Search Results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Myles Illidge | 27 November 2025 MultiChoice says its YES4Youth partnership has created 1,980 jobs in South Africa, helping bridge the skills gap in the country and paving the way for youth employment. The YES4Youth partnership between MultiChoice and the Youth Employment Service (YES) aims to address youth unemployment in the country, which stood at 46.1% in the second quarter of 2025. “In simpler terms, this means that the total number of unemployed youth increased by 39,000 to 4.9 million compared to the first quarter of the year,” said MultiChoice. “Every year, the struggles remain the same, as skills shortage and lack of innovation continue to intensify, unemployment will grow. More than two-thirds of South Africans continue to live in poverty.” The company said inclusion is at the heart of its talent philosophy, making upskilling the next generation of creators one of its key objectives. The YES4Youth partnership aims to provide young people with meaningful opportunities to gain work experience and ensure that participants develop skills and build sustainable careers. “Through the YES4Youth partnership, MultiChoice has created 1,980 jobs,” said MultiChoice. “As of 2026, the organisation has onboarded more than 290 unemployed youth to offer them exposure in real business environments.” It added that 35 learners have been placed at different departments within MultiChoice’s business operations and that 1,905 participants have been permanently employed. The partnership also offers learnerships that combine classroom learning with on-the-job training in fields such as IT, sales, customer service, and production. Internship participants, including students and recent graduates, can gain practical experience in fields such as finance, marketing, engineering, and human resources. Additionally, the 12-24-month graduate programme offers top graduates the opportunity to work on impactful projects, receive mentorship, and develop leadership skills. “These programmes have been designed in partnership with internal business units and external learning institutions to ensure alignment with various industry needs,” said MultiChoice. “They focus on future-fit skills such as digital marketing, cloud computing, data analytics, software engineering, and media production.” YES4Youth senior learning specialist Tinyiko Makuzeni said MultiChoice’s approach ensures youth participants are industry-ready and capable of contributing to innovation in media. “Several graduates have transitioned into permanent roles across the business. For example, one graduate who joined the HR function is now a psychometrist specialist,” said Makuzeni. According to MultiChoice, the initiative is about creating a lasting impact, and it said it is committed to bridging the skills gap across the continent. “These initiatives have a holistic approach to development for learners, where participants who are part of these programmes get exposed to integrated learning and mentorship,” it said. “More importantly, MultiChoice leverages its pan-African footprint, offering youth exposure to diverse markets and technologies. ‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’. https://mybroadband.co.za/news/broadcasting/620154-multichoice-partnership-creates-1980-jobs-in-south-africa.html

Staff Reporter | 26 November 2025 AS Black Friday 2025 approaches, South Africa’s small, medium, and micro enterprises (SMMEs) — particularly those rooted in townships — are seeing more than just a shopping frenzy. For them, this high-stakes retail moment has evolved into a powerful catalyst for operational resilience, digital adoption, and long-term growth. Once viewed primarily as a single-day sales event, Black Friday has now stretched into what many call “Black November”, offering SMMEs extended lead time to prepare stock, manage cash flow, and meet soaring customer demand ahead of the festive rush. This shift is not just about revenue; it’s a real-time stress test that reveals which businesses are ready to compete in a rapidly digitising economy. Success hinges on several factors: Maintaining strong liquidity to bridge payments to suppliers and incoming customer receipts, ensuring accurate inventory amid a 30% surge in online sales seen in 2024, and delivering seamless customer service across both physical and digital channels. “This period acts as a stress test, highlighting the importance of preparedness and adaptability for SMEs competing in both local and global markets,” according to Norman Nyawo, head of merchant solutions for business and commercial banking at Standard Bank South Africa (and acting head for Merchant Solutions at BCB Africa Regions & Offshore) “This evolution of Black Friday has also reshaped payment behaviour. Consumers are increasingly moving from traditional card payments to e‑commerce and mobile transactions, with mobile commerce now representing more than 67% of Black Friday transactions,” he said. The transformation is most pronounced in South Africa’s informal economy, which contributes an estimated R900 billion annually and supports roughly one in four South Africans. Historically reliant on cash, township traders are now rapidly embracing digital payment tools — fueled by accessible fintech platforms that consolidate card, online, and mobile transactions into a single, omnichannel experience. “Perhaps the most exciting development catalysed by this digital retail shift is the accelerated adoption of digital payment methods within South Africa’s informal market, particularly in townships and peri-urban areas,” Nyawo said. “South Africa's prepaid-card and digital-wallet market is projected to grow from $11.8bn (R202bn) in 2024 to $21.2bn by 2029.” This move toward digital is not just about convenience, it is about formalisation and opportunity. When transactions shift from cash to digital rails, informal businesses gain visibility into their sales history, making them eligible for credit. They also reduce the risks associated with handling cash and gain the ability to plug into the broader e‑commerce ecosystem. “Digital payments are not just about convenience,” Nyawo said. “They are about helping township businesses operate more securely and efficiently, especially during intense trading windows like Black Friday and the festive season. By embracing digital tools, township SMMEs can build resilience, unlock access to credit, and position themselves for sustainable growth.” With the right mix of liquidity support, inventory management, and digital infrastructure, township entrepreneurs are no longer just surviving Black Friday — they are using it as a springboard to reshape their futures. ‘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/sundayindependent/news/2025-11-26-black-friday-a-gateway-to-growth-and-digital-transformation-for-township-smmes/

Under the element of Ownership, there is an existing principle that allows for the modification of Black Ownership in an Ownership Structure. The rules are as follows under the General Amended B-BBEE Codes of Good Practice:   A Measured Entity applying this Modified Flow-Through Principle cannot benefit from the Exclusion Principle. The Modified Flow-Through Principle applies to B-BBEE owned or controlled company in the Ownership of the Measured Entity. In calculating Exercisable Voting Rights under paragraph 2.1.1, and Economic Interest under paragraph 2.2.1 of the Ownership scorecard the following applies: Where in the chain of Ownership, Black people have a flow-through level of participation of at least 51%, and then only once in the entire ownership structure of the Measured Entity, such Black participation may be treated as if it were 100% Black. The Modified Flow-Through Principle may only be applied in the calculation of the indicators in paragraphs 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 of the Ownership scorecard. In all other instances, the Flow-Through Principle applies.   Ownership Services  are available to help members understand the Modified-Flow Through Principle.