Business Unity South Africa (Busa) was formed in October 2003 through the merger of the Black Business Council, a body representing virtually all black business groupings, and Business South Africa, which represented the white business community.
Busa was meant to be an organisation representing the interest of businesses, business people and professional people in South Africa. The Black Management Forum was so committed to the process that it deployed its former president, Bheki Sibiya, to be Busa’s first chief executive.
The forum populated the various committees and gave input among opposing voices in a bid to achieve unity. To maintain the momentum of unity, the forum again deployed the second chief executive, Jerry Vilakazi. Sadly, after all these attempts, Busa still refuses to embrace transformation.
Busa has failed dismally to work towards its vision, which states: “Busa aims to be a unified and fully representative organisation that contributes to a vibrant, transforming and growing economy in South Africa.”
Our contention is that all that has happened in Busa’s first seven years of existence is the entrenching of established white businesses with the permission of and legitimisation by black businesses. All attempts to raise the voice of black business have been thwarted.
Busa does not have a demonstrable track record in the achievement of its stated transformation objectives, which include promoting broad-based black economic empowerment (BBBEE) through:
- Designing strategies and -programmes aimed at BBBEE, in -consultation with existing report studies and initiatives;
- Engaging government, corporate South Africa and other stakeholders on issues of BBBEE;
- Influencing appropriate legislation to create an enabling environment;
- Promoting transformation both within organised business and at enterprise level; and
- Advancing and promoting initiatives aimed at job creation and the alleviation of poverty.
Busa has failed to achieve any of these objectives. In fact, it has worked directly against them. Some of Busa’s embarrassing positions on transformation issues are listed below.
Labour law reforms
Contained in these reforms are specific corrective measures to advance the aims and objectives of the Employment Equity Act, which principally seeks to achieve equitable representation across all levels. Busa’s fervent opposition to these amendments can only mean that it is happy with the disproportionate representation of white managers in the top echelons of organisations in the country. Its continued support of labour brokers, who have a documented track record of extreme labour abuses, has tested the soul of black business to the limit.
Black executives representing formations of the historically -disadvantaged find themselves in an untenable situation in which they are part of an organisation that seeks to protect and promote oppressive and exploitative practices against their own relatives and the communities from which they come. The soul of black business can never coexist with the exploitative practices of labour brokers.
Procurement policy
Whereas black business notes the attempts by the government to align the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act and BBBEE codes of good practice, it still calls for the total eradication of the Act because, even in the alignment framework, BBBEE has simply been co-opted into a fundamentally flawed Act framework. The inputs by black business in Busa’s position on this important matter are not evident. Again, this raises the question of whether Busa attaches any value to inputs by black business.
Policy dictation
Busa’s modus operandi favours the well-resourced white businesses, which have not been transformed, to dictate policy direction. The practice is that policy papers crafted by established businesses get circulated to all members’ organisations, including black business. The lack of capacity in black business means that whatever discussion paper is circulated gets confirmed, with little or no alteration by black business.
Whereas established business has dedicated researchers, analysts and economists dedicated to Busa business matters, black business does not have them. Busa keeps making empty promises about helping to increase the capacity of black business, but these promises are simply lip service and to date have not yielded any tangible outcomes.
The direct involvement of black business people in their enterprises leaves them without any capacity to attend the many Busa meetings, which happen thick and fast. Similarly, some of the black executives and managers from black business constituencies, who are not in corporate affairs or similar roles, do not get released by the established businesses where they work.
Bosses in the established white business community fail to appreciate the socioeconomic role that some of the black managers not in corporate affairs need to play in structures such as Busa. Even the simple request to have meetings in the evenings to accommodate black business people could not be granted, resulting in the poor attendance at day meetings by black business people.
Suppression of black business
It is only Busa that pretends that business speaks with a homogenous and monolithic voice. The tragedy of this artificial “united voice of businesses” is that an important constituency, comprising black professionals and small-to-medium-sized businesses — the traditional National African Federated Chamber of Commerce and Industry constituency — is totally blacked out.
This marginalisation of the black business voice is often carried out in a formal way when its views are relegated to something called a minority report. Black business runs the risk of being labelled, appropriately, sellouts, for continuing to tolerate this situation.
Window-dressing
If transformation were simply measured by counting the number of black people in the top echelons of organisations then indeed many organisations in South Africa, Busa included, would claim to be transformed. We have warned against such a simplistic approach.
Yes, we do want to see more black faces in organisations, but fundamentally the structure and manner in which things are done must reflect a mindset different from what the apartheid regime imposed on the people of this country. Busa appears to be black on a cosmetic level, but at a substantive level it is lily white and continues to resist transformation.
Final straw
Busa’s approach in the beginning was “let’s not throw stones from outside; let’s get in and be part of the solution”. But the recent disconnection between Busa and black -business over the process used to appoint the chief executive clearly demonstrated its arrogance and total disregard for the black voice.
Black business has said that it is unethical and a violation of good governance practices for a person to be intricately involved in drawing up a job’s specifications and later make himself available for that job. Furthermore, black business argued that it was undesirable and a bad practice for vice-presidents, who to all intents and purposes are superior to chief executives, to make themselves available for the latter position.
A request from black business to raise this matter in a council meeting has been ignored by the Busa leadership. Instead, it pushed through the appointment process. Once again, Busa has reminded black business that it does not matter.