Search Results

Staying competitive and innovative in today’s evolving business landscape demands more than just a solid product or service. It requires an empowered and capable workforce. Skills Development, the proactive investment in employee growth, has become an essential component of a business’s long-term strategy. While this often aligns with Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) compliance, the benefits of Skills Development go far beyond regulatory requirements. Enhancing employees' professional skills enables companies to build an agile, engaged, and growth-driven culture that fuels sustainable business success.   Beyond Compliance: Building a Skilled and Capable Workforce In many South African businesses, Skills Development is often seen as a means to meet B-BBEE targets and gain a competitive edge. However, the value it brings to the business extends far beyond this compliance. When employees receive certain opportunities for training and upskilling, they are empowered to take on more complex and fulfilling roles. A workforce that is continuously developing is not only more capable of meeting the demands of their current roles but is also prepared to adapt to industry changes, ensuring the business remains resilient and future-ready.   Investing in Skills Development means that businesses are showing their commitment to their employees’ growth which leads to increased motivation and a sense of ownership in their work. This investment, in turn, builds loyalty and reduces turnover rates. Skilled and experienced employees are more likely to stay with a company that values their professional growth, which saves on recruitment and training costs while preserving valuable institutional knowledge.   Productivity and Innovation Skills Development drives a culture of continuous improvement, which is important for business growth. When employees are equipped with updated skills and knowledge, they can perform their tasks more efficiently, resulting in higher productivity. Enhanced productivity directly impacts on the company’s profitability, as tasks are completed faster, with fewer errors and less need for rework.   Moreover, employees who are empowered through learning bring fresh ideas and perspectives to the table. Innovation flourishes in environments where employees feel confident to experiment and apply new skills. In competitive industries, this ability to innovate can be a decisive factor in differentiating a business from its competitors. Skills Development Programmes encourage employees to contribute actively to problem-solving and to propose process improvements that can streamline operations and create value for customers.   Leadership Development and Succession Planning Leadership Development is another critical aspect of Skills Development that benefits businesses in the long-term. Investing in programmes that focus on soft skills such as communication, conflict resolution and strategic thinking prepares employees to step into leadership roles. This approach to succession planning ensures the company has a pipeline of competent leaders ready to take on new challenges.   Developing leaders from within means that businesses can benefit from leaders who already understand the company culture, values, and goals. This approach also boosts morale as individuals can see a clear path to advancement and feel encouraged to pursue leadership roles, knowing they have the support and resources to succeed.   Future-Proofing the Business through Adaptable Employees Skills Development also future-proofs businesses by creating a versatile and adaptable workforce. As technology and market demands evolve, businesses must be able to respond swiftly to change. Employees equipped with a diverse skills set are better prepared to take on new roles and responsibilities, helping businesses pivot when necessary. This adaptability is especially valuable in times of economic uncertainty, where the ability to quickly upskill or reskill employees can be the difference between survival and stagnation.   Businesses that prioritise continuous learning demonstrate resilience and readiness for whatever the future brings. This adaptability is not only advantageous in meeting unforeseen challenges but also positions the business as an industry leader, proactive and prepared for innovation.   Skills Development Services are available to guide members on understanding these concepts to implement sustainable Skills Development strategies.

The 5 Bonus Points for Skills Development in exchange for meeting Absorption targets can meaningfully impact an organisation’s overall B-BBEE Scorecard. At a B-BBEE Verification, an organisation will be measured against c lause 2.1.3 of Statement 300   of the Amended General B-BBEE Codes of Good Practice , which states:   "Number of Black People absorbed by the Measured and Industry Entity at the end of the Internship, Learnership and Apprenticeship programme under Paragraph 2.1.2.1"   Skills Development Services are available to guide members in accessing the Bonus Points on offer.  Please note that the General Amended B-BBEE Codes of Good Practice requirements may differ from those of the B-BBEE Sector Codes of Good Practice.

Raymond Parsons | 16 February 2026 Commenting on President Cyril Ramaphosa's delivery of his State-of-the-Nation Address (Sona) in Parliament last week, North-West University Business School economist, Raymond Parsons said the focus on crime reduction, water security, SMME support, and Eskom reforms aims to drive inclusive, job-rich growth. Sona stresses swift implementation and investor confidence as South Africa seeks to seize a “window of opportunity” to strengthen its economic future, Parsons said. Expanding on these points, Parsons noted: In the usual wide-ranging Sona President Ramaphosa emphasised the extent to which South Africa is now at a turning point and needs to capitalise on recent positive developments to build a much bigger, stronger and better economy. The Sona outlined several of the factors that are now needed to generate the higher inclusive job-rich growth required for South Africa to meet its pressing socioeconomic challenges. These include the immediate imperatives of successfully combating violent crime and additional steps to ensure water security, as well as several other key supportive infrastructural and policy measures. In particular, Sona broadly recognised how essential it now is to make South Africa a preferred investment destination by creating a policy environment and growth outlook in which a sufficient number of firms will feel justified in making fresh plans for expansion. Driving growth forward The Sona proposals therefore ranged from further necessary assistance to SMMEs to dealing with the uncertainty around the unbundling of Eskom. The Eskom situation stresses why growth-friendly reforms must be seen as irreversible, if investor confidence is to be retained. It is also necessary to expedite the intended upgrading of public-private sector partnerships to enlarge the capacity for effective delivery. Ultimately, the outcome of the Sona again depends on a pivot in the commitment to expedite implementation of what is planned, as well as what the Budget on Wednesday, 25 February 2026 is able to safely finance. Realistic timelines also need to be enforced. Implementation, in collaboration with the private sector, remains the name of the game. The Sona itself referred to a unique ‘window of opportunity’ to now build on better economic news and to translate it into tangible improvements in citizens’ livelihoods on the ground. This injects urgency into the implementation of the half-forged policies and projects that must now make a big difference to South Africa’s future economic performance, if the GNU’s GDP growth target of 3.5% by 2030 is to be reached. ‘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.bizcommunity.com/article/ramaphosa-sona-maps-out-urgent-steps-for-south-africa-job-rich-growth-951364a

Kgomotso Lebele | 11 February 2026 South Africans are no strangers to instability. Some major public and private organisations have experienced rapid leadership turnover over the past two decades, with each change coinciding with operational setbacks and governance strain. Such frequent transitions are clear signals of systemic fragility. High leadership turnover erodes trust, disrupts economic recovery, and ultimately forces organisations into survival mode rather than enabling progressive transformation. Stability is gaining renewed prominence in the private sector. Industry data reveals an upward trend in CEO tenure among the country’s leading companies, highlighting a shift toward valuing sustained leadership as a key driver of organisational performance. Laying the foundation for lasting change Transformation is a long game played with decisions that amplify over time. Policy uncertainty, constant strain on infrastructure, growing social inequality, and geopolitical strain are just some of the hurdles that leaders are up against, proving that more than technical skill, they need time. Time to embed frameworks that last longer than headlines, to align emerging technology with human capability, and turn lip service into service delivery. Accenture research tells us that only about 30% of large-scale transformation efforts achieve their intended outcomes. One of the strongest predictors of success? Consistent leadership alignment. In our country, where transformation agendas too often get lost to short-term gains, leadership continuity means the difference between incremental change and systemic impact.  Trust, consistency and the power to transform Continuity builds trust, and trust is the driver of transformation. Clients who believe that leadership will not change with every market shock invest deeper. Employees who believe there's a steady hand at the helm commit to the long haul. These are not abstract ideals. Trust directly translates into resilience when crisis hits and it’s time for bold moves. Some of our country’s greatest turnaround stories are case in point. Despite fluctuating metal prices and an unpredictable global economic outlook, one of the platinum group metals miners remains profitable, reporting revenue of R32.9 billion — a 6.9% increase from the previous year. The multinational bank and financial services group delivered headline earnings of R45 billion and a return on equity of 18.5%, reflecting the depth of its diversified portfolio and its continued focus on creating value for stakeholders. These wins are not accidents; they are the proof points of leadership continuity, real-world examples of decision-makers who stayed, steered, and executed through the turbulence.  Leading past survival We need to let go of the notion that leadership continuity is about avoiding change. In fact, it is precisely what enables the right kind of change. Without it, there will be no reinvention of any kind. No investment in innovation, no inclusivity and diversity in talent pipelines, no shaping industries that are fit for the future. Just more cycles of reactive stagnation.  We are a resilient, growing nation, but our country’s transformation agenda is crying out for leadership that sticks around. Yes, the economy is growing, but we can do more than 0.6%. We owe our youth better than a 46% unemployment rate. And together we can rise to meet the estimated R2 trillion needed for infrastructure upgrades in 2030. What we can’t do is tackle any of these challenges without leaders who are in it for the long haul. A different ending: shifting the lens to accountability and courage At Accenture, we believe that true transformation is built on more than innovative strategies or technological investment – it requires leaders who are committed to staying the course. Leadership continuity is not about resisting change; it is about having the presence, accountability, and courage to guide organisations through complexity, build trust, and turn long-term vision into lasting impact.  By prioritising consistent leadership, organisations can move beyond reactive cycles, embed meaningful frameworks, and create sustainable growth that benefits employees, stakeholders, and the nation as a whole. In today’s dynamic environment, continuity is the differentiator between incremental adjustments and transformative outcomes, and we urge leaders to recognise its value and act accordingly. *Kgomotso Lebele, Country Managing Director, Accenture South Africa ‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’. https://insurancebiz.co.za/news/kgomotso-lebele-leadership-continuity-the-crucial-caveat-in-sas-transformation-agenda.html

ENCA | 13 February 2026 JOHANNESBURG - Approximately eight million people were officially unemployed in South Africa in the third quarter of 2025, representing an official unemployment rate of 31.9 percent, according to Statistics South Africa. Youth unemployment among 15- to 24-year-olds stood at 62.4 percent in the first quarter of 2025. While President Cyril Ramaphosa said during his Thursday night State of the Nation Address that the government has created over 2.5 million opportunities through the Presidential Employment Stimulus, more still needs to be done to decrease unemployment. Over R10.98-billion has been allocated to Labour Activation Programmes for the 2025-26 year, aiming for 240,000 job placements, with a long-term target of 690,000. But Marc Lubner, CEO of the Afrika Tikkun Group, says “throwing money” at the problem will not fix it. “Sure, we need a budget, but the issue that is concerning is how the funds are utilised and deployed,” he says. Lubner adds that it is disappointing the crisis of youth unemployment is still being looked at in isolation. “It’s not on education alone. It needs an integrated approach, recognising that a child grows up in an environment where there are a series of resource lacks from both social and physical infrastructure. We need to look at the linkage.” In his address, Ramaphosa said the government would introduce regulatory changes to make it easier for businesses to participate in the youth employment service. “In the coming year, we will expand our public employment programmes, including the Community Works Programme, EPWP and the Presidential Employment Stimulus.  “We will ensure they are better coordinated efforts to provide income support, skills development and pathways into longer-term work, particularly for young people and women,” Ramaphosa said. But Lubner cautions that while creating skills training opportunities is important, it is equally critical to ensure individuals entering these programmes are well prepared. “You can’t take an 18-year-old out of school and anticipate that they’re going to move into the work environment with the necessary social skills. One must look at a holistic approach; you have to have fundamentals taught at an early age.” ‘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.enca.com/news-top-stories/sona-2026-jobs-promise-under-scrutiny

Reabetswe Maputla | 10 February 2026 According to Statistics SA, the unemployment level of black women as of 2025 is 40.2%, despite affirmative action. Decades after the end of apartheid, women in South Africa remain disproportionately concentrated in certain jobs. One of the reasons the Employment Equity Act exists is to help advance people from historically disadvantaged groups into all levels of employment. Yet the employment gap between men and women is getting bigger, posing the question: does society even want women in leadership roles, let alone workplaces? Women are not only the most educated but also the most unemployed people in South Africa. South Africa’s overall unemployment rate is 33.2%, according to Fast company, which highlights the future of business and work culture. But joblessness, according to the Cape Argus, is higher among women at 35.9%, compared to 31.0% for men. According to Statistics SA, the unemployment level of black women as of 2025 is 40.2%, despite affirmative action. The unemployment rate for graduates stands at 12.2%, and female graduates experience a significantly higher rate of 15.0%, compared with 8.9% among males, according to the Cape Argus. During apartheid, women were limited to administrative, teaching, nursing, services, clerical and domestic jobs. The few women employed in post-apartheid South Africa continue to dominate those sectors, despite having qualifications which, in theory, should put them in other sectors. Occupational segregation continues to thrive in post-apartheid SA. Statistics SA shows that 17.6% of employed women are in administrative posts compared to 5.5% of employed men. Only 0.4% of men in South Africa do domestic work, whereas women dominate the industry. Daily News estimates that 27.2% of employed women, around two million, are limited to informal work. This includes jobs without contracts, pension benefits or medical aid. Men continue to dominate in executive and managerial roles and women continue to be left behind. Business Tech, SA’s largest and most influential business news website, shows that men account for 61% of these roles compared to women at 30%. Even when women are given a seat at the table, it’s tainted by the gender pay gap. IOL shows that as of 2025, women earn 23% to 35% less than men for the same work. Organisational culture in workplaces shows that women continue to be left out of strategic processes and debates and still have to work harder than their male counterparts to be taken seriously. Work allocation continues to be biased, with women being expected to take minutes, for example, despite their levels at work or qualifications. Women are given administration-type jobs regardless of the work done by the whole team. Women are often allocated to arrange conferences, do catering and find venues. Such tasks takes a significant amount of time out of their schedule. This makes it more challenging for women to do the tasks that advance their careers and fit their job descriptions. The Cape Times shows that women in SA head 43.2% of households, on top of earning less than men. Women are also often passed over for promotions. The 2025 Working Women’s Report, produced by RecruitMyMom, a specialist SA talent agency focused on working women, shows 19% of women in SA wait five years for a promotion, with 23% never getting promoted. Women also experience sextortion to keep their jobs or get benefits. Authority figures in workplaces may demand sexual favours from women with the promise of career benefits or a change in work conditions. Thus, women are on the receiving end of corruption, as well as violation of human rights. Despite strides in the fight against inequality and the implementation of affirmative action policies such as employment equity, the statistics don’t lie and women are still at a significant disadvantage. This disadvantage makes many question whether men even want women in these workspaces that women are fighting so hard to be included in, as well as what the future of the workforce is. ‘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/opinion/south-african-women-remain-locked-out-of-economic-power/

Yuneal Padayachy | 11 February 2026 On Thursday, 29 January 2026, the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) took a fundamental step in South Africa’s Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) transformation narrative by publishing Government Gazette Number 54032 . This introduces a suite of draft amendments to the B-BBEE Codes of Good Practice for 60 days of public comment. These proposals signal a forward-looking re-engineering of South Africa’s empowerment landscape and placing greater emphasis on measurable economic participation, strategic funding mechanisms, and equitable enterprise growth. The changes underscore the DTIC’s commitment to outcome-focused measurement, where B-BBEE transformation spend is not only about volume but also about demonstrating enduring economic uplift. The proposals represent one of the most substantial revisions to the B-BBEE regulatory framework in years, aimed at strengthening accountability, refining the empowerment scorecard, and incentivising transformation outcomes across the B-BBEE landscape. The gazette includes a number of draft gazettes which include amendments to: Draft Statement 000 of 2026 Draft Statement 004 of 2026 Draft Schedule 1 of 2026 Draft Statement 103 of 2026 Draft Statement 400 of 2026 Draft Code Series 600 of 2026 The Drafts are not merely technical changes; they reflect a policy direction with practical implications for business transformation, compliance strategy, and economic participation. Some of the major areas that have been introduced are as follows: Introduction of a transformation fund A major proposal is the establishment of a transformation fund as an alternative compliance route to traditional enterprise and supplier development (ESD) spend. Businesses could contribute a fixed percentage, 3% of net profit after tax, into this fund to earn a significant portion of B-BBEE scorecard points (20 points), centralising and scaling funding for Black-owned and Black-managed enterprises. Whilst many have questioned the corporate governance aspects of the transformation fund, others have welcomed it and are eager to understand how beneficiaries can be supported in a sustainable manner. Redesign of preferential procurement and supplier targets The draft scorecards emphasise more nuanced supplier spend targets, including distinct weighting for procurement from 100% Black-owned enterprises and 100% Black-women owned enterprises, signalling a shift toward more outcome-oriented procurement transformation. Equity equivalent investment programme for multinationals Draft Statement 103 introduces the transformation fund as one of the programmes that can be implement under the equity equivalent investment programme. Definition of the transformation fund Draft Schedule 1 of 2026 defines the “transformation fund” as “an aggregated mechanism to accelerate economic transformation and support Black enterprises, particularly exempted micro enterprise (EMEs) and qualifying small enterprise (QSEs). It aims to pool resources from measured entities to create a scalable impact rather than fragmented individual ESD initiatives”. Furthermore, majority of the Amendments have been incorporated under draft statement 400 of the General B-BBEE Codes of Good Practice and has been introduced under the other statements. ‘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.bizcommunity.com/article/draft-gazette-54032-introduces-sweeping-changes-to-b-bbee-codes-517070a

The Employment and Labour Minister recently announced an increase in the National Minimum Wage (NMW) to R30,23  per hour as of 01 March 2026. The increment aligns with the NMW Act of 2018 . The policy framework of this Act is the floor, a level below which no employee should be paid.   The Act dictates that it is illegal and unfair labour practice for an employer to unilaterally alter an employee's working hours or other Conditions of Employment due to the wage adjustment. Notwithstanding, the NMW covers the wage payable for ordinary work hours and excludes allowance payments, such as transport, tools, food or accommodation, or payments in kind such as board and lodging, tips, bonuses, or gifts.   The Act requires that the NMW Commission reviews the prescribed rates annually, then makes recommendations to the Minister on any adjustment, taking into account alternate views like public comment.   Members are encouraged to take note of the increase effective from 01 March 2026.

Sonja Boshoff | 10 February 2026 There seems to be a trend in our country’s political discourse of turning practical infrastructure questions into identity, and perhaps ideological battles. The current Starlink debate is the most recent example that includes more heat than light. There is far too little focus on the people who pay the price for slow delivery, including our rural communities, small town entrepreneurs, pupils, clinics and transport operators trying to function in a digital economy with unstable connectivity. Let me start with a point that is too often lost in the noise. A minister does not “hand out” licences on demand. Licensing sits with the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa), and the process is bound by law. Recent commentary has correctly reminded the public that a policy direction is not a licence, and South Africa’s regulatory architecture must be respected. That is precisely why the debate must mature. The question is not whether South Africa should have rules but whether those rules remain fit for purpose in a technology environment that has changed faster than our regulatory assumptions, particularly where satellite broadband can reach places that fibre and towers do not. Across provinces the same pattern is visible. Communities are expected to learn, trade and comply digitally, while the state and market take years to deliver reliable broadband. A school cannot recover lost learning without stable internet. A small farmer cannot price or sell competitively without connectivity. A spaza shop, guesthouse or workshop cannot operate digital payments or supplier systems without affordable data. Even taxi associations depend on digital communications for operations, safety co-ordination and administration. "Across provinces the same pattern is visible. Communities are expected to learn, trade and comply digitally, while the state and market take years to deliver reliable broadband." South Africa’s economic inclusion challenge is not abstract. It exists in the gap between policy commitments and infrastructure reality. If satellite broadband can narrow that gap faster, it deserves serious engagement, not slogans. At the centre of the controversy is the minister’s proposed policy direction to Icasa. This policy direction is a lawful, deliberate step to better align South Africa’s transformation goals with how they are applied in practice under the Electronic Communications Act. Its intention is to ensure Icasa upholds the full scope of our transformation laws, including ownership and equity equivalent investment programmes (EEIPs), as set out in the Broad-Based BEE (BBBEE) Act. This includes ensuring transformation in telecommunications and broadcasting takes place in the same way it does in other sectors of the economy, by enabling BBBEE rather than narrow deal making. At its core the policy direction seeks to unlock foreign and local investment while expanding internet access. It does so by ensuring all transformation contributions recognised under the BBBEE Act, including equity equivalent investment programmes and deemed ownership, are fairly considered. Icasa’s regulations do not fully reflect these options and only allow for ownership, ignoring EEIPs. EEIPs are not new and are used by multinational firms in other sectors. They are lawful instruments designed to secure measurable empowerment outcomes through skills development, enterprise support, supplier development and localisation. This does not mean a free pass. It means the state can demand enforceable transformation results instead of thin ownership structures that have tended to benefit a connected elite without delivering broad-based inclusion. The uncomfortable truth is empowerment policy has at times been gamed. If transparent and independently verified, a properly structured EEIP can guard against that risk. Critics raise three concerns that deserve serious attention: Relaxing equity requirements undermines transformation; Satellite operators pose risks to sovereignty and data security; and Corporate or geopolitical behaviour could threaten national interests. These are legitimate categories of risk. They are also not unique to Starlink. The correct response is regulation and conditions, not performative rejection. A mature, pro-South Africa position would insist any satellite broadband provider operates under strict and enforceable public interest conditions. At minimum, Icasa and relevant departments should require a credible, audited EEIP with clear targets. This should include ring-fenced investment amounts and timelines, skills pipelines for engineers and technicians, enterprise and supplier development for local small, medium and micro enterprises (SMMEs), and measurable rollout commitments for rural and township areas. There must also be public interest obligations directing connectivity to underserved spaces such as rural schools, clinics and small enterprises. Strong data protection and cybersecurity compliance must be non-negotiable. The Protection of Personal Information Act, lawful interception requirements and transparency on data handling must be codified in licence conditions. Sovereignty cannot be an afterthought. Procurement and localisation should be required where feasible. Even if equipment is imported, installation, maintenance and support ecosystems can be local. That is real job creation. Institutional roles must be respected. Regulators must regulate, politicians must oversee and companies must comply. Public pressure campaigns aimed at influencing regulatory outcomes undermine constitutional boundaries and should be discouraged. Some parliamentary leaders have called for the directive to be withdrawn. That view should be engaged respectfully. However, it would be a mistake to discard the underlying policy question: how do we modernise our framework so satellite broadband can be licensed lawfully, including requirements that benefit the poor? South Africa does not have the luxury of policy paralysis. If enforceable empowerment outcomes can be secured through EEIPs, sovereignty protected through compliance conditions and broadband delivered faster to underserved communities, then engagement is not capitulation. It is governance. If satellite broadband can help a pupil in a remote village access education, a small business expand market access or a taxi association operate more safely and efficiently, then it is worth pursuing. However, it must be pursued on South Africa’s terms, through Icasa’s independent process, with transparent empowerment commitments and strong safeguards for the national interest. That is not abandoning transformation. Done properly, it is transformation, because it delivers capability, opportunity and access where South Africa needs it most. ‘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/2026-02-10-sonja-boshoff-starlink-is-not-the-story-closing-the-connectivity-gap-is/

Jacob Webster | 9 February 2026 The minister backtracked on a proposal to place BEE requirements on prospecting rights in June. Mining minister Gwede Mantashe said his recent reversal on empowerment requirements for prospectors should not signal a retreat from BEE, which remains vital to the local mining sector’s agenda. “Many say BEE is driving investors out. It is not. It is an opportunity given to people who were excluded by apartheid. Do your exploration. At the point of production, we can talk about having a black partner,” said Mantashe at the opening of the 2026 Mining Indaba. In June, Mantashe backtracked on a proposal to place BEE requirements on prospecting rights after industry players and legal experts warned the move might hurt investment. The proposal was part of Mantashe’s draft Mineral & Petroleum Resources Development Amendment (MPRDA) Bill of 2025, an overhaul of the country’s flagship mining regulation of 2002. A correction notice published a month after the draft bill’s release for public comment showed the minister removing the requirements. Legal experts had warned it would dampen deal-making and scare away foreign investment in exploration by making the process for obtaining a prospecting right even more onerous. In his opening address on Monday, Mantashe assured the crowd that the move was not a “retreat from transformation”. Neither was he advocating the view that “black participation is a barrier to economic growth”. “It is rather a pragmatic recognition that prospecting is a high-risk phase where no economic value has yet been proven,” he said. “The change is designed to stimulate exploration, increase South Africa’s global share of exploration investment, and ultimately expand the pipeline of future mines.” The comments come as debates around South Africa’s empowerment laws have been reignited by US President Donald Trump’s false claims of a “white genocide”, putting a global spotlight on the country’s transformation agenda. Business Day reported in November that the DA had unveiled its “Economic Inclusion Bill for All”, which it said would replace the ANC-backed broad-based BEE framework. The party argues that the existing model has failed to uplift the country’s unemployed and impoverished majority and has instead benefited a politically connected elite. However, ANC national executive committee member Zuko Godlimpi has accused the DA of basing its objections to BEE on misinformation, saying the opposition’s proposed replacement policy is rooted in flawed assumptions. Policy changes aside, Mantashe said the department of mineral & petroleum resources is “working very hard” to improve its licensing system and boost exploration in the country. He said things are moving in the right direction, with the department having granted 358 prospecting rights and 32 mining rights between February 2025 and January 2026. The minister’s opening remarks centred on a call to action for African countries to work together on regional value chains, accelerating exploration in an era of “profound global uncertainty”. “We are witnessing heightened geopolitical tensions, driven largely by the competition of some developed economies seeking greater control over the natural resources of developing nations,” he said. “It is a strategic imperative for Africa to act collectively, speak in one voice, and avoid the destructive race to the bottom in our engagement with global powers and investors.” ‘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/2026-02-09-mantashe-defends-empowerment-drive-despite-u-turn-on-prospecting/

Nyaniso Qwesha | 8 February 2026 When a 124-year-old South African industrial giant quietly leaves the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, it should give us pause. Barloworld’s R23 billion acquisitions by the Saudi-backed Zahid Group and the Black-owned Entsha consortium, followed by its delisting after 86 years on the JSE, mark the end of a long public chapter in the company’s history. The deal has been framed as a transformation, a renewal, and a fresh start. But behind the reassuring language lies a harder truth that deserves public reflection. This transaction tells us as much about power, accountability, and corporate incentives as it does about ownership. At the centre of it all is one uncomfortable fact. As Barloworld exited public markets in January 2026, senior executives collectively received R43 million in incentive settlements. Chief executive Dominic Sewela alone received R21.8 million. Former finance director Nopasika Lila received R6.8 million. These payments were triggered not by future performance but by the act of selling the company itself. This was not a traditional management buyout. But it was a management-negotiated exit, financed largely by foreign capital, and completed at a time when South Africa was steadily losing listed industrial companies that once anchored its public economy. With the delisting now complete, these questions are no longer theoretical. The public no longer has a window into Barloworld’s decisions. What was once visible is now private. Why Sell Now? Barloworld’s longevity makes this moment especially striking. Founded in 1902, it survived two world wars, the Great Depression, apartheid-era isolation, sanctions, the global financial crisis, and Covid-19. For more than eight decades on the JSE, it remained publicly accountable, regulated, and open to scrutiny. So why now? The official explanation is familiar. Private ownership allows for patient capital, strategic flexibility, and freedom from short-term market pressure. These arguments are not new. They accompany almost every delisting. But they leave a key question unanswered. If Barloworld’s future under private ownership is so promising, why were long-standing public shareholders not allowed to share in that future? When management negotiates a sale that also unlocks significant personal payouts, timing matters. Either management believes the market undervalues the company, meaning shareholders were excited too early. Or management believes the road ahead will be challenging and prefers to navigate it away from public view. Neither possibility sits comfortably with the idea of stewardship. Incentives and Alignment To be clear, there is nothing illegal about accelerated incentive payments during a change of control. It is standard corporate practice. But standard practice is not the same as public legitimacy. Mr Dominic Sewela has spent close to two decades at Barloworld and rose through the ranks on the strength of operational experience. That history deserves acknowledgement. But it does not negate the optics or the implications of receiving nearly R22 million at the precise moment the company leaves public ownership. This is not about questioning personal integrity. It is about questioning incentive design. When executives benefit financially from a transaction that removes transparency and public accountability, the alignment between leadership and long-term public value becomes blurred. Management has access to information that shareholders do not. Strategy, risks, and the future are known internally long before they are visible externally. That imbalance matters most at the point of sale. In that context, R43 million in collective exit payments feels less like alignment and more like a reward for withdrawal. Empowerment and Capital The transaction is rightly described as a Black economic empowerment milestone. Entsha, a 100 percent Black-owned South African investment company associated with the Sewela family, holds 51 percent of the consortium. In a country still shaped by exclusion, that ownership matters. But empowerment must also ask where power truly sits. Zahid Group owns 49 percent and brings significant financial muscle and international reach. The structure is a partnership. But it is also a reminder that much of the capital driving this deal originates outside South Africa. This is not an argument against foreign investment or Black ownership. It is a reminder that ownership structure shapes accountability. Once a company goes private, decisions about jobs, investment, suppliers, and long-term strategy are made behind closed doors. Private capital prioritises returns and balance sheet discipline. In practice, this often translates into cost control, asset optimisation, and operational restructuring. These decisions affect workers, suppliers, and communities long before they show up in financial statements. Under public ownership, these trade-offs were visible and contestable. Under private ownership, they are not. What Delisting Really Costs When Barloworld left the JSE, South Africa lost more than a ticker symbol. It lost visibility. Public companies are imperfect. They are pressured by quarterly reporting and market sentiment. But they are also transparent. They report regularly. They explain executive pay. They answer shareholder questions. Private ownership removes that obligation. Barloworld’s future will now be shaped without public reporting, shareholder votes, or analyst scrutiny. Pension funds and retail investors were compelled to accept R90.50per share once the offer crossed 90 percent. Those who believed in the company’s long-term public value were forced out. That is how delisting works. But it also reveals who ultimately decides when public participation ends. A Broader Warning There is a wider lesson here for South Africa. When companies of Barloworld’s scale choose to leave public markets, it signals discomfort with transparency, regulation, or long-term public accountability. South Africa does not need fewer listed industrial companies. It needs more. Strong public markets allow ordinary citizens, through pension funds and savings, to participate in economic growth. Each delisting concentrates power and reduces public stakeholding in the real economy. If transformation and long-term investment can only succeed away from public view, then the problem may not lie with the companies alone but with the system meant to support them. A Question for Leadership Dominic Sewela and the Barloworld board may say they followed every rule. That may well be true. But leadership is measured by judgment, not compliance. Now, Barloworld left public ownership; executives were rewarded handsomely for the exit itself. That reality cannot be separated from the story of this deal. The board owed the public a clearer explanation. Why this moment? Why this structure? Why were executive rewards tied to withdrawal rather than long-term public value? Those answers have not been fully given. History will not focus on whether the transaction was lawful. It will focus on whether those entrusted with one of South Africa’s oldest industrial companies acted as custodians of a public legacy or as beneficiaries of its final sale. That distinction matters. Especially in a country where trust in corporate leadership is already fragile. And that is why the Barloworld deal deserves scrutiny long after the paperwork has been filed and the shares have disappeared from the board. ‘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/the-star/opinion/2026-02-08-when-management-sells-the-company-what-the-barloworld-deal-really-reveals/

Lihle Mvusi, Nthateng Mhlambiso, Nokuthula Futwa and Tabisa Bata | 5 February 2026 Students end up starving and homeless, and also risk dropping out. When Amanda Shinga, 24, from Port Shepstone in KwaZulu-Natal, enrolled at the Buffalo City TVET College in the Eastern Cape in 2021, her first year was shaped by systemic neglect. For the first four months, she did not receive her National Student Financial Aid Scheme (Nsfas) stipend, forcing her to survive on handouts while living in an informal settlement near Mdantsane, an environment that was neither safe nor conducive to studying. There were days when she went to bed hungry and could barely afford to pay for transport to campus. Amanda is among the nearly one million young people in SA who rely on Nsfas funding each year to cover basic needs such as food, accommodation, transport, and tuition. However, persistent delays in the disbursement of these funds leave many students struggling to finish their studies, especially those, like Amanda, are in their first year. When financial support fails to arrive on time, students are pushed into desperation. Many face hunger, homelessness, and the emotional strain of uncertainty, increasing their likelihood of dropping out. These delays also increase students’ vulnerability to risky survival and coping strategies such as transactional sex and substance abuse, which, at times, leads to gender-based violence and heightens their risk of contracting HIV. Although funding delays drive many students to drop out, Amanda was lucky. She had the support of local NGOs that provided food vouchers and ensured she was exposed to other like-minded young people, which helped to build a sense of community and belonging. In 2026, Amanda is pursuing a new qualification, a diploma in public management, which entails 18 months of theory and 18 months of mandatory work-integrated learning. Once she completes the theoretical component of her studies, she will be required to enter the work-integrated learning programme, intended to bridge the gap between learning and the world of work. Work-integrated learning is facilitated by Sector Education and Training Authorities (Setas). In practice, Seta funding flows through colleges, which are responsible for disbursing stipends to students. However, stipends for students undergoing work-integrated learning are often also delayed, making it impossible to go to work where they are placed, let alone afford food and accommodation. "When funding is approved but not disbursed on time, the state is not merely inefficient; it is in breach of its very own developmental contract with young people". As a result, many are forced to interrupt or abandon their placements − undermining their ability to convert their studies into real employability. SA’s skills gap is often framed as a pipeline problem, citing too few artisans, technicians, and mid-level professionals, which are vocational skills taught at TVET colleges. What is less often discussed is how many students are lost midstream. Every student who drops out because funding does not arrive on time signals an interrupted qualification, a wasted public investment, a household pushed deeper into economic precarity, and a community absorbing yet another story of disappointment. Nsfas and Seta funding are not acts of benevolence. They are instruments meant to meet constitutional obligations and ensure the success of national strategies to improve youth employment. They give effect to the right to further education, the National Development Plan’s vision of a skilled workforce, and the National Skills Development Plan’s emphasis on workplace learning. When funding is approved but not disbursed on time, the state is not merely inefficient; it is in breach of its very own developmental contract with young people. Accountability cannot end at policy alignment or budget allocation. It must extend to operational reliability, like paying students when promised. ‘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/2026-02-05-opinion-state-must-disburse-student-funds-on-time-without-exception/