Search Results

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/

Lyse Comins | 4 February 2026 The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development has gazetted procedures that elevate Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) compliance as a core criterion in allocating preferential export quotas to the European Union under the SADC-EU Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) for 2026. Published in Government Gazette No. 54037 on January 30, the notice outlines the application, administration and allocation of Tariff Rate Quotas for specified agricultural products. According to the notice, permits will be allocated via the Preferential Market Access Permit Allocation System, which weighs five variables, with B-BBEE listed first as follows: The B-BBEE status of applicants will be determined based on a valid B-BBEE certificate measured against the Amended Agricultural Black Economic Empowerment (AgriBEE) Sector Code, issued by a SANAS-accredited verification agency. Alternatively, a B-BBEE sworn affidavit may be submitted for Exempted Micro Enterprises (EME) and Black-Owned Qualifying Small Enterprises (QSE). The market share of applicants – derived from historical export data for the past three years (2022, 2023, 2024). The quota applied for by applicants. The number of applicants. The total quota available for the specific product. According to the AgriBEE Sector Code, enterprises with an annual turnover of R10 million or less qualify as an EME. An EME will enjoy a deemed B-BBEE recognition status of level 4 or enhancement level 1 or 2. A QSE is an enterprise with an annual turnover between R10 million and R50 million. It qualifies for B-BBEE recognition levels 1 or 2 (as defined in the Amended AgriBEE Sector Code). QSEs that are at least 100% or 51% black-owned must use a B-BBEE sworn affidavit. However, a QSE that is less than 51% black-owned must undergo a B-BBEE verification with an accredited SANAS verification agency. A large enterprise is defined as having an annual turnover exceeding R50 million, regardless of the percentage of the black ownership. The enterprise must undergo B-BBEE verification with an accredited SANAS B-BBEE agency to obtain a valid certificate. Quotas allocated to exporters will be provisional in terms of the notice. “The department will assess the utilisation rate during (the) quota year after which there will be re-allocation,” it notes. “Despite any provisions in other laws, applicants registered as joint ventures, mergers, consortiums, holding companies or other similar business arrangements are not allowed to apply separately from their subsidiaries, minority shareholders or divisions for the same product, as this will create an unfair advantage towards other applicants." Companies that have common Directors or Owners will be disqualified. "If the market share for a particular applicant exceeds the limit for dominant firms, contemplated in section 7(a)-(c) of the Competition Act, Act 89 of 1998 as amended; the Department can adjust the allocation formula to create fair competition within that industry or sector,” the Gazette notes. The notice applies to 2026 quotas, with permits valid from January 1 to December 31, 2026. It replaces prior notices on SADC-EU EPA export procedures. Read the gazette here . ‘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.freightnews.co.za/article/empowerment-rules-dominate-export-permit-allocation

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 & 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.   Redesign of 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 EMEs and 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. The Key Amendments are as follows:   “1. The introduction of 2.4, the Transformation Fund, the Annual Value of Contribution of 3% of the Net Profit After Tax to the Transformation Fund, and the introduction of weighting points of 20. This is introduced as an alternative to the existing contribution to Enterprise Development and Supplier Development. Measured Entities will continue to score points for implementing their existing Enterprise Development or Supplier Development.   2. The introduction of 15% procurement target for 100% black owned EMEs and QSEs each.   3. The introduction of 25% procurement target for 100% black owned enterprises.   4. The introduction of 25% procurement target for enterprises that are between 51% to 99% black owned.   5. The introduction of 12% procurement target for 100% black women-owned enterprises.   6. The increase of the procurement compliance target to 10% on bonus points for companies that are at least 100% owned by Designated Groups.   7. The increase in bonus points for measured Entities that enable the recipient of ESD contributions and/or a 100% black owned QSE or EME, and a first-time supplier that has a minimum 3-year contract with the Measured Entity.   8. The increase in bonus points for a measured entity that enables an average turnover and job creation growth of at least 10% per annum for a period of a three-year contract of all on-boarded first-time suppliers   9. Clarified that measured entities, for the purpose of Enterprise Development and Supplier Development, are required to submit a needs analysis, performance metrics (with outputs and outcomes), and an annual Monitoring and Evaluation report that must be verified before recognition of points to be scored.   10. Revision of the ESD Recognition Matrix.”   Technical Services  are available to assist Members with understanding the Draft Gazettes and the impact thereof.

Malcolm Libera | 4 February 2026 The government’s plan to channel R100 billion into black-owned businesses through a Transformation Fund has come under fire, with critics warning that it risks becoming another poorly governed, corruption-prone initiative with limited real economic impact. On 19 March 2025, Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition Parks Tau published the Draft Transformation Fund concept document for public comment. The proposal outlines a fund capitalised at R100 billion over five years, effectively allocating about R20 billion a year to black-owned and controlled enterprises. Broken down further, this equates to around R55 million a day, or roughly R80 million per working day, aimed at boosting black participation across key sectors of the economy. The fund is intended to consolidate enterprise and supplier development (ESD) contributions that companies already make under South Africa’s Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) codes. Under existing rules, firms are expected to spend 3% of their net profit after tax on developing black suppliers, black industrialists, and small and medium enterprises. The Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) has stressed that the Transformation Fund does not introduce a new financial burden, but rather restructures how these obligations are pooled and managed. Tau has argued that centralising these contributions will create a more coordinated and efficient system, allowing the state to offer both financial and non-financial support, including mentoring, market access, and capacity building. The draft document lists objectives that include improving access to funding for black-owned businesses, increasing their participation in economic value chains, and mobilising public and private resources to drive broader economic inclusion. The proposal has gained further prominence following the government’s move to amend B-BBEE regulations. In January 2026, Tau noted that under the draft amendments, white-owned companies would be allowed to earn empowerment points by contributing to the Transformation Fund. Growing opposition However, stakeholders and political parties have objected to the plan. Trade union Solidarity has sent a letter of demand to the DTIC, accusing the department of misleading the public about the readiness and design of the fund. According to Solidarity deputy chief executive Anton van der Bijl, there are material contradictions between earlier responses the department gave under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) and information now circulating publicly. Van der Bijl said the department previously claimed the fund was insufficiently developed to disclose key documents, costings, and impact studies.  “Now it is being reported that the fund could be ready to launch as early as next week, with billions of rands in financial commitments, a fixed governance model and a defined incentive structure,” he said. Solidarity has questioned how a fund reportedly backed by early commitments of around R13 billion, including from public entities such as the Unemployment Insurance Fund, the Industrial Development Corporation and the Development Bank of Southern Africa, could exist without extensive internal studies and approvals.  It has also raised concerns about whether the use of contributors’ money by institutions like the UIF has been properly authorised. The union warned that implementing the fund without full compliance with the Public Finance Management Act would be unlawful and constitutionally invalid.  “This looks and smells like another cadre-government looting fund,” Van der Bijl said, adding that taxpayers have a right to transparency and proper oversight. Business leaders have echoed these concerns. Hiten Keshave, CEO of Unconventional CA, said the revised proposal does little to address fundamental flaws.  He warned that centralising large pools of money without a clear strategy risks wasting funds, especially given South Africa’s track record with similar schemes that have delivered limited benefits to small and black-owned businesses. Political parties within the Government of National Unity have also voiced opposition. The Democratic Alliance, the second-largest party in government, said it would not support the plan.  Its trade spokesperson, Toby Chance, warned that the fund could become a “bottomless pit” for taxpayers’ money, arguing that race-based policies like B-BBEE have failed to close the inequality gap and that support should instead be allocated based on merit, viability, and growth potential. ‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’. https://businesstech.co.za/news/government/849677/plan-to-give-black-businesses-in-south-africa-r55-million-a-day-under-fire/

Staff Writer | 4 February 2026 End Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) premiums and save taxpayers billions of rands by endorsing the Value for Money Bill drafted by the Institute of Race Relations (IRR). This is the challenge IRR CEO Dr John Endres has delivered in a letter to Cyril Ramaphosa as the President finalises his ninth State of the Nation (SONA) speech, slated for 12 February. The Value for Money Bill is part of a legislative package drafted by the IRR aimed at genuinely transforming South Africa into a prospering, non-racial society. The other bills in the package – all four of which were published last year – are the No More Race Laws Bill, the Right To Own Bill, and the Freedom From Poverty Bill. The Value for Money Bill contains proposals which stand to enable the government to save taxpayers up to R150 billion in procurement spending by eliminating BEE premiums and appointing government service providers on a strictly value-for-money basis. Inspired by the findings and recommendations of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption, and Fraud in the Public Sector, or the Zondo commission as it is popularly known, the Bill maximises value for money in procurement and, by so doing, addresses many issues facing South African households, including the cost-of-living crisis, declining service delivery, the lack of jobs, and stagnant economic growth. IRR research demonstrates that implementing the Bill could save government between R100 billion and R150 billion, and would enable it to cut Value-Added Tax (VAT) from 15% to 11.5%. Lowering taxes would relieve much of the financial pressure on households, and curb wasteful public spending that presently runs to billions of rands. Dr Endres cites IRR polling in which seven out of ten respondents elect value-for-money as the principle of their choice in public procurement. Taxpayers believe the government should prioritise buying the best-quality product that offers durability and longevity rather than paying more to fund BEE premiums. “Polling also shows that South Africans overwhelmingly support tax relief when it is credibly linked to better value for money. Cutting waste and overpricing in procurement enjoys far broader support than raising taxes or expanding spending under current conditions. A value-for-money reform agenda therefore carries not only economic logic, but democratic legitimacy,” says Dr Endres. According to Dr Endres, the SONA 2026 presents Ramaphosa with the opportunity to the implement bold reforms.  “The right of a South African president to address Parliament at the start of each year carries a serious obligation to provide more than mere rhetoric and political grandstanding,” Dr Endres writes in his letter to the President. “As head of state and government, you have the unique opportunity to demonstrate in your upcoming address to Parliament that you are willing and able to lead pro-growth reforms in the interest of all South Africans.” The IRR has invited Ramaphosa to discuss the detail of the Value for Money Bill. You can learn more about the draft law here, and sign a petition in support of its proposals here. ‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those o f the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’. https://dailyfriend.co.za/2026/02/04/replace-bee-premiums-with-value-for-money-irr-ceo-urges-ramaphosa/

Sihle Bulose and Lebogang Molebale | 2 February 2026 As corporate regulation evolves globally, new frameworks are emerging that reconceptualise the relationship between governance, strategy and value creation. These are not merely updated compliance requirements but rather comprehensive reimagining of what responsible corporate stewardship means in an era defined by technological disruption, environmental pressure and unprecedented stakeholder scrutiny. Evolution of corporate governance In South Africa, this evolution finds its most comprehensive expression in the King V Report on Corporate Governance (King V), effective from 1 January 2026. As organisations prepare for this transition, the critical question is not simply how to comply but how to understand that these frameworks will fundamentally alter decision-making across every strategic function. King V, building on three decades of governance evolution since the post-apartheid King I Code in 1994, represents a performance-driven framework that will reshape how boards evaluate opportunities, assess risks and allocate resources. Three imperatives explain why governance frameworks such as King V will shape business decisions in the years ahead. Firstly, the concept of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) has shifted from reputational concern to strategic necessity, influencing financial performance, competitive positioning and stakeholder expectations. Investors, clients and regulators now assess organisations through transparent ESG measures, making sustainability and ethics central to long-term value. Secondly, governance is no longer just a compliance exercise but a driver of value creation. Stakeholders can easily distinguish genuine integration from box-ticking, and King V’s principles-based approach reinforces this by focusing on outcomes rather than prescriptive processes. However, one can expect that the implementation of these principles will vary based on the type of industry or business venture, resulting in different value creation outcomes. Thirdly, rapid technological change, especially artificial intelligence (AI), has introduced risks and responsibilities that traditional governance models did not anticipate. Decisions made by or influenced through AI carry ethical, operational and strategic implications, requiring board-level oversight. King V recognises this explicitly, positioning technology governance as a core component of organisational accountability. However, it must be noted that companies for whom King V is not mandatory (for example, non-listed companies under no statutory or contractual obligation to comply), will have greater flexibility in respect of the enforcement of the principles enunciated in King V. Reshaping capital allocation and strategic decisions When evaluating a major capital investment or expansion opportunity, boards have traditionally focused primarily on funding mechanisms, financial returns, competitive positioning and operational feasibility. King V transforms this analysis by requiring explicit consideration of how the investment affects all organisational resources. A board considering manufacturing facility expansion must now assess and disclose: What are the environmental impacts, and how will these be managed within the context of climate risk? How does this decision affect workforce development and employment security in affected communities? What social relationships and stakeholder dynamics will influence license to operate? How do these factors create financial risks or opportunities over the investment horizon? These are not supplementary considerations to be addressed after economic analysis is complete, but rather they are integral to risk assessment and value creation analysis, and the disclosure template requires boards to explain how these factors influenced the decision. A board that approves an expansion generating strong financial returns but creating significant environmental liabilities or community opposition will need to explain publicly why it determined this trade-off served long-term value creation. This transparency fundamentally changes decision-making because it makes the full cost of decisions visible to investors, regulators and other stakeholders who can then assess whether the board exercised appropriate judgment. Mergers and acquisitions will be similarly transformed. Due diligence processes must now extend beyond financial, legal and operational assessments to encompass a comprehensive evaluation of sustainability performance, social impact and governance quality. A company with strong financial performance but weak environmental compliance, inadequate data governance or problematic labour practices represents integration risks and potential liabilities that King V requires boards to assess and disclose. Valuation models must incorporate these factors because they affect future cash flows, regulatory costs and stakeholder relationships. While King V broadens the scope for governance oversight and disclosure, it does not mandate that ESG/community/social outcomes override financial or commercial return decisions. What it requires is consideration and disclosure — how materially, and how those results weigh in decisions still depends on the board's judgment. Strategic planning processes will be fundamentally reshaped by King V's requirement that governing bodies consider the combined context of economy, society and environment. Annual strategy reviews can no longer focus exclusively on market positioning and financial targets but must explicitly address how environmental trends affect business model viability, what social factors influence workforce stability and community relationships, and how governance practices affect reputation and stakeholder trust. Transforming technology deployment Technology deployment decisions, particularly regarding AI, will require fundamentally different approval processes. A board considering implementation of an AI system for customer service, credit assessment, hiring decisions or operational optimisation must now evaluate: What decisions will this system make or influence? What data trains the algorithm, and how is bias identified and mitigated? What human oversight mechanisms ensure appropriate judgment remains embedded in critical processes? How are decisions explained to affected individuals? What happens when AI recommendations conflict with human assessment? King V requires that these questions be answered before deployment, with oversight mechanisms proportionate to risk. A logistics optimisation algorithm requires different governance from a credit scoring system, which requires different governance from a hiring assessment tool. Boards must establish frameworks for categorising AI applications by risk level and implementing appropriate oversight for each category. Boards must assess whether adequate governance infrastructure exists to deploy technologies responsibly, and this assessment becomes a gating factor in deployment decisions. The expansion of information governance requirements beyond cybersecurity to encompass all data leaks and security breaches, regardless of cause, will reshape how organisations approach data handling decisions. When a board considers a new data collection initiative, customer analytics programme or third-party data sharing arrangement, it must now evaluate comprehensively: How will this data be secured? Who will have access? What training ensures employees understand handling obligations? How are third-party recipients assessed and monitored? These considerations affect fundamental business model decisions. A company considering whether to monetise customer data through third-party arrangements must assess not only revenue potential but also the information governance infrastructure required, the disclosure obligations triggered and the stakeholder trust implications. Board composition Board composition decisions will be immediately affected by King V's tightened independence criteria. The two-year cooling-off period for former executive managers seeking independent classification means boards must now plan director succession differently. A retiring CEO who might previously have transitioned quickly to an independent director role must now wait two years with no significant organisational involvement, before taking up the role of independent director. The nine-year service limit on independence classification means boards must proactively plan for director rotation, identifying and developing new independent directors before current members reach the threshold. The extension of independence assessment to directors' related persons creates practical due diligence obligations. Nominating committees must now investigate whether prospective directors' spouses, children or close associates have relationships with the organisation that could compromise independence. Reshaping remuneration and accountability mechanisms Executive remuneration has long been a focal point for shareholders, regulators and the public, serving as a barometer of how well an organisation aligns leadership incentives with sustainable value creation. In this context, strengthening oversight and accountability mechanisms has become a critical part of good governance. From 2026 onwards, remuneration decisions will be shaped by the enhanced accountability mechanisms King V preserves and extends. Boards should engage with shareholders and relevant stakeholders on remuneration. Boards designing executive compensation structures, particularly of companies required by law to appoint a social and ethics committees, should consider periodically submitting, as separate non-binding advisory votes, executive remuneration policies and the statutory remuneration reports. Boards cannot simply implement compensation structures that management prefers or that peer companies use. They must design structures that align demonstrably with long-term value creation and stakeholder interests, and they must be prepared to explain and defend these choices to shareholders. Remuneration committees will need to conduct shareholder consultation before finalising policies, incorporate feedback into design and prepare comprehensive disclosure explaining how remuneration structures incentivise behaviour consistent with organisational strategy and sustainability commitments. The competitive reality of governance quality Governance quality determines whether organisations can navigate complexity, whether they can maintain stakeholder trust, access capital on favourable terms, and attract and retain talent necessary for sustained success. King V matters because it makes these connections explicit through the decision making mechanisms described above. It is about ethical leadership that earns legitimacy rather than merely asserting authority. It is about integrated thinking that recognises the interdependence of economic, social and environmental systems. Organisations that recognise this will approach King V as an opportunity to build superior decision-making capabilities. They will invest in board development to ensure technological and sustainability literacy that enables informed judgment on AI governance, climate risk and social impact, redesign strategic planning processes to incorporate long-term resilience considerations systematically, strengthen stakeholder engagement mechanisms to gather intelligence that improves decision quality, and view disclosure obligations as opportunities to communicate governance quality that attracts capital and builds trust. As 2026 progresses, the competitive gap between organisations that develop these capabilities and those that treat governance as an administrative burden will become increasingly visible and increasingly consequential for long-term success. The decisions that shape organisational futures will be shaped, in turn, by the governance frameworks that define what responsible stewardship means in practice. ‘Disclaimer - The views expressed here are not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’ https://www.bizcommunity.com/article/how-forward-looking-legal-and-governance-frameworks-will-shape-business-decisions-628231a