After the first democratic election in South Africa, government emphasised the importance of introducing mechanisms to rectify the evident social and economic inequalities (Acemoglu, Gelb, & Robinson, 2007). The introduction of the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) policy was deemed to be essential to promote the participation of black individuals in the local economy (Sartorius & Botha, 2008). Whilst certain researchers are critical about the true beneficiaries of B-BBEE and question whether legislation is truly achieving the stated aims (Hoffman, 2008; Patel & Graham, 2012), the moral imperative of uplifting the poor in the country is not debatable (Mathura, 2009; Morris, 2018).

The term B-BBEE was formally introduced in the legislative framework of South Africa in 2003 with the implementation of the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act (No. 53 of 2003) (Department of Trade and Industry [DTI], 2003). The following definition was incorporated in the act (DTI, 2003):

Black people include African, Indian, mixed race and Chinese individuals (DTI, 2003).

Based on the definition, it is evident that the purpose of the 2003 Act was the redistribution of wealth to those disadvantaged by the apartheid regime pre-1994. Companies are encouraged to participate in B-BBEE, as it is designed to empower black people, especially those wishing to conduct business with government institutions. The 2003 Act did not provide guidelines on the measurement of B-BBEE, but rather specified that the Codes of Good Practice should stipulate how B-BBEE would be measured. As such, the 2003 Act was followed by the release of the Codes of Good Practice in 2004 and 2007.

A revised B-BBEE Act was published in 2013, accompanied by revised Codes of Good Practice (DTI, 2013). Companies’ compliance with B-BBEE is measured against the applicable Codes and presented as a score. Based on these scores, comparative compliance levels are computed for listed companies (DTI, 2007). The Codes define the elements (including ownership, management control, employment equity, skills development, preferential procurement and enterprise development) that are utilised in determining the total B-BBEE score for qualifying companies. The scores for the respective elements should be verified by a registered B-BBEE auditor, which then provides the company with an official B-BBEE certificate. This certificate could be used for government tenders and to obtain new clients.

Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment could arguably be regarded as a barrier for foreign investment. A relaxation of these requirements has been requested by the European Union (Gules, 2018) to encourage companies to invest in South Africa. Some researchers and role players furthermore expressed the opinion that the design of B-BBEE (as stipulated in the B-BBEE Act of 2003 and 2013) is not ideal and that it should be replaced by another intervention that would better reach the goal of uplifting previously disadvantaged South Africans (Institute of Race Relations [IRR], 2012; Ngwenya, 2019). This sentiment is also echoed by the minister of trade and industry in South Africa (Phakathi, 2019). Although Andrews (2008) argued that B-BBEE can be effective in reducing poverty amongst black people, the impact of B-BBEE on poverty eradication has not yet translated in greater income equality in the country (IRR, 2017). The opposite is true, in that the inequality (measured by the Gini-coefficient) increased since the 1990s (The World Bank, 2019).

Proponents of B-BBEE argue that poverty amongst black people is persistent because of a lack of B-BBEE compliance (Mathura, 2009; Morris, 2018). The critics and proponents of B-BBEE can, perhaps, both be right in that B-BBEE can be more effective if B-BBEE is reformed to enhance the promotion of equality. It can, however, not be dismissed that B-BBEE remains the most prominent direct government policy to empower black people (Mathura, 2009; Morris, 2018). As such, it is important to understand how companies comply with B-BBEE and which elements companies tend to focus on.

Previous authors focussed on the beneficiaries of B-BBEE (Hoffman, 2008; Patel & Graham, 2012). Others explored the relationship between B-BBEE scores and share market performance (Chipeta & Vokwana, 2011; De Villiers & Ferreira, 2011; Jackson, Allesandri, & Black, 2005; Mehta & Ward, 2017; Strydom, Christison, & Matias, 2009; Van der Merwe & Ferreira, 2014; Ward & Muller, 2010; Wolmarans & Sartorius, 2009) and other financial performance measures (Acemoglu et al., 2007; Kleynhans & Kruger, 2014; Mathura, 2009; Morris, 2018). As far as it could be established, no authors empirically investigated trends in B-BBEE compliance by accounting for changes in the total B-BBEE and element scores.

Although B-BBEE remains a key consideration in South Africa, there is controversy pertaining to whether the current legislation and accompanying codes have resulted in considerable changes in corporate policies and practices. This study was hence conducted to reflect on whether 379 companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) have improved their B-BBEE compliance and to determine which elements included in the Codes of Good Practice the companies focussed on over the period 2004–2015.

Corporate leaders could arguably, consciously or subconsciously, engage in impression management practices to influence the perceptions of stakeholders, including government and society at large, about their companies’ B-BBEE endeavours. Bolino and Turnley (1999) applied Jones and Pittman’s (1982) five self-promotional styles to develop an impression management scale. In the context of B-BBEE compliance, companies could arguably focus on self-promotion (to be viewed as competent-empowered companies) and exemplification (to be seen as morally exemplary based on their empowerment initiatives). Companies could also comply with B-BBEE as a means of achieving social justice (and corporate social responsibility). Focus could accordingly be placed on those B-BBEE requirements that are ‘easier’ to comply with to enhance stakeholders’ impressions of the company. The findings shed light on which elements received considerable and limited corporate attention, respectively.

A brief history of B-BBEE will now be provided. Thereafter, the Codes of Good Practices (of 2004, 2007 and 2013) will be introduced, followed by the research design and methodology adopted in this study. The empirical evidence will then be presented followed by conclusions and recommendations.

Economic transformation in South Africa started before the end of apartheid in April 1994 (Ponte, Roberts, & Van Sittert, 2007). In the 1980s, some businesses rearranged their ownership structures to create a black middle class with interest in the local economy to enhance economic and political stability (Engdahl & Hauki, 2001; Ponte et al., 2007). Former president Thabo Mbeki highlighted the importance of economic transformation in his so-called ‘Two Nations’ speech in 1998 by stating that reconciliation and national unity are unachievable dreams in the absence of economic transformation (Ponte et al., 2007).

As a result of this drive for economic transformation, the African National Congress (ANC) launched the so-called Reconstruction and Development Program (RDP) (Habib & Padayachee, 2000). This socio-economic policy framework had five interrelated sections dealing with social needs, development of human resources, building the economy, democratising the society and state and implementing the RDP (Habib & Padayachee, 2000). The programme focussed on the transfer of share ownership. As such, the RDP was criticised for not boosting business confidence or encouraging foreign investment (Habib & Padayachee, 2000; Ponte et al., 2007).

The ANC altered and formalised the RDP, resulting in the publication of an economic framework called Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) in 1996 (Ponte et al., 2007). In effect, GEAR led to empowerment deals where large white-owned conglomerates sold shares to black people, even though the majority of the beneficiaries were politically connected individuals (Ntim & Soobaroyen, 2013; Tangri & Southall, 2008).

The end of the millennium signalled the end of the first phase of black economic transformation in the country. As a result of growing calls for transformation to be more inclusive and to cover more aspects of socio-economic development than just the transfer of ownership, the second phase of economic transformation, called Black Economic Empowerment (BEE), was launched and the BEE Commission was formed in 1998 (Ponte et al., 2007). With the release of this commission’s report in 2001, the government acknowledged the need to broaden the nature of BEE. As such, BEE had to incorporate the requirements of affirmative action and focus on human resource development, enterprise development, preferential procurement, corporate social investment activities and ownership (Acemoglu et al., 2007; Ponte et al., 2007). It was at this stage that the term B-BBEE was introduced (Acemoglu et al., 2007).

Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment requirements apply to all commercial and government institutions (DTI, 2003). The BEE Commission (2001) recommended that there should be a co-ordinating council to oversee the implementation of B-BBEE. As a result, the B-BBEE Advisory Council was established to implement B-BBEE legislation and offer advice to the government on B-BBEE-related issues. This council is responsible for determining the strategic direction for B-BBEE, which is then translated into the Codes of Good Practice by the minister of trade and industry. The Codes offer guidelines on how B-BBEE should be practically implemented and measured. Should the Codes not achieve their purpose of successfully rectifying the inequalities of the past, government can alter the Codes again in future (RSA Presidency, 2015).

According to Gules (2018), an ‘expiry date’ for B-BBEE is necessary as B-BBEE regulations are seen as a barrier for foreign investment. Acemoglu et al. (2007) predicted that B-BBEE will reach a third phase. Recall that the first phase was unstructured BEE until the end of 1999. The second phase was formalised, structured B-BBEE with the release of the BEE Commission report and the implementation of the 2003 Act and revised in 2013. The third phase of B-BBEE will arguably occur when the economic imbalances have been corrected and companies and individuals can compete on equal footing (Acemoglu et al., 2007). Once this proposed third phase has been reached, the current B-BBEE legislation is likely to be redundant.

The 2003 and 2013 B-BBEE Acts set out the principles of B-BBEE, whereas specific empowerment practices are explained in the Codes of Good Practice (DTI, 2003, 2007, 2013). It is, therefore, important to consider the Codes to understand the practical implications of B-BBEE for companies in South Africa.

Based on the preceding discussion, it is evident that the 2007 and 2013 Codes differ considerably in terms of the elements included, their weightings and the total number of points available. For the purpose of this article, focus was placed on the Empowerdex scores measured according to the 2007 Codes over the period 2007–2015. The scores for years prior to 2007 were allocated based on the 2004 Codes, which were comparable to the 2007 Codes. Whilst B-BBEE researchers such as Kleynhans and Kruger (2014), Mathura (2009) and Acemoglu et al. (2007) used short timeframes spanning 1–3 years, the authors of this study evaluated B-BBEE compliance of JSE-listed companies over more than a decade by accounting for total and per element B-BBEE scores.

The population consisted of all companies listed on the JSE’s main board and Alternative Exchange over the research period (2004–2015). This time frame was chosen, as the first B-BBEE scores were released in 2004 by Empowerdex, whilst the 2013 Codes were implemented in 2015. As Empowerdex’s 2016 list of most empowered companies was based on the 2013 Codes, it was not comparable to the B-BBEE scores obtained under the 2007 Codes.

The sample included listed companies for which Empowerdex made B-BBEE scores available over the period 2004–2015. Kleynhans and Kruger (2014) also applied convenience sampling in their B-BBEE study. Empowerdex annually publicly disclosed the B-BBEE scores of approximately 200 JSE-listed companies over the period 2004–2009, based on their willing participation and consent. From 2010 onwards, Empowerdex annually disclosed only the scores of approximately 100 companies. Eight observations for private companies were excluded from the sample. Details on the population and sample are provided in Table 4.

As shown in Table 4, the period under review was divided into two sub-periods called the nascent period and the wider adoption period for the purpose of this study. To address survivorship bias, delisted and suspended companies were included in the sample for the period that they were included in Empowerdex’s annual lists. It should be noted that these companies were not necessarily the most empowered companies listed on the JSE, as the total B-BBEE scores of all JSE-listed companies were not available.

Given that the composition of the sample was based on the most empowered companies ranked by Empowerdex for the period under review, an unbalanced panel was considered. Most of the sample companies that were included in the second part of the study period (approximately 100 most empowered companies) were also included in the first period (approximately 200 most empowered companies). From the total sample of 379 companies, 140 companies were included in both periods. Only the total B-BBEE score per company was publicly released by Empowerdex. The scores per B-BBEE element were sourced from Empowerdex’s research department.

Companies were classified in terms of the Industry Classification Benchmark. In line with previous B-BBEE researchers such as Acemoglu et al. (2007), Chipeta and Vokwana (2011), Kleynhans and Kruger (2014) and Mathura (2009), no industries were excluded. There were no companies listed in the utilities industry over the duration of the study period.

Table 5 shows a description of the B-BBEE scores (in total and per element).

Pertaining to the validity of the B-BBEE scores, the sum of the elements of the B-BBEE scorecard were compared with the total B-BBEE scores that were reported by Empowerdex. There were 30 cases where there were differences between the total B-BBEE scores and the sum of the individual elements. The B-BBEE scorecards for these companies were compared with the actual certificates obtained from the Beagle (2018) database. This database contains the B-BBEE certificates for various private and public companies. In instances where differences were found, the data set was updated to reflect the scores according to the B-BBEE certificate. The total B-BBEE scores that were available on the Bloomberg (2018) database were also compared with those that were obtained from Empowerdex.

As the sample size was larger during the nascent period than the wider adoption period, the sample size of the nascent period (2004–2009) was reduced to include only 100 companies per year, consistent with the sample size of the wider adoption period (2010–2015). The mean B-BBBEE scores were compared for the complete sample and the reduced number of companies as part of the descriptive analysis. This reduction resulted in 1198 observations from 271 companies being used for the inferential analysis. Mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) tests were conducted to investigate differences in B-BBEE scores (in total and per element) for the 100 most empowered companies. The considered fixed effects factor was year and the random effects factor was JSE ticker code. A restricted maximum likelihood solution with type III decomposition was performed to estimate the variance components of the random effects in the analysis of variance.

In the next section, changes in the total B-BBEE scores are discussed followed by trends in the individual elements.

Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment is the most prominent intervention by the government to address poverty experienced by black people. The application of B-BBEE is driven by the Codes of Good Practice. Since the inception of B-BBEE in 2003, three Codes have been released. This article was based on the 2007 and 2004 Codes. Despite criticism against B-BBEE, the need for economic reform cannot be underestimated. The authors of this study hence investigated whether a sample of listed companies made concerted effort to comply with the B-BBEE Act by accounting for their total and per element B-BBEE scores as provided by Empowerdex for the period 2004–2015. Mixed-model ANOVA and Fisher LSD tests were conducted to investigate the significance of the observed trends. Focus was placed on which elements showed the largest and smallest improvements, respectively.

The mean total B-BBEE score increased considerably over the research period. Whilst the sample companies were, on average, non-compliant in 2004, they achieved level-three B-BBEE scores in 2015. Employment equity showed the smallest increase, whilst socio-economic development reflected the largest increase over the research period. These results could be linked to impression management theory (Bolino & Turnley, 1999) by postulating that some of the sample companies placed more focus on those elements that are the ‘easiest’ to comply with. As such, they could have enhanced stakeholders’ impressions of them being empowered companies. The mixed-model ANOVA results indicated significant increases over time for the total B-BBEE score and all elements. The Fisher LSD results showed that most of the annual changes were significant, except for the years surrounding the release and implementation of the revised Codes.

In line with a comment made by the South African minister of trade and industry (Phakathi, 2019), policymakers are encouraged to critically reflect on whether B-BBEE has achieved its goal of redressing historical imbalances. Policymakers could investigate other options than preferential procurement to incentivise companies to comply with B-BBEE, such as introducing tax rebates for companies with high B-BBEE scores.

More emphasis should be placed on education, which is deemed critical for economic empowerment. In a time of minimal economic growth, skills development and job creation should be a priority for directors and managers. They play an essential role to ensure a sustainable future for empowerment initiatives in South Africa. Educators furthermore have a significant influence on the future generations of directors and shareholders by enhancing awareness of the need for and moral imperative of economic transformation. Entrepreneurial skills could be enhanced and the importance of social justice emphasised by involving students in community upliftment projects. Investment management modules could also include discussions on the moral imperatives of investing.

Shareholders could furthermore request explanations from companies on the imperatives for their B-BBEE initiatives (or the lack thereof). Management should encourage shareholder engagement to clarify concerns and discuss amendments to their empowerment initiatives. The media can furthermore considerably influence the views of shareholders and the broader public on B-BBEE. Whilst the media can play an active role in educating the public on B-BBEE, negative publicity could result in negative sentiment. The media should provide a balanced perspective on B-BBEE to inform local stakeholders and international investors to enable sound decision-making.

Pertaining to the study’s limitations, secondary B-BBEE data were obtained from Empowerdex. During the latter part of the research period, Empowerdex focussed on large listed companies. The identified trends are hence not applicable to all JSE-listed companies. A random sample of JSE-listed companies could be used to repeat this study in future by accounting for their reporting on B-BBEE. A study involving unlisted companies might shed light on B-BBEE trends amongst small entities. The business case for B-BBEE, based on the 2013 Codes, could also be investigated in future.

The extent to which improved compliance scores translate into improved outcomes pertaining to the stated aims of B-BBEE warrants further investigation. Future researchers could conduct interviews with various stakeholders, including black owners of small- and medium-sized enterprises and suppliers and managers of B-BBEE-accredited companies to gauge their views in this regard. Further investigation could also shed more light on why certain elements are favoured by companies.