To BEE or not to BEE

I am learning so much from my kids; particularly my four-year-old daughter.

At the moment, my princess has to grapple with the notion that sometimes life is just not fair. And as her very concerned and sometimes overprotective parent, I am trying to help her understand which battles are worth fighting and which she is better off just letting go.

Despite my desire to teach her right from wrong, and insulate her from the harsh realities of the world we live in, the fact is that life is never going to operate in the realm of black and white.

The business world, for instance, very rarely functions in anything other than differing shades of grey. Our companies fiddle their taxes, lie to customers, posture for investors and most often operate on the premise the end (profit) justifies the means.

It`s no different with black economic empowerment (BEE).

The reason why legislation and the Codes of Good Practice have been brought into bear is that businesses will not drive transformation on their own. That`s not to say the people of SA don`t think that it`s "the right thing to do"; rather that our ethics and integrity feature further down our list of priorities than financial gain.

The word in the industry is that unless you have 30% of your company`s equity in black hands, you can forget about working with the fixed-line Frankenstein.

Kimberly Guest, senior journalist, ITWeb

Unfortunately, the creation of transformation guidelines hasn`t levelled the playing field either. In recent weeks, Telkom`s apparent decision to refuse to acknowledge government-sanctioned equity replacement initiatives has left our industry in a tizz. And it`s not just the local subsidiaries of international companies that have to come to terms with Telkom`s BEE requirements.

The word in the industry is that unless you have 30% of your company`s equity in black hands, you can forget about working with the fixed-line Frankenstein. Any other initiatives - like skills development and the promotion of the previously-disadvantaged within the organisation - are considered to be, at best, supplementary.

On one hand, you could see this as a positive move. After all, the reason why ownership appears in the codes is because it is important to ensure black people receive the opportunity to control and benefit from big business.

On the other hand, the codes specifically recognise that empowered ownership alone does not lead to broad-based transformation. Overcoming our apartheid past requires a holistic approach, and chasing away international investors who, for one reason are another, are unable to sell off equity, will ultimately damage our country.

Additionally, for locally-based companies, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find an empowerment partner with the finances to pay for that shareholding.

Whichever way you look at it, Telkom is such an influential player in this market that this "internal decision" has the ICT industry at large over a barrel. And if it gets away with implementing its own rules, it will only pave the way for other companies to do the same.

Alternatively, companies could stand up, voice their concern at the moves and bring pressure to bear on the monopoly. Perhaps we could even learn a little from our US counterparts and try lobbying government which, it doesn`t need reminding, is a major shareholder in Telkom.

The chance of this happening is slim. Our industry and its players appear to have forgotten that they too have spines. With fear of recrimination a significant motivator, no person is going to go on the record.

Nevertheless, maybe this is a battle worth fighting.

I tell my daughter the only way to deal with bullies at school is to stand up to them. I am trying to teach her that some differences are not worth the energy spent on fighting; however, I warn her that others can turn you into a lifelong victim. Life, I say to her, requires compassion, consideration and confidence.

She`s still struggling with this. Frankly, so am I.