Gauteng government passed the Gauteng Township Economic Development Act 2022. It aims to promote economic growth and development in townships by, among others, setting specific procurement rules for the government, like 60% township procurement, developing township enterprise zones and fostering partnerships between township-based retail malls and local enterprises. Critics argue that the Act has not achieved its intended objectives due to implementation gaps, lack of awareness, and fragmented enforcement; hence, the comprehensive review of the Act to strengthen alignment with township business needs. Many rightly point out that SA still grapples with high inequality and unemployment and that wealth has sometimes been concentrated among a politically connected few. However, this is not a failure of the policy but rather a sign of its inconsistent application and the need for refinement. The core purpose of the BBBEE Act is to achieve a substantial change in the racial composition of ownership, management and skilled professions. Other significant challenges include a “tick-box” approach to compliance in some companies, where minimal requirements are met without a genuine commitment to transformation. The complexity of the regulatory environment also demands specialist resources, which can be a barrier. These valid criticisms highlight the need for policy improvement, not its abolition. Scrapping BBBEE would reverse the gains made and signal that economic transformation is no longer a national priority. As Prof Ntsikelelo Breakfast of Nelson Mandela University argues, while the policy has not fully achieved its goals, its removal would leave no mechanism to ensure large-scale black participation in the mainstream economy. BBBEE has encouraged corporate SA to rethink diversity and inclusion, making companies more aware of the need for inclusive workplaces and supply chains and enhancing our overall economic competitiveness. The focus should be on strengthening BBBEE, making it more effective and efficient in achieving its broad-based objectives. We must refine it to address current shortcomings, ensure genuine transformation over mere compliance, and strengthen accountability. We cannot afford to throw the baby out with the bathwater; the pursuit of a more equitable society depends on it. Ndlovu is the deputy director for inclusive economy and Zwane is the director at the Gauteng economic development department. ‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER ’. https://www.sowetan.co.za/opinion/2025-12-03-opinion-scrapping-bbbee-will-reverse-empowerment-gains-and-the-fight-for-equality/

As per Schedule 1  of the Amended General B-BBEE Codes of Good Practice, a Black Designated Group Supplier is defined as follows:   “means a supplier to the Measured Entity that is at least 51% owned by one or more of the following categories of ownership within its structure:   (a) unemployed black people not attending and not required by law to attend an educational institution and not awaiting admission to an educational institution;     (b) Black people who are youth as defined in the National Youth Commission Act of 1996;    (c) Black people who are persons with disabilities as defined in the Code of Good Practice on employment of people with disabilities issued under the Employment Equity Act;                                   (d) Black people living in rural and under developed areas;    (e) Black military veterans who qualifies to be called a military veteran in terms of the Military Veterans Act 18 of 2011;”   The above definition/concept is applied under the elements of Ownership and Enterprise & Supplier Development of the Amended General B-BBEE Codes of Good Practice.   Technical Services   are available to assist Members in further understanding the above as well as the application thereof.

Persons with disabilities are the largest marginalised group globally.   Paragraph 2.1.1.3 under Statement 300   of the Amended General B-BBEE Codes of Good Practice encourages the inclusion of persons with disabilities in terms of Bursaries, Learnerships, Internships, Apprenticeships and any other training initiative. The clause is stated as follows:   “2.1.1.3 Skills Development Expenditure on Learning Programmes specified in the Learning Programme Matrix for 'Black' employees with disabilities as a percentage of Leviable Amount”. The points on offer are four with a 0.3% target.”   Human Capital Services  are available to assist members in implementing sustainable Skills Development Strategies for Persons with Disabilities.

Section 1 of the Employment Equity Act  defines People with Disabilities as “ people who have a long-term or recurring physical. or mental impairment, which substantially limits their prospects of entry into, or advancement in, employment”   Furthermore, the Codes of Good Practice for Persons  with disabilities outlines more detailed requirements and definitions in line with the above. Members need to ensure that the definition of People with Disabilities is clearly understood.   Human Capital Services  are available to assist members in understanding the definition of People with Disabilities in line with B-BBEE requirements.

Mayibongwe Maqhina | 27 November 2025 Trade, Industry and Competition Minister Parks Tau on Wednesday revealed that the review of the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) will be executed in two phases. Responding during a question-and-answer session to DA MP Toby Chance in the National Assembly, Tau detailed the dual-pronged approach aimed at refining and realigning South Africa's economic empowerment framework. He said the first phase will be a short-term review,  focusing on refinement and review of subordinate legislation. “This should be completed by the end of this financial year,” he said, adding that they have been in a process of consultation to finalise the Transformation Fund, and its implementation was also part of the review process. Tau also said the second phase was a long-term review, which involved a review of the Broad-Based Economic Empowerment Act for substantive amendments. The review of the Act aligned with South Africa's growth and inclusion strategy of the government. “The path to economic growth, inclusion, and transformation is underpinned by broad-based economic empowerment through preferential self-performing policies. This approach helps create jobs in marginalised communities, strengthen local supply chains and ensure that economic benefits are widely shared,” he said. “Therefore, reviewing the Act in the context of socio-economic shifts ensures that South Africa's legal framework supports broader transformation,” said Tau. DA MP Mlondi Mdluli said his party last month published the Economic Inclusion Bill for public comments amid think tanks and international investors urging South Africa to move away from race-based policies, which enable the continued capture of economic opportunities by a small minority, and leave the vast majority wallowing in poverty. “When will the ANC realise that its race-based policy of empowerment will simply be gamed by its patronage? Mdluli asked. In his response, Tau said that at the core of the South African problem was the historic subjugation of black people to oppression and discrimination in all forms. “1994 represented a breakthrough in creating a democratic dispensation, but 1994 up to 2025 has not resolved the historic challenge of the oppression and discrimination of black people and the lack of access to equitable economic opportunity. “And until this problem has been resolved, the ANC will never doubt it. The ANC's purpose of existence is the national liberation of black people, including from the economic bondage.” EFF MP Muzi Khoza noted that the Government of National Unity (GNU) partners were opposed to black economic empowerment (BEE) and transformative measures in the country. “What influence will their opposition to BEE have on this review you are talking about?” asked Khoza. Tau said the measure of the broad-based black political problem was actually covered in the Statement of Intent of the GNU. “We identified the need in the negotiations that established this government for the need to ensure that we secure the task of transformation and development, and therefore, that level of redress is critical to this government.” He added that there will be processes of engaging in policy, having different perspectives in government. “But, I can tell you without any shadow of doubt that our position and the position of this government is prescribed by the Constitution that seeks redress, legislation that seeks redress, and action that seeks to achieve that redress.” Responding to ActionSA parliamentary leader Athol Trollip, Tau said any suggestion that the broad-based economic empowerment has not reached a vast number of people was a fundamental misunderstanding of the policy. “You don't measure those who are employed in terms of employment equity who hold management positions in the public service, in the private sector, in NGOs, including here in Parliament, based on a deliberate programme of ensuring access to opportunities.” He stated that they have said any policy requires constant review in terms of its efficacy, its implementation plans, and progress. “We have said, let us really look at what has not worked and what has worked.” ‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’. https://iol.co.za/news/politics/2025-11-26-parks-tau-unveils-two-phase-review-process-for-b-bbee-reform/

Johan Fourie | 26 November 2025 For all their differences, BEE and apartheid are subject to the same hard logic of economics and politics. South Africa’s history has a way of circling back on itself. Four decades ago an oppressive racial order began to crack under the weight of economic pressure. Today, a different policy — BEE — faces scrutiny as its own unintended consequences mount. It is crucial not to confuse the two. Apartheid was a heinous system designed to entrench racial oppression; BEE was conceived to counteract those injustices by promoting black participation in the economy. One was built to separate and exclude, the other to include and uplift. Yet for all their differences both are subject to the same hard logic of economics and politics. Systems survive while enough powerful groups still benefit from them. They erode once their costs — economic, political, administrative — begin to outweigh those benefits. That is the core hypothesis here: the mechanisms that helped push apartheid towards its end can tell us something about the conditions under which BEE will be reformed, replaced, or even abandoned. A first line of explanation for why apartheid fell is simple: the system became too expensive to sustain. From the late 1940s apartheid constructed an elaborate racial edifice. White farmers received generous subsidies and protection. White workers — especially Afrikaner workers — were granted job reservation and a “civilised labour policy” that kept wages high and competition from black workers at bay. White business enjoyed access to large pools of cheap, politically constrained black labour. The state built an entire bureaucracy — labour bureaus, influx-control offices, bantustan administrations — to police these arrangements. For a time this coalition of white interests worked. White workers got security, white capitalists got profits, white politicians got votes. But the policy instruments that secured those gains undermined the growth the system needed to reproduce itself. Job reservation and restrictions on black education meant that by the 1960s and 1970s South African firms struggled to find enough skilled and semi-skilled workers. Instead of drawing on the obvious reservoir of black talent, apartheid forced companies to respond in two ways: by over-investing in machinery, and by trying to substitute capital for labour. Manufacturing became far more capital intensive than one would expect in a labour-abundant country. The result, as economist Nicoli Nattrass and others have shown, was falling capital productivity and declining profitability in both manufacturing and mining. At the same time, the composition of white interests became more fractured. Big business lobbied for a relaxation of job reservation and education restrictions. They needed more skilled workers and more predictable access to global markets. By contrast, white workers and farmers feared that precisely those reforms would erode their protected status. Attempts at partial reform — allowing black trade unions, moving the colour bar up the occupational ladder, tinkering with influx control — reflected these tensions. But they were piecemeal. No-one could change the system without threatening some core white constituency. By the 1980s the apartheid economy looked like a high-cost, low-efficiency machine. Unemployment among black South Africans was rising, profitability in key sectors was falling, and the system demanded ever more administrative effort to keep its racial rules in place. It was, in economic terms, eating itself alive. There is an obvious, if uncomfortable, parallel with BEE. Again, the intentions differ fundamentally. BEE was meant to break down the racial exclusivity of apartheid’s economy. But a growing number of businesses now experience BEE as a kind of overlay of rules that must be complied with even when they conflict with efficiency. Over the past two decades firms have expended significant resources on ownership restructuring, BEE scorecards, management targets and procurement rules. At modest levels, these instruments can nudge companies to search for talent in places they previously ignored, or to invest in training and enterprise development. However, at more extreme levels the trade-offs sharpen. Compliance absorbs managerial time. Ownership deals can distort incentives. Procurement rules may force firms to choose higher-cost or less reliable suppliers to secure points. Some analysts estimate that corporate South Africa spends a few percentage points of turnover on BEE compliance. Others argue that empowerment rules, taken together with localisation requirements and other regulations, have cut materially into growth and job creation, while disproportionately enriching a relatively small group of insiders. One can debate the numbers, but the pattern is harder to ignore: as compliance expectations become more demanding, both white- and black-owned firms find it harder to invest, to expand, and sometimes simply to survive. The “economic unsustainability” theory of change would therefore suggest that if BEE in its current form continues to erode growth and job creation, without visibly improving outcomes for the poor, the coalition that sustains it will eventually weaken. Just as apartheid’s economic logic turned against itself, BEE could lose support not because its goals are rejected, but because its instruments are judged to be too costly for too little gain. A second family of explanations for apartheid’s demise turns to the outside world. In the standard story, international sanctions and boycotts ratcheted up the pressure on Pretoria until it capitulated. The sporting boycotts, disinvestment campaigns and trade sanctions of the 1980s damaged South Africa’s economy and isolated its leaders. Yet, as economists Mats Lundahl, Merle Lipton and others have argued, the distribution of costs and benefits under apartheid — and under sanctions — was anything but uniform. Apartheid’s discriminatory rules and its sprawling enforcement apparatus did not serve “whites” as a bloc; they mainly protected those white groups with political clout — organised workers in protected jobs, commercial farmers, parts of the Afrikaner bureaucracy — while constraining more outward-orientated business and many ordinary consumers. Sanctions layered another set of distortions on top of this: they squeezed export-orientated firms and internationally exposed sectors hardest, while import-competing producers and rent-seekers inside the sheltered, state-centred core of the economy could often adapt or even gain from the new scarcities. In that sense, sanctions risked slowing the political learning process. Instead of steadily eroding the position of those who benefited most from apartheid’s rules, they often reinforced the coalitions that had most to gain from keeping the system intact, while weakening the constituencies, including parts of business, that might otherwise have pushed harder for reform. The sad irony is that some of apartheid’s international opponents may inadvertently have helped a politically powerful minority to cling on for longer, even as the wider white population, and certainly black South Africans, bore the economic costs. There is a lesson here for contemporaries of BEE. International investors and foreign governments are increasingly critical of South Africa’s empowerment framework. Ratings agencies and consultancies flag empowerment and labour regulations as part of the “policy uncertainty” that weighs on investment. Some trade partners may even treat BEE requirements — ownership quotas, local-partner rules — as non-tariff barriers. Yet blunt external criticism can easily trigger a nationalist reflex. In a country where those classified as black were excluded from economic citizenship for most of the 20th century, foreign lectures about “market-friendly” reforms are unlikely to land well. They make it easy for defenders of BEE — including those who profit most from its current design — to argue that outsiders (or, indeed, insiders who side with the outsiders) “do not want us to undo apartheid’s legacy” and to double down in response. Just as sanctions could entrench the interests of a small but powerful minority under apartheid, heavy-handed external pressure today might entrench BEE by giving it a symbolic role it was not originally designed to play: a test of sovereignty and dignity, rather than a set of tools to improve growth and inclusion. If history is any guide, the more BEE becomes a proxy battlefield for foreign and domestic posturing, the harder it becomes to change it from within. A third parallel lies not in what brought apartheid down, but in what delayed its end: the absence, for many years, of a clear and credible alternative. By the 1980s, it was widely understood that apartheid had no long-term future. Yet there was no settled vision of what should replace it. Within the ANC there was tension between socialist and more market-orientated strands. Business feared radical redistribution and nationalisation. The result was a long period of ideological contestation. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet model many in the liberation movement had once looked to, helped to weaken the case for a state-led, command-style economy and opened space for a more mixed, market-based settlement. In the early 1990s that settlement took institutional form in the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) and, from 1996, in the more orthodox macroeconomic framework of Growth, Employment and Redistribution (Gear), both forged through protracted bargaining between the ANC, business and organised labour. That uncertainty — the sense that the alternative was unclear, contested, even frightening — helped the old order to linger. We are in a somewhat similar place with BEE. Almost no-one believes the current configuration of empowerment policy is the final word. But there is no agreement on its successor. Should South Africa move away from race-based criteria altogether and target poverty and exclusion irrespective of identity, in the expectation that most beneficiaries will still be black? Should there be a “BEE 2.0″ that shifts emphasis away from ownership deals and high-level appointments towards schooling, skills and small-firm finance? Should empowerment be narrowed to a few sectors, or broadened even further? Looking back, apartheid did not end because it was morally indefensible; it had been morally indefensible from the start. It ended when the costs of maintaining it — in forgone growth, in social conflict, in administrative burden — exceeded what its beneficiaries were willing or able to carry. The 1961 Nobel peace prize recipient Albert Luthuli captured the deeper logic in Let My People Go when he wrote: “Economics will not obey racial blueprints.” Systems that allocate opportunities by skin colour rather than by ability or effort eventually choke off the very dynamism they need to survive. History suggests they are most likely to give way when their economic coalitions fracture and when a more credible path to both growth and inclusion is on the table. Fourie is chair of economics, history and policy at Stellenbosch University. ‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’. https://www.businessday.co.za/opinion/2025-11-26-johan-fourie-how-bee-ends/

Shaun Jacobs | 28 November 2025 The government is set to make changes to Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) legislation after a two-phase review in the coming years to understand the outcomes of the policy framework.  This comes after BEE has come under increasing criticism from business leaders, lobby groups, and parties within the Government of National Unity (GNU). Many, including the DA, have called for BEE to be replaced with means-based redistribution policies to improve the effectiveness of legislation aimed at tackling inequality.  Some within the ANC, including the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, Parks Tau, have said that BEE has become tainted by cronyism and corruption.  Tau and former president Kgalema Mothlante have said the policy framework needs to be altered to remove loopholes that have been exploited by some individuals to benefit at the expense of a broader cross-section of society.  Answering questions in Parliament, Tau explained how the review of the policy framework will be conducted and hinted at what changes could be made to BEE.  “The review will be implemented in two phases. The first phase will be a short-term review focusing on refinement and an analysis of subordinate legislation, which should be completed by the end of this financial year,” Tau said.  “Parallel to that, we have been in the process of consultation to finalise the Transformation Fund, and the implementation of the fund is part of the review process.” Tau explained that the implementation of the Transformation Fund seeks to aggregate different funding instruments to enhance efficiency and maximise value.  “The second phase is a long-term review which involves an analysis of the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) Act for substantive amendments,” Tau said.  “The review of the Act aligns with South Africa’s growth and inclusion strategy, outlined by the government. The path to economic growth, inclusion and transformation is underpinned by B-BBEE through preferential procurement policies.”  Tau said the government’s approach to BEE helps to create jobs in marginalised communities, strengthens local supply chains, and ensures that benefits are widely shared. “Therefore, reviewing the Act in the context of socio-economic shifts ensures that South Africa’s legal framework supports broader transformation,” Tau said.  BEE under fire BEE has come under increasing pressure in South Africa, with critics ranging from within the ANC to business leaders and other political parties.  Much of the criticism is directed at making changes to how the government’s current BEE framework is implemented, with the focus being on limiting cronyism and corruption.  Tau’s previous critique and that of other ANC members fall into this category, with the party remaining dedicated to BEE and its implementation.  This is notable in that the ANC has historically refused to acknowledge criticism of BEE and famously snubbed opposition parties’ attempts to debate the issue.  Deputy President Paul Mashatile told Parliament that there is no need to scrap the legislation, as the DA has proposed, but said it should be corrected.  “To the extent that there may be weaknesses, let’s correct that. Let’s make amendments, that is why there is this review. There is no need to ditch the legislation,” Mashatile said. The DA’s Baxolile Nodada said in a statement that the party is determined to replace BEE in South Africa, and the admission of the policy being reviewed is a step in the right direction.  “The DA will not allow this entrenched poverty to go on, enforced by failing BEE that makes insiders rich and leaves everyone else behind,” the statement read.  “The DA is determined to replace BEE with real economic inclusion for all, that is beyond the reproach of political meddling.” Investec CEO Fani Titi sharply criticised how BEE is currently being implemented, with it being characterised by corruption and benefits flowing to a handful of well-connected individuals rather than a broader cross-section of society.  In particular, Titi said that BEE has been misapplied and the opportunities for economic participation that it provides have been increasingly linked to political party membership.  “I can understand the frustration that there is,” Titi said. “You’ve had employment-equity legislation for 30 years, yet it hasn’t achieved the desired effect.” The head of the Solidarity Research Institute, Connie Mulder, said that BEE has failed to achieve its desired effect in South Africa.  Mulder said that current transformation policies have effectively resulted in tax money turning into Maseratis for well-connected individuals, with little benefit for poor South Africans. “We have got a problem with unemployment, a problem with unemployment, and a problem with meaningful inequality in South Africa,” Mulder told BizNews.  “We need to address that as a country. Our perspective has never been to not do anything about this, but it has been about doing something else because this will not work.”  Mulder explained that BEE has failed to address any of these challenges, with South Africa’s myriad of crises only worsening over the past two decades.  “Unfortunately, we have been proven right here. The needle has not moved on black unemployment. It has gotten worse. South Africans have only gotten poorer, and inequality has broadened,” Mulder said.  “This means that these policies have not achieved what they should have. Rather, they have achieved the exact opposite. What they have done is create a small, well-connected elite that is benefiting.” The Solidarity Research Institute estimates that BEE costs South Africa around 3% of GDP a year in lost economic activity, which equates to R226 billion. “We need to drop the emotion and honestly evaluate this policy. It has a massive cost to the economy. What are we getting for it? Are we getting what we want? And the answer, unequivocally, is no,” Mulder said.  ‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’. https://dailyinvestor.com/south-africa/112685/big-changes-to-bee-coming-in-south-africa/