Gauteng
The Gauteng province had the most diverse stakeholder base compared to all other provinces. Disappointingly, Vodacom and Neotel did not have any representation. These companies have however been engaging directly with the Council. It therefore became important for the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson to, in their presentations, highlight the priority elements of the Code, namely Ownership, Management Control and Skills Development as high impact areas in the Code, without diminishing the importance of other elements.
It was also important to highlight the relationship between the Council and other parties involved in the B-BBEE ICT Sector Code, namely SANAS as the accreditation Agency, B-BBEE Commission as the watchdog empowered by law to investigate and ensure that violations of the Code are accompanied by necessary and applicable action, the DTI as the custodian of all Codes and the B-BBEE Council as the overall Oversight structure.
The Deputy Chairperson further articulated areas that the Council had focused on in aligning and amending the Code, as done in other provinces, highlighting the benefits and tightening requirements needed to consistently drive transformation in the sector:
Ownership and Control requirements: The Amended Code has strengthened this area to ensure genuine ownership and Control, i.e. financial interests and voting rights.
Skills Development: Emphasis was that companies failing to meet sub-minimum targets will be downgraded by one level. The reward was however that the Amended Code does not prescribe SAQA skills requirements, in which case the entities had a broader scope of training.
Issues raised by Attendees
→ The first point was raised by a young woman with disability, indicating that many young graduates with disability struggle to get employment from companies both within and outside the ICT Sector. Although the concern was much broader in respect of the sectors, the Council was able to indicate that the Code (STATEMENT AICT 300) does make provision for ICT related training, for both employed and unemployed people. Furthermore, companies can claim bonus points Number of Black People absorbed by the Measured Entity or in the economy at the end of the Learnerships, Apprenticeship, Internships and Graduate programmes.
→ Noting that Socio-Economic Development initiatives (STATEMENT AICT 500) focus specifically on ICT programmes, there was a concern raised that this requirement could impact negatively on the funding of non-profit organisations. A response from the Council was that the sole focus on the ICT Sector was necessary to open and expand opportunities in the ICT Sector. It is also intended to open supplier development opportunities to ICT vendors. PL: our Code includes skills development for graduates. Companies to earn points by skimming people with disabilities, employed and unemployed. Code ensure benefit for companies investing in providing skills to people with disabilities.
→ Skills development commitments: In addition to 2.9.3.1, a representative from Ericsson indicated that the company had made investments in some NGOs and the requirements for specific focus on ICT Skills might expose them to litigation. The Council gave an explanation to the effect that requirements under 2.1.1* and 2.1.2* should be looked at as targets and not a target, with 2.1.3* relating to enhancements for people with disabilities. *Refer to Durban
→ With regard to the Management Control (STATEMENT AICT200): A question was raised about the alignment between the provisions of the Code and the Employment Equity provisions. Clarity was given that the Code’s focus is on Black people and therefore did not represent a deviation from the provisions of the Employment Equity legislation. When the Code refers to women and people with disability it refers to black people.
→ There was acknowledgement to the contribution of the Code in recognising the needs of people with Disability in terms of Management Control and Skills development. That was accepted as a progressive development.
→ The issue of compliance by ICASA was also raised, and the Council indicated that as an organisation operating in the ICT Sector it would be required to comply with the Code. From a legislative perspective there had been interaction between the DTPS and the Council to align the ECA with the provisions of the B-BBEE Act, as the DTPS is currently reviewing the ECA as part of the ICT Integrated Policy White Paper.
→ There was enquiry as to whether there was any hope of reviewing the effective date of the Amended ICT Sector Code, and the answer was in the negative. The Amended ICT Sector Code had faced two realities: being repealed or being amended to align with the Generic Code. If it was repealed, the Sector would have had to revert to the Generic Code which would have been more detrimental.
→ A question was raised as to whether the R49 million turnover for QSEs was not limiting for Black owned business. A response given by the Council was to the effect that the limitations were introduced to reduce the burden on black owned entities.
→ The final issue raised related to smaller companies that are being incubated by bigger companies. Clarity was sought as to whether it was appropriate for the bigger companies to list them as B-BBEE partners and therefore claim points arising out of that. Clarity was given that incubation cannot be used by big entities to claim ownership points, and that entrepreneurs needed to be vigilant in protecting themselves and their IPs in this regard.