Cosatu defends B-BBEE policy amid criticism from Solidarity and FMF
The Free Market Foundation and Solidarity held a media briefing on Thursday to discuss the impact of Black Economic Empowerment legislation on the economy.
Image: Supplied
Banele Ginidza
The battle for the scrapping of "race laws" in South Africa went a notch up on Thursday as the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) shot down a call to review and drop South Africa's Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) policy.
This comes as trade union Solidarity and the Free Market Foundation (FMF) on Thursday released a report claiming that B-BBEE has caused serious damage to the country's economy and to its population while only enriching a small, politically-connected elite.
The report draws on data from the B-BBEE Commission, Stats SA, the JSE, and international comparisons to assess the real costs of compliance across the key BEE scorecard elements: ownership, skills development, enterprise and supplier development, management control, and socio-economic development.
According to the report, the annual cost of BEE compliance is between R145 billion and R290bn per year. It claimed that this has resulted in an annual reduction of 1.5% to 3% in economic growth, and to an annual loss of between 96 000 and 192 000 jobs.
'Our findings show that BEE, as currently designed, is enriching a small elite while throttling economic dynamism and deepening unemployment,' said Dr Morné Malan, FMF senior associate and co-author of the report, speaking at the joint press conference.
The study compares South Africa's model with global 'affirmative action' policies in Malaysia, India, Brazil, the US, and Namibia, showing that South Africa's version is the most intrusive and economically damaging.
At the media briefing, the organisations claimed that B-BBEE benefits largely captured by politically-connected elites as South Africa now ranks 139th in GDP per capita, down from 87th in 1994.
Executives of both organisations said the people most affected by the current economic programme are people that work poor people and those that are beneficiaries are the elite.
"That is why we will engage with Cosatu trade unions Numsa and others to find alternatives to the current racial legislation," said Theuns du Buisson, economic researcher at the Solidarity Research Institute, and co-author of the report.
"In the second place we will continue to litigate and in the third place we will also put pressure on SA via the international world and continue to put pressure on South Africa with the outside world especially the G20 that comes."
However, Cosatu's Parliamentary spokesperson Matthew Parks said the report provided no breakdown backed up by actual research as to any financial burden to the state nor how B-BBEE has been an obstacle to growing the economy and reducing unemployment.
Parks said the report strangely cited statistics related to real and potential growth overall, but no evidence of the relationship between those and B-BBEE. He said it may as well have blamed constitutional democracy for South Africa's economic challenges.
"No reference is made to the need to overcome our still prevalent racial divides as evidenced by countless employment equity studies confirming that most senior positions in the private sector are held by White males or that economic ownership, including shares on the JSE remain largely White-held," Parks said.
Johann Rossouw, an economist at Altitude Wealth, said a more sensible empowerment model as an alternative to B-BBEE policies was Black Economic Skills Transfer (BEST), which would help with job creation and carry the economy into the future.
"At the moment all the arguments are about how many ways to cut the existing pie instead of growing the pie that we have for the future. Black empowerment is not a policy of the government of national unity," Rossouw said, commending that the study was evidence based and drew comparison with other countries.
"It is important that the GNU makes its own policies that will benefit the average poor."
However, independent economist Duma Gqubule said the study and the report was fake news on steroids, which lacked the fundamental understanding of the objectives of transformation.
Gqubule said the report lacked empirical evidence and was premised on companies counting upskilling workers for an example as a transformation contribution when both the worker and the company benefited from the exercise.
"I would call on black business to come up with a coherent response to this. It is a dangerous agenda. We need another citizen dialogue on black empowerment for the new circumstances as the situation in the 1990s when the policies were crafted were critical," Gqubule said.
BUSINESS REPORT
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
13 hours ago
- IOL News
Are we inviting the World Bank's interference or seeking genuine support?
Later this year the World Bank Group will launch the second pilot edition of its B-READY report, a new benchmark for assessing global business climates. Image: Wikipedia Has the World Bank's flagship business index already been hijacked — from a South African perspective — even before the country's debut in the pilot phase? Money, as Ayn Rand wrote, is the barometer of a society's virtue. In her 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged, Rand observed: 'When you see that trading is done not by consent but by compulsion, when you see that to produce, you need permission from men who produce nothing, when money flows to those dealing in favors rather than goods — when corruption is rewarded and honesty becomes self-sacrifice — you may know your society is doomed.' Nearly seven decades later, her words remain chillingly relevant. Later this year (September–October 2025), the World Bank Group (WBG) will launch the second pilot edition of its Business Ready (B-READY) report, a new benchmark for assessing global business climates. South Africa is set to join the third pilot in 2026, alongside 184 economies, before the project's full rollout in 2027. B-READY, an evolution of the discontinued Doing Business survey, evaluates regulatory frameworks and public services affecting firms. For South Africa, the index focuses on 10 key areas — business entry, utilities, labour, financial services, taxation, dispute resolution, and more — spanning four departments: Employment and Labour; Finance; Small Business Development; and Trade, Industry, and Competition. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ The WBG has already critiqued South Africa's 'hard regulations', including BEE policies, local content rules, and collective bargaining, arguing they stifle implementation and breed corruption. A February 2025 WBG report, Driving Inclusive Growth in South Africa, also highlighted weak market competition as a critical flaw. Notably, the report's contributors included prominent South African economists and private-sector representatives — Tania Ajam, Haroon Bhorat, Mcebisi Jonas, and others. While the World Bank is a respected institution, its reports often reflect local biases rather than impartial Washington analysis. South African policymakers are well aware of this — and of attempts to influence policy through institutions and 'experts' of perceived gravitas. B-READY's methodology relies on firm-level surveys and confidential expert input, raising questions about transparency. In a country with low internet penetration and a gatekeeping culture, how representative will these surveys be? The selection process — scouring LinkedIn, conferences, and embassy directories — hardly guarantees objectivity. The Doing Business report's demise in 2020 followed data manipulation scandals involving China, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Is South Africa immune to such interference? With competing economic agendas, disjointed governance, and external pressures (including from Trump-aligned figures), the risk of distortion is real. Domestically, the DA is challenging labour laws in court, while AfriForum lobbies foreign governments against B-BBEE. Meanwhile, institutions such as the CIPC, Competition Commission, and SARS — though theoretically capable of enabling business — remain inefficient and disjointed. Consider recent examples: CIPC's mass deregistration of 'non-compliant' companies, under the guise of FATF compliance, ignores South Africa's unemployment crisis. Private-sector exploitation of undocumented workers (Uber, SPAR franchises) flouts labour and tax laws. Tshwane's revenue crackdown exposes rampant illegal utility connections by businesses. Will the World Bank's surveys capture these realities? Or will its findings — like past reports — be skewed by advocacy masquerading as research? A 2005 evaluation of WBG research (led by Nobel laureate Angus Deaton) found that the Bank elevated favourable studies and ignored inconvenient ones, blurring the line between analysis and agenda. South Africa doesn't need external interference — it needs will. Regulatory bodies must function cohesively. Policies should enable, not strangle. And if B-READY is to be Rand's 'noble medium', it must resist becoming another tool of coercion. The question lingers: Is the World Bank's index a genuine reform tool—or a new frontier of influence against South Africa? * Makgwathane Mothapo is a marketing and communications practitioner. ** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, IOL, or Independent Media. Get the real story on the go: Follow the Sunday Independent on WhatsApp.
IOL News
3 days ago
- IOL News
Mantashe faces criticism over changes to mining law draft
Activists and experts have accused Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy Gwede Mantashe of bowing to pressure from powerful mining companies. South Africa's Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, Gwede Mantashe, is facing strong backlash over his recent changes to the draft Mineral Resources Development Bill. Critics say the revisions favour big mining interests at the expense of communities, the environment and the national push for economic transformation. Two key changes in the updated draft have sparked outrage. The first is the removal of the requirement for Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) participation in applications for prospecting rights. The second is the scrapping of a clause that required ministerial approval when control of a listed company holding mining rights changes. Activists and experts have accused Mantashe of bowing to pressure from powerful mining companies. David van Wyk, a respected researcher in the field, questioned the minister's intentions. 'Prospecting is where it all begins,' Van Wyk said. 'Companies make millions by selling these rights after identifying valuable mineral deposits. Without BEE, transformation becomes just a word. And when companies change hands without any oversight, it makes it easy for them to dodge their environmental and social responsibilities.' Van Wyk also warned about the consequences of poor regulation in the sector. 'We already have more than six thousand abandoned mines in this country. These are environmental disasters, and the communities around them suffer the most. If the minister is not informed when ownership changes, there is no one to hold accountable when something goes wrong.' Christopher Rutledge, director of the organisation Mining Affected Communities in Action, said the changes show how the government has shifted its loyalty from people to business. 'The Bill's amendments are not about fixing technical errors. They are a political decision that turns away from the goals of transformation and accountability,' he said. Rutledge believes the removal of BEE requirements in prospecting is a deliberate decision to maintain control of the industry in the hands of the same elite. 'This ensures the same old faces keep control of the mineral wealth. It opens the door to secret deals, takeovers and asset sales, with no regard for the people on the ground or the environment.' He added that the state needs to play a far stronger role. 'Public ownership of minerals and the mining process is the way forward. The revenue should support a sovereign wealth fund that benefits all South Africans, not just a few. Right now, the state-owned mining company barely has a footprint in the sector, and no one knows how much has gone into the sovereign fund.' Trade union federation Cosatu has also raised concerns. Spokesperson Mathews Parks said the federation would engage with Mantashe to get clarity on the goals of the changes. 'Legislation must be aligned with economic transformation. We cannot afford to backtrack now.' Meanwhile, the Minerals Council South Africa has welcomed some parts of the draft but says more work is needed to support investment. Public comments on the Bill will close in August, but for now, the debate continues over whether the government is acting in the national interest or putting profits first.
The Citizen
3 days ago
- The Citizen
Concerns over Mantashe's changes to draft mineral resources bill
Mantashe's changes to mining legislation have provoked backlash for favouring the industry over public interest. Minerals and Petroleum Resources Minister Gwede Mantashe was lashed for omitting a requirement for Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) participation in applications for prospecting rights. Mantashe recently gazetted two corrections to the Draft Mineral Resources Development Bill and also nullified a provision for ministerial approval for change of control in listed companies that own mining rights. Mining expert David van Wyk asked why the minister backed down. Environmental concerns 'The prospecting companies make huge profits after prospecting reports are out. They sell the prospecting reports to the highest bidder. 'We have a serious problem with the change of control in listed companies. It is what ultimately allows mining companies to walk away from their environmental responsibilities and their responsibility to close and rehabilitate mines,' said Van Wyk. 'This is why we have more than 6 000 abandoned mines. When control of companies changes and the minister, as the custodian of the minerals which, according to the Act, belongs to the public, is not informed of these changes, he is unable to assign responsibility to the owners as he will not know who they are.' ALSO READ: 'Is it greed or jealousy?': Ramaphosa fires back at critics of BEE, Transformation Fund Call for state-led mining and revenue transparency The solution to the problems of environmental and social responsibility, as well as mine closure and rehabilitation, was to establish public ownership not just of the minerals in the ground, but also of the mining process and the extracted minerals, with the state as the custodian and the revenue accruing in a sovereign fund, Van Wyk said. South Africa does have a stateowned mining company and a sovereign fund, but the share of that company in the overall mining sector is minimal. There was no account of how much money has accrued in the sovereign fund since its inception, Van Wyk said. Christopher Rutledge, director at the Mining Affected Communities in Action, said the organisation was concerned. 'Pressure of elite interests' 'Following a mere signal of dissatisfaction from the mining sector, Mantashe swiftly amended the draft of the Bill, specifically the removal of the requirement for B-BBEE participation in prospecting rights and the omission of provisions for ministerial oversight of changes in control of listed companies holding rights. 'As we have previously warned, the main purpose of the Amendment Bill represents a further retreat from the constitutional mandate of transformation, accountability and justice for mining-affected communities. 'Rather than correcting the draft Bill, the minister has capitulated even further to the pressure of elite interests, in particular the Minerals Council South Africa, confirming the extent to which the state has aligned itself with industry over people.' Rutledge said the removal of BEE from the prospecting regime was not a technical correction, but a political decision to sell-out transformation. ALSO READ: Starlink proposal: Mashatile says Cabinet holds final say on policy changes Prospecting was the gateway to mining and excluding it from transformation requirements ensures the ownership and control of mineral resources remains concentrated in the hands of historical beneficiaries of apartheid-era privilege, he said. 'This opens the door to unchecked mergers, takeovers and asset stripping with no regard for affected communities, workers, or environmental responsibilities. We reject the illusion that deregulation is a form of reform,' Rutledge said. Industry engagements Union federation Cosatu spokesperson Mathews Parks said it was critical that legislation is in sync with B-BBEE to avoid contradictions. 'Cosatu will engage with the minister to get a better understanding of the objectives of the amendments.' Minerals Council South Africa Allan Seccombe said the organisation would continue to review the Bill and submit its perspectives by 13 August. 'The Bill in its current form does not encourage or sustain the growth and investment that the mining industry needs.' NOW READ: Cosatu says debate on B-BBEE is needed for beneciaries' benefit
