Local Economic Development projects in mining often fail for one simple reason. Costing happens after the idea, not as part of the idea.

A familiar pattern repeats across operations. A mine identifies a project that appears aligned with the municipal Integrated Development Plan. A school upgrade, a skills centre, a small agricultural initiative. The project sounds right, reads well in the SLP, and satisfies the alignment test. Only then does the costing begin.

That sequence creates risk. Without a costing logic, projects drift into over-spend, under-delivery, or both. What looks affordable on paper can become unsustainable once implementation begins.

There is a simpler way to work.

Start with a reference cost, not a concept. LED projects sit in recognisable categories. Classrooms, libraries, early childhood centres, agri hubs, skills facilities. Each category has a realistic cost range per unit, per learner, per beneficiary, or per square metre. These benchmarks already exist across approved SLPs and implemented projects.

Once the benchmark is set, alignment becomes a filter, not a driver. You test the project against the IDP and ward priorities, rather than inventing a bespoke intervention every time. The question shifts from ‘what can we build’ to ‘what scale is defensible’.

A simple rule of thumb applies. Divide the proposed project cost by the realistic output. If the cost per beneficiary, learner, or job created falls outside the benchmark range, the project needs redesign. Either the scope is inflated or the impact is overstated.

This formula is what separates compliant projects from credible ones. It allows mines to see early whether they are under-investing, over-investing, or misallocating funds relative to impact.

At SLP4Good, we use this approach as a first screen before any stakeholder engagement or concept finalisation. It prevents well-intentioned projects from failing at implementation stage and gives the DMRE a clear, defensible logic when plans are reviewed.

If your LED projects feel expensive but thin on impact, or modest yet difficult to justify, the problem is rarely alignment. It is almost always costing.

There is also a useful sense-check that sits outside the MPRDA but remains widely accepted in corporate practice.

The 1 percent of NPAT test, drawn from the BBBEE Codes, provides a practical back check on LED spend. While not a regulatory requirement for SLPs, it is often used by boards, auditors, and sustainability committees to assess whether social investment is proportionate to profitability.

Applied correctly, the test is simple. Annual LED expenditure should not drift wildly above or below roughly 1 percent of net profit after tax over a reasonable cycle. If a mine is consistently spending far more, the projects are likely over-scoped or poorly designed. If it is spending far less, the projects may be compliant on paper but lack real substance.

Used together with unit-cost benchmarking, the NPAT test acts as a brake and a compass. It prevents emotional over-investment during good years and under-investment during lean ones, while giving decision-makers a familiar financial anchor.

At SLP4Good, we use the NPAT test as a secondary filter. It never replaces IDP alignment or project logic, but it strengthens defensibility when plans are reviewed internally or challenged externally.

For support in benchmarking, project sizing, and fit-for-purpose LED design, contact SLP4Good.

Why a Simple HRD Survey Matters More Than You Think

One of the biggest mistakes mines make with skills development is starting at the wrong point. Training plans are drafted, budgets are allocated, and courses are booked before there is a clear and defensible understanding of who the workforce actually is, what skills already exist, and where the real gaps lie. The result is often well‑intended spend with limited impact.

A well‑designed HRD survey changes that dynamic. It provides a grounded, evidence‑based starting point from which meaningful skills development can take place.

The questionnaire outlined below is intentionally easy to use, but it produces information that is strategically powerful. It captures personal details, education levels, experience, competence, career intent, and training needs in a structured format aligned to Social and Labour Plan requirements, the Mining Charter, and MQA reporting standards. Every question serves a purpose and feeds directly into planning, compliance, and decision‑making.

Ease of use is central to its design. The survey can be administered by internal mine staff with minimal preparation. Human resources personnel, supervisors, or a designated skills development facilitator are typically best placed to manage the process because they already understand the operation and the workforce. The instrument is largely tick‑based, supported by short descriptive inputs where necessary, which keeps the process efficient and limits disruption to production.

What the survey reveals is where its real value lies. It establishes the occupational profile of the workforce, including employment type and occupational level, which is essential for Mining Charter alignment. It identifies core and critical skills, distinguishing between roles that are operationally sensitive and those that are not. It confirms whether employees are competent in their current roles or operating with skills gaps that may increase operational or safety risk.

The survey also brings career dynamics into focus. It highlights who wants to progress, who is interested in supervisory or leadership roles, and what qualifications or experience are required to support that progression. Instead of relying on assumptions, the mine gains a clear picture of internal potential and succession pathways.

Equally important is what the survey uncovers about constraints. Literacy challenges, language barriers, shift patterns, digital capability, and other practical obstacles to training participation are identified upfront. This allows training interventions to be designed realistically, improving completion rates and avoiding the common failure of enrolling employees in programmes they cannot reasonably complete.

Using internal mine staff to administer the survey strengthens the quality of the data. Employees are generally more open with people they know and trust, and supervisors can validate responses to ensure that the information reflects operational reality rather than optimism. This combination of employee input and supervisor confirmation creates a defensible evidence base that stands up to DMRE or MQA scrutiny.

From a planning perspective, the survey becomes the foundation of skills development. It informs the Workplace Skills Plan with real, site‑specific data. It supports accurate and credible Annual Training Reports. It allows training budgets to be directed toward interventions that improve competence, compliance, and productivity at the same time.

Most importantly, the survey enables fit‑for‑purpose training actions. Training is no longer driven by availability or habit, but by clearly identified needs. Skills gaps are addressed directly, career pathways are supported intentionally, and training spend begins to deliver measurable value for both the operation and the workforce.

In practical terms, this kind of HRD survey is not an administrative exercise. It is the point at which skills development becomes structured, defensible, and effective. Everything that follows in the HRD programme stands or falls on the quality of this first step.

Row #	Section	Field / Question	Description / Response Options
1	A – Personal Information	Initial and Surname	Text
2	A – Personal Information	Department / Section	Text
3	A – Personal Information	Designation / Job Title	Text
4	A – Personal Information	Employment Type	Permanent / Fixed-term / Contractor
5	A – Personal Information	Occupational Level	Top / Senior / Middle / Junior / Skilled / Semi-skilled / Unskilled
6	A – Personal Information	Gender	Male / Female / Other
7	A – Personal Information	Race	African / Coloured / Indian / White / Other
8	A – Personal Information	Age	Years
9	A – Personal Information	Contact Number (if available)	Text
10	A – Personal Information	How long have you been wokring for the mine?	Date
11	A – Personal Information	Supervisor / Line Manager	Name
12	B – Education and Training Background	Highest school grade completed	Grade 1–12
13	B – Education and Training Background	Formal qualifications after school	Certificates / Diplomas / Learnerships
14	B – Education and Training Background	Valid competency certificates	Operator / First Aid / Other
15	C – Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL)	Total years’ experience in current role	Years
16	C – Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL)	Informal or on-the-job training received	Yes / No + description
17	C – Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL)	Core or critical skill classification	Core / Critical / Neither
18	C – Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL)	Self-assessed competence in current role	Fully competent / Needs support, traiing
19	C – Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL)	Skills gaps in current role	Name it
20	D – Career Progression	Interest in career progression	Yes / No
21	D – Career Progression	Desired next position	Text
22	D – Career Progression	Qualifications needed for advancement	Text
23	D – Career Progression	Interest in supervisory or leadership roles	Yes / No
24	E – Training and Development Needs	Skills to improve or certify (refer skills gaps)	Text
25	E – Training and Development Needs	Willingness to participate in AET (if you are gr 1-8)	Yes / No
26	E – Training and Development Needs	Interest in learnership or apprenticeship	Yes / No
27	E – Training and Development Needs	Preferred learning method	Classroom / On-the-job / Blended
28	E – Training and Development Needs	Barriers to training participation	Literacy / Language / Shift / None
29	E – Training and Development Needs	Digital literacy level	Comfortable / Limited / None
30	F – Health and Safety Training	Formal H&S training in last 12 months	Yes / No
31	F – Health and Safety Training	Date of last job-related training	Date
32	G – Portable and Post-Mining Skills	Interest in portable skills	Yes / No + skill type
33	G – Portable and Post-Mining Skills	Skills useful outside mining (what portable skills)	Text
34	H – Mentorship and Knowledge Transfer	Willingness to mentor others	Yes / No
35	J – Supervisor Validation (Supervisor Only)	Supervisor assessment of competence (fi needed)	Competent / Needs development
36	J – Supervisor Validation (Supervisor Only)	Supervisor comments on readiness (if needed)	Text