(Article #2 in the series “2026: The Year of Seismic Shifts in Skills & Transformation”)
In the previous article, I wrote about the seismic shift happening in the skills system. The move to QCTO alignment is not just administrative. It forces us to rethink how we build capability, plan workforce pipelines and align compliance with sustainability.
As I began working through the proposed amendments to the B-BBEE Codes, I realised something.
The ground may be shifting again.
The procurement scorecard is tightening. There is a stronger emphasis on sourcing from 100% Black-owned suppliers and, specifically, Black female-owned suppliers. For many sectors, especially technical or specialised industries, this is not a simple adjustment. It requires real supplier development, long-term investment and careful planning.
At the same time, the proposed Transformation Fund introduces a different dynamic.
Under the current model, Enterprise and Supplier Development allows companies to invest directly into their supply chains. We identify businesses. We nurture them. We build relationships. We strengthen the very ecosystem from which we procure. Over time, that improves both our scorecard and our operational resilience.
The proposed Fund appears to create an alternative: Contribute to a central portal and access additional recognition on the scorecard.
On paper, that may look efficient, particularly if procurement targets are becoming more demanding. If an additional five points become available through participation in a national fund, many boards will understandably ask whether that is the simpler route.
And this is where I find myself thinking more deeply.
If procurement requirements are increasing, and we are encouraged to source from 100 percent Black-owned enterprises, how do we grow our supply chain pool if we no longer have full control over where our development funds are directed?
If contributions move into a central structure, who decides which sectors are prioritised? How will manufacturing needs differ from mining needs, from technology needs, from professional services? How do we ensure that funds invested by one industry strengthen that same industry’s supplier base?
Enterprise and Supplier Development has always had a practical objective. Improve the pool of suppliers so that procurement becomes easier, more inclusive and more sustainable over time.
If development funding is centralised, how will that intention materialise in practice?
These are not questions of resistance. They are questions of strategy.
As an executive, I do not want to be in a position where decisions are driven purely by the pursuit of points. Nor do I want to ignore additional points if they materially affect competitiveness. That tension is real.
I also find myself thinking about control.
Control does not mean avoidance of transformation. It means being able to design development initiatives that align with operational realities. It means understanding where funds go, how they are governed and what impact they produce.
If we are moving towards centralised funding mechanisms, then governance, transparency and industry alignment become critical.
Without them, businesses are left balancing compliance obligations against commercial logic.
There is also a broader principle at play. South Africa is a democracy. We exercise our right to vote. We participate in shaping our future.
The draft Codes are open for comment. That is not a formality. It is a structured opportunity for engagement.
If we believe that supplier development must remain closely linked to industry specific growth, then it is our responsibility to articulate that. If we require clarity on governance mechanisms within a Transformation Fund, then it is our responsibility to request it constructively.
Silence cannot later become frustration.
What is clear is that planning now requires more integration than ever before.
We are already one year into our five year Employment Equity plans. The QCTO transition is underway. Procurement requirements appear to be tightening. Possible central funding mechanisms may alter how Enterprise Development is structured.
These are not separate reforms. They intersect.
If the skills framework is shifting and the scorecard is tightening at the same time, strategy must widen.
We cannot plan procurement without considering supplier development.
We cannot plan supplier development without considering funding mechanisms.
We cannot plan transformation without considering commercial sustainability.
For me, this is not about fighting for points. It is about ensuring that transformation strengthens, rather than weakens, the ecosystems in which our businesses operate.
Free economic trade and transformation do not have to sit in opposition. But they do require balance.
And balance requires participation.
So I am asking these questions. Carefully. Constructively. Strategically.
And I believe other executives should be asking them too.
Because if the scorecard is shifting again, the most responsible response is not reaction.
It is deliberate, informed leadership.
