Trade and Industry on revised Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Codes

The Socio Economic Development (SED) element is addressing socio-economic developmental initiatives that can be tackled either through monetary or non-monetary contributions with the targeted beneficiaries as defined in the BEE legislation as stipulated above.  BEE SED was never intended to displace Corporate Social Resp/Invest of companies, its meant to alleviate inherent social challenges confronted by a specific group of the society through no design of theirs as an add on to corporate social responsibility. Thus companies must continue to do their CSI in spite of the BEE SED.

via www.info.gov.za

It is vital to flog this dead horse a little more. I met with the Charities Aid Foundation Southern Africa (CAF Southern Africa) on Friday who confirmed that giving to charities exists largely because of BEE points. In other words there is a direct correlation between giving and the BEE points awarded. If you think about it the industry that has arisen (spearheaded by EmpowerDex's EVS for profit) that will "objectively" determine the number of black people in your charity is confirmation that corporates give in exchange for points.

In this paragraph there are two terrible falsehoods that must be identified.

1. The sentence "inherent social challenges confronted by a specific group of the society through no design of theirs" is another way of saying that black people are poor entirely because of apartheid and the white poor are poor for some other reason.  How can that be even vaguely true - the poor in this country are poor because of a wide variety of socio-economic issues, most of which must point to a government that chooses not to address this problem.  This is statement is racist in the extreme.
2. The DTI has now conclusively proved to us that they do not understand the impact of BEE on the South African economy.  If they cannot see a link between CSI and BEE points then it shows that they have not conducted an acceptable survey on BEE's success or failure.

Then there is the second paragraph

The principle in the proposed BEE SED element still remains the same except the target has been adjusted to 100% as we are cognizant of the intended objectives of BEE. However, if less than 100% of the full value of the SED contributions directly benefits black people, the value of the contribution made multiplied by the percentage that benefits black people, is recognisable.

We all know that the prorata portion is rubbish.  But it's the first part that is bizarre.  It's relatively easy to prove 75% black beneficiaries on a balance of probabilities.  Proving 100% black is ludicrous and technically impossible.  In the case of the most destitute (which by the way don't qualify under the new codes anyway) how do you prove blackness if they are either newborn or do not have an ID? Do you reject them on this basis?  It is Joan van Niekerk of Childline who summarised this ridiculous notion 

"We don't know the race of the child who phones us. It's inappropriate to ask, 'Are you black, and how black are you?' This is a different kind of apartheid."

Any charity that can claim to support 100% black people is either racist or lying in the extreme - both characteristics sit very comfortably within the ANC.  

The upshot is that every charity that receives contributions under this code will only ever be able to offer prorated points.