DTI upbeat on implementation of BEE codes…..
In a report to Parliament on the amended BEE Codes of Practice and their implementation as from 1 May 2015, Lionel October, Director General of Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and his B-BBEE staff team, emphasised that the generic scorecard was aligned to government’s key priorities. He also said the State had no ambitions to take their target on black control beyond 25.1% of ownership.
Supplier Development is new title
DG October said the main emphasis of the codes had now switched to greater emphasis on what was previously termed procurement – now referred to as “supplier development”. This approach was more in alignment with the National Development Plan (NDP) objectives, DG October said, simply because that was the main direction needed to empower the development of black enterprises and build the economy on a stable growth path.
“In fact the German auto industry working with the German Chamber of Commerce had established a fund
in South Africa”, he said, “for financing, training and building expertise in black businesses to supply the auto industry”.
There was considerable discussion on this by members and DG October said that there had been a general recognition in business and industry of the word “must” had replaced “may” in terms of B-BBEE requirements; that level four had to be reached for incentives and in general now “certainty” had been restored to the business environment on BEE issues, he felt.
The generic scorecard now had five elements, he said, which all companies, except those micro-exempted, had to comply with for recognition. All employment equity and management control had now been merged into one of those elements, now termed “management control”. Sector codes were now to be aligned by 1 Nov. 2015, as set out in Code 003.
He said that “in response to public submissions” the import exclusion principle would be maintained and that the definition of an “empowering supplier” in the context of code alignment was a compliant entity which could demonstrate that its production and/or value adding activities were taking place in this country.”
DTI said that that “deviations of sector codes in terms of targets must be over and above those of generic codes and companies that derive more than 50% of revenue from sectors where there is already a sector code must be measured in terms of that sector code.”
DTI has no doubtful intentions
In general, DG October said in response to questions from MPs about the amendments, it had been his impression that business seemed to accept there were no political mala fides on the part of DTI; just a wish to get on with the planned NDP growth path which required the co-operation of business and industry on black empowerment.
The funding of Sector Charter Councils was a “joint responsibility between government and the private sector and entities must report annually on their B-BBEE status to sector council who will in return reports to the BEE Commission”, DTI said.
New sectors in the sights
Sector codes were being considered for the tourism, which had reached the stage of gazetting for public comment; “alignment” was being reached in the construction, integrated transport, ICT, financial services and chartered accountancy sectors; the property and forestry sectors had reached gazetting stages and marketing, advertising and communication were with their appropriate ministries for approval.
DG October mentioned the fact that the manufacturing industry stood alone as there were so many different sectors but over a period, aspects would be dealt with such as the film industry and textile and clothing industry.
DTI concluded their input to the meeting by advising that a technical assistance guide to B-BBEE was in process and DTI were in the process of finalising the B-BBEE verification manual.
Recent faux pas
Opposition members asked how it was that DTI went so wrong with the question of downgrading the pointing system for employment schemes and why it was that the Minister of Trade and Industry, Dr Rob Davies, had to retract that portion of the amendments which were not gazetted for public comment.
Chairperson Joan Fubbs intervened at this point, noting the Minister had taken the blame, had apologised for the mistake and could do no more than admit that DTI had been wrong.
DG October added that at a DTI workshop on the subject with “some stakeholders” this direction had been considered as a good option for broader rather than narrow empowerment but it had now been recognised by DTI that “they had gone down the wrong route as far as investor confidence was concerned”.
DTI had now reversed everything with the promise that this would not occur on the agenda again.
Better ideas could come
It had also been realised that such a move could also destroy imaginative plans for black management control such as that pitched by Standard Bank where 40% shareholding went to staff who could have representation on the board; 40% went to recognised BEE shareholders and 20% went into community organisations and trusts.
In answer to direct questioning by MPs, DG October confirmed that by the term “black”, DTI translated this as African, Coloured, Indian and Chinese. He also confirmed that all these groups, if foreign and not South African citizens, were excluded.
More than 25.1% “unrealistic”
DG October, when asked by ANC MPs whether the 25.1% target for black ownership was realistic and fair considering that the demographics in South Africa demonstrated a far larger proportion of black people, he said that 25.1% could be considered as a “basic critical mass to engender a solid forward movement”. To go any further would be unrealistic, he added.
In Malaysia, he said, local ownership was considered fair at 30% and other African countries as high as 50%, but he felt that in South Africa, where the need for the transfer of skills and training from large to small companies, especially through supplier development by state utilities and large businesses, was essential, this was a fair percentage assumption and which called for co-operation and fairness between all parties, all bearing in mind “a pretty hideous past”.
Redress of the past in all preambles
At this point, Chairperson Joan Fubbs referred to the South African Constitution, reading out the clauses which not only stated that all were equal despite race colour or creed but that discrimination was possible if it was fair and she reminded MPs that redress of the past was “fair”.
She asked for all “not to isolate clauses in the Codes to determine personalised interests but get on with job of re-aligning communities that had been excluded from ownership for over 300 years”.
One ANC MP asked that the focus on big businesses be less emphasised and that DTI rather spent considerably more time with the job of developing ownership of black small business, which he stated could be “the power house of South Africa”.
He called for legislation that enforced government and public utilities, “as custodians of state power” to set an example on supplier development since, he said, one could hardly expect the private sector to follow suit, if the SOEs did not lead the way on this issue.
Incentives needed, not law says DTI
DG October said such sort of things were “impractical in the real world” and said the main challenge was a phased process of change which now had the support of many in positions of power in business. He also emphasised that B-BBEE had to tie in business and industry with incentives rather than with the law.
When asked about his recent public statement that he had set DTI’s target to produce “100 black industrialists”, he was referring rather to 100 black industrial leaders “financed and supported by DTI initiatives”.
Other articles in this category or as background
BEE comes under media scrutiny – ParlyReportSA
Rumblings in labour circles on BEE – ParlyReport
B-BBEE Codes of Good Practice far more onerous – ParlyReportSA
One year to implement B-BBEE Codes – ParlyReportSA