I thought I’d share some quick take‑aways from recent visits to two different DMPR offices in separate provinces, as well as a stop at the municipality. It was interesting to see just how differently the policies get applied on the ground.

For example:

• At one office, school infrastructure was not recognised as LED, while the other office considered it a good fit.
• At both offices NEMA was not even mentioned during consultations. Yet NEMA is prominent in the proposed amended mining legislation, and only a footnote in the older regulations. From what I’ve seen, it tends to be the very large, often listed mines that go down the full NEMA route. It shouldn’t be underestimated though, and having an early meeting with the DMPR office is definitely the way to go.
• On AET, one office didn’t see it as essential, leaning instead toward skills training or fencing projects. The other office kept AET in play, especially for external communities. For fully employed staff it was viewed as less critical, since most workers already hold a matric and there’s an oversupply of labour candidates with mines tending to hire the highest qualified workers.
• Bursaries were another contrast: one office preferred they stay within labour‑sending areas, the other encouraged opening them up across the province. What is interesting is that whether I meet with the municipality or the DMPR, bursaries are considered immensely valuable, and I would almost go underweight on AET and overweight on bursaries.
• Employment equity rules also differed, with one side using the new Act and the other still sticking to the Mining Charter 2018 wording. In practice though, the difference between the MC 2018 provisions and the new Employment Equity Act is very small.
• And while one office cut politicians out of LED project decisions, the other was adamant they must be consulted.

Neither office paid much attention to procurement, still falling back on 2014 Charter guidelines. I find this interesting because with hindsight the 2014 targets are quite low and lag behind the more recent generic BBBEE codes—rather ironic since mining was once the leader in developing the BEE scorecard. 

Our 110‑page SLP template report, however, was well received in both places. It follows each regulatory heading in separate paragraphs to make sure every aspect is covered. The template sets out forms and tables in the way the DMPR likes to see them—practical, detailed, and aligned with their own guidelines. They want concrete commitments, even if those change later. For example, simply stating a target number for learnerships isn’t enough; one has to list the actual titles—millwright, blaster, boilermaker, and so on.

At the municipality, they stressed that the IDPs don’t list many ward‑level projects—often the rural wards get left out because of their remoteness and the more urgent priorities in the larger populated areas—so they expect the mine to come up with ideas. They liked the mix of social entrepreneurship plus infrastructure development. For one client, we’re already in round four of negotiations with both the DMPR and municipality to get a tree nursery approved. It’s a project I proposed, and beyond jobs it could generate carbon credits too—but it’s taken persistence to keep it alive.

These little differences highlight why outside guidance is useful. Knowing where interpretations split and how to steer through them saves time, avoids costly delays, and keeps projects both compliant and meaningful for the community.

Best,
Gerrie

In the old model, Social and Labour Plan (SLP) development unfurled like a slow caravan across a bureaucratic landscape. Weeks dissolved into months while consultants sifted legislative texts, tracked down outdated census tables, transcribed stakeholder interviews into bloated annexures, and redrafted the same tables in different formats for different regulators. Time multiplied costs, and clients learned to brace for invoices swollen with hours spent gathering what should already have been at hand.

AI has punctured this inertia. Tools like ChatGPT now compress what once took entire teams to a matter of hours. Instead of parsing policy updates line by line, an AI language model absorbs thousands of pages of regulation and synthesises the relevant clauses into clear guidance, referencing the correct regulations and citing precedent where it matters. The consultant doesn’t have to cross-check every paragraph or debate with colleagues whether the latest Mining Charter requires an adjustment to training budget thresholds—the machine has already extracted the nuances and laid them on the table.

Data collation, long the nemesis of project timelines, becomes a mechanical function rather than a human burden. AI sweeps through public records, municipal IDP archives, company employment statistics, and Skills Development Levies reports with no fatigue. A dataset that once required days of spreadsheet cleaning emerges clean, labelled, and ready for interpretation before lunch.

Report writing, too, has shifted from craft to orchestration. Where a consultant once laboured to rephrase identical objectives in multiple SLP chapters—economic development, community engagement, HRD planning—an AI model generates polished drafts aligned to DMRE guidelines. The voice remains consistent, the content precise, the compliance intact. Review shifts from composing text to validating accuracy and adding the authentic signatures of local context.

The cost implications are not trivial. An SLP project that would have demanded several hundred billable hours can now be executed in a fraction of that time. Clients who have weathered years of bloated consultancy fees discover a process that feels almost frictionless. It’s not simply about reducing fees—it’s about reassigning human energy to the work that truly requires judgment: verifying local economic multipliers, understanding the politics of community expectations, designing training schemes that won’t collapse under the weight of good intentions.

AI will not replace the SLP professional who knows how to navigate a tense meeting in a dusty town hall or can intuit which local contractor will deliver on a community centre project. But it does erase the slow, expensive drudgery that once disguised itself as “research” or “drafting.” The result is a cleaner process: transparent, efficient, easier to audit.

In a field where regulatory compliance and community trust can hinge on clarity, this transformation matters. Costs fall. Quality rises. And the space between intention and delivery narrows into something more humane—more honest—than the industry has known for a long time.

As South Africa’s mining sector stands at the edge of regulatory transformation, the signals are clear: a new wave of compliance obligations is gathering momentum. The recently published Draft Mineral Resources Development Amendment Bill (2025) states the re-emergence of more stringent Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) requirements—possibly with renewed emphasis on beneficiation, local procurement, and structured community investment. Complicating matters further is the unresolved issue of ‘once empowered, always empowered’—a legal ambiguity that was set aside by the courts, but remains legally unresolved—and could return to the fore with significant implications for ownership compliance.

For mine managers and compliance officers, the question is urgent: will your current BBBEE strategy hold up if the regulatory goalposts shift again? For many, the answer is uncomfortably uncertain.

The Compliance Cliff: Are Current BBBEE Strategies Fit for Purpose?

Mining Charter III has been the industry’s roadmap since 2018, calling for 30% HDSA ownership and preferential procurement from black-owned suppliers. But proposed legislative changes may elevate these targets and introduce tighter conditions around ring-fenced elements such as community development and local value-addition.

What was once a policy—with interpretive room post the 2021 High Court ruling—could now become prescriptive law. Compounding this is a deeper structural shift: the logic of generic BBBEE scorecards—where ownership can be netted down based on acquisition debt or layered through flow-through calculations—could be hardcoded into mining legislation. But unlike the flexible scoring system of the BBBEE Codes, the draft bill demands live, unencumbered equity held by HDPs at the time of application or renewal. The flexibility of yesterday may be replaced by tomorrow’s binding clauses. In that scenario, even compliant mines may find themselves out of alignment.

Most Mines Are Planning for the Past

Strategic uncertainty is the most acute risk. Mines tend to plan around what is known, not what is emerging. Many do not possess the analytical tools to test future regulatory scenarios—especially where changes in ownership thresholds, procurement filters, or beneficiation obligations could trigger full BBBEE scorecard recalibrations. Compliance risk is no longer theoretical; it is structural.

SLP4Good’s Strategic Response: Scenario Planning That Prepares You for More Than One Future

In partnership with a top-tier BBBEE verification agency, SLP4Good has launched a bespoke BBBEE scenario planning service tailored for the mining industry. It is designed to convert uncertainty into preparedness through:

• Gap Identification: We assess your existing BBBEE posture against possible future requirements, including beneficiation mandates and revised procurement targets.
• Scenario Simulation: We model various legislative outcomes—from incremental adjustments to full-scale regulatory shifts—and analyse their implications for your operations.
• Strategic Realignment: We highlight specific, actionable interventions to bring ownership, procurement, and SLP commitments into forward-compliant alignment.
• Verification Alignment: Our verification partner ensures that each scenario holds up to real-world scrutiny, reducing downstream audit and licensing risks.

This is not just a compliance tool—it is a strategic instrument. For mines that wish to stay ahead of the curve, rather than behind it, this offering transforms risk into resilience.

Lead the Shift Before It Leads You

Mines that prepare now will not just survive regulatory change—they will lead within it. SLP4Good’s scenario planning service positions your operation as a proactive transformation agent, not a reluctant follower.

We invite you to assess your mine’s future-readiness today. Let us help you navigate the evolving BBBEE terrain with insight, clarity, and strategy.

SLP4Good – Empowering Sustainable Mining Transformation

South Africa’s mining legislation is undergoing a major overhaul with the gazetting of a 108-page draft Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Bill by Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe on 20 May 2025. The Bill is open for public comment until 13 August 2025 and promises to reshape how the country manages its vast mineral wealth.

The proposed legislation seeks to cut red tape and accelerate regulatory approvals by aligning mining rights and environmental permits with existing laws such as the National Environmental Management Act and the National Water Act. This integration is expected to reduce processing delays and enhance investor confidence at a time when global competition for mineral investment is fierce.

Critically, the Bill introduces a dedicated framework for artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM), offering a licensing regime designed to formalise and support this often-marginalised sector. It also bolsters enforcement capacity to curb illegal mining, which has plagued the industry and communities alike.

Other key features include new provisions for beneficiation—encouraging companies to process raw minerals domestically—as well as strengthened Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) mechanisms and clarification on ownership rights, particularly regarding chrome and platinum group metals.

The legislation also dovetails with South Africa’s new Critical Minerals and Metals Strategy, placing strategic resources like manganese, iron ore, and platinum at the centre of future industrial policy.

While the Bill is likely to spark debate—especially around expanded powers for government oversight and the new Section 11 change-of-control provisions—it represents the most ambitious mining law reform since the early 2000s.

Stakeholders are urged to study the draft and submit comments via the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy’s website. This is a pivotal moment not just for compliance, but for shaping the future trajectory of South Africa’s mining economy.

Not long ago, Social and Labour Plans (SLPs) made the news for all the wrong reasons. Failed commitments, delayed clinics, blocked roads. They stood at the frontline of South Africa’s mining tension—visible, contested, and sometimes violently enforced. These days, that spotlight has faded. But the conditions that justified SLPs in the first place—inequality, unemployment, unrest—haven’t gone anywhere. If anything, they’ve deepened.

Part of the silence stems from the mining industry’s fragile footing. According to Statistics South Africa, mining production declined 3.2% in 2023. Rail disruptions, water shortages, and power blackouts continue to choke supply chains. Export revenues have taken a knock. Gold, once the cornerstone of the economy, now lingers on life support—Sibanye-Stillwater is scaling back, and only Harmony has shown short-term gains. Many mines have shifted into survival mode, where even essential social investments begin to look optional.

Yet there’s another side to this. Perhaps this drop in pressure is also a reprieve. A moment of breathing space. With less media heat and fewer compliance deadlines forcing box-ticking behavior, companies now have room to recalibrate. Instead of rushing through templates to avoid penalties, they can rethink their social footprint—strategically, locally, and in dialogue with real community needs.

The Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE), for its part, is stretched thin. Oversight is reactive, enforcement inconsistent. Without visible accountability, communities have grown disillusioned. Promises are met with skepticism; silence, with resignation. Many now respond not with court filings, but with road blockades and cable theft—a signal not just of anger, but of lost trust.

Meanwhile, public discourse has shifted. Load shedding, green hydrogen, and the politics of just transition now dominate the conversation. SLPs—grounded in the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA)—feel like relics of a different decade. Some companies have even rebranded their efforts under ESG to align with global investor narratives, sidelining the legal obligations they still carry under South African law.

But this reframing hasn’t changed the lived reality on the ground. South Africa’s lower-bound poverty headcount rose in 2023 to over 18.2 million people—more than 30% of the population. In traditional mining towns like Emalahleni, Burgersfort, and Postmasburg, the mines remain the only real anchor—yet they are shedding jobs, not creating them.

What’s at stake here isn’t just reputational damage or regulatory fines. It’s the social license to operate—the informal contract between a company and the communities that host its operations. Once broken, that contract is hard to rebuild. And when communities see haul trucks moving but no schools being built, they don’t wait for consultation—they act.

This is not an appeal for charity. It’s a call for strategic realism. SLPs, properly deployed, are risk mitigation tools. They de-escalate tension, attract local talent, and create buffers against shutdowns. They build trust in places where the state has all but vanished. In short, they make business sense—if treated as a core input, not an afterthought.

The irony is that the current quiet may be the perfect time to act. With less political noise and fewer compliance flashpoints, forward-looking mining firms can use this moment to reset—less noise, more strategy; fewer tick boxes, more impact.

If SLPs are off the front page, it doesn’t mean they’ve done their job. It may simply mean we stopped asking whether they could.

As of 2025, the Employment Equity Amendment Act is law. The Department of Labour has drawn its line in the sand—57.5% Black representation at the board level in mining, 86.7% by the time you reach skilled technical work. Disability targets have doubled. For many mining houses already grappling with inflation, FX exposure, tightening margins, and crumbling logistics, this isn’t just a policy update. It’s an operational tremor.

But here’s what matters more than the targets themselves: The court cases challenging sections of the Act—especially around constitutionality and the limits of ministerial power—may determine whether this tremor becomes an earthquake.

The legal battlefield centers on whether the Minister of Labour can unilaterally set sectoral targets that, in practice, become rigid quotas—and whether such top-down engineering crosses the line into racial discrimination in reverse.

It’s not a left-vs-right, green-vs-blue issue anymore. It’s about governance, clarity, and operational certainty.

Most mines—especially those that export—are walking a delicate ESG tightrope. You’re balancing EU-aligned human rights due diligence with local procurement targets. You’re training more women in core skills, but facing shortages in critical trades. You’re rewriting SLPs and SDPs to show alignment—and suddenly, the goalposts move. Again.

If these court cases succeed, they could force the state to consult more deeply, legislate more transparently, and refrain from sectoral engineering via regulation without parliamentary review. In a rule-of-law-based democracy, that’s not red tape—that’s backbone.

The mining sector is often vilified for dragging its feet on transformation. Sometimes justly. But in truth, many operators are already exceeding targets in junior and middle management. The real pain points lie in skills pipelines, contractor oversight, and rural education ecosystems—not in unwillingness.

Blanket top-down enforcement without regard for real-world constraints risks alienating exactly those players trying to do the right thing. It risks weaponising compliance certificates as political tools. And it risks further disconnection between the state’s ambitions and the sector’s operational realities.

Regardless of which side of the political spectrum you fall on, here’s the unifying principle: Good policy must be challengeable. It must be defendable on both moral and constitutional grounds. If the courts uphold the minister’s powers, we live with the result. But if they don’t, the mining sector must use that breathing room not to relax, but to lead.

We have a moment—right now—to rethink transformation as a system, not a scorecard. And we should use it.

South Africa’s mining industry has long been a pillar of the national economy. Yet, as resources deplete and operations wind down, an uncomfortable truth emerges—mining companies, while legally obligated to consider social downscaling, rarely make financial provisions for it. Unlike rehabilitation funds, which are a regulatory requirement and often ring-fenced, the costs associated with mass retrenchments, local economic diversification, and community transitions are either ignored or severely underestimated in financial planning.

The Missing Line Item in Financial Statements

A quick review of the financial statements of major mining companies operating in South Africa reveals a striking omission—there are no explicit provisions for social downscaling costs. While the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) mandates social and labor plans (SLPs), which include community upliftment initiatives, there is little evidence that mines proactively set aside financial reserves to cover the full burden of downscaling. This is a critical oversight.

Retrenchment, one of the most immediate consequences of mine closures, is a costly exercise. South African labor laws require severance pay that can reach up to eight weeks per year of service. For a large mine employing thousands, this can easily escalate into hundreds of millions of rands. But severance costs are only the beginning.

Beyond Retrenchments: The True Cost of Social Downscaling

Mining communities are often economically dependent on a single large employer. When a mine ceases operations, the ripple effects extend far beyond retrenched workers. True social downscaling demands:

• Local economic diversification: Developing alternative industries and supporting entrepreneurship to replace lost jobs.
• Infrastructure transition: Ensuring that mine-dependent infrastructure, such as water and energy systems, can be repurposed for community use.
• Social safety nets: Providing financial and logistical support to displaced workers and their families.

These costs go well beyond the severance packages paid to employees. A large mine preparing for closure could easily require R500 million to R1 billion to ensure a smooth economic transition for workers and surrounding communities.

Who Pays? The Unseen Encumbrance on Shareholder Equity

So where would these funds come from? The answer is unclear. Mining companies typically finance such costs through a combination of:

• Reserves – If they have been set aside, though most mining firms do not allocate reserves for social downscaling.
• Loans or additional capital investment – Borrowing to cover social transition costs can add financial strain, particularly on declining operations.
• Government or industry bailouts – Often leading to public sector intervention when mines fail to plan.

For shareholders, this represents an underappreciated liability. The cost of mine closure is rarely factored into investment risk assessments, leading to an inflated perception of profitability during operational years. If mines were forced to provision for social downscaling upfront—just as they do for environmental rehabilitation—the impact on balance sheets would be significant.

A Structural Failure of Planning

South Africa’s regulatory framework acknowledges the need for social downscaling, yet in practice, financial provisioning remains absent. This is a systemic issue. While environmental rehabilitation funds are often protected through financial guarantees, social downscaling lacks the same level of enforcement. Mining companies can operate for decades without ever accounting for the long-term social costs of their closure.

The Way Forward

To address this, the mining industry needs to:

1. Mandate financial provisioning for social downscaling in the same way environmental rehabilitation is enforced.
2. Introduce transparent accounting requirements that explicitly recognize social downscaling liabilities on financial statements.
3. Develop industry-wide funding mechanisms to distribute the burden of economic transition, reducing reliance on ad hoc government interventions.
4. Reform social and labor plan enforcement to ensure that mining companies actively contribute to long-term community resilience.

Conclusion

Mining companies in South Africa are adept at financial planning when it comes to environmental rehabilitation, yet social downscaling remains a blind spot. This oversight places a hidden financial burden on shareholders, affected communities, and, ultimately, the state. Without structured provisions, the transition from a mining-dependent economy to a diversified one will continue to be chaotic, expensive, and deeply disruptive. It’s time for mining firms to recognize social downscaling not as an afterthought, but as a fundamental part of their closure strategy.

Would you like to add any references or data points for credibility?

ChatGPT streamlines the compilation of Social and Labour Plans (SLPs), cutting time and reducing costs significantly. Tasks like generating new tables for reporting, aligning data with regulatory requirements, or updating metrics are handled efficiently without the need for traditional tools like Excel. Instead, ChatGPT creates structured, compliant tables directly from input data, eliminating manual formatting and complex calculations.

By reducing the time spent on repetitive administrative tasks, organizations save on labor costs and can reallocate resources to focus on strategic planning and impactful initiatives. The automation of data analysis, table generation, and content refinement minimizes errors, ensuring faster turnaround times and cost-effective compliance.

Ultimately, ChatGPT accelerates the entire SLP process, helping organizations deliver high-quality plans while optimizing both time and budget.

In this blog post, we’ll explain why it is relatively straightforward to qualify for the Mining Charter, provided that key compliance areas like ownership, LED projects, and housing and living conditions (HLC) are in order.

Overview of the Permutations of Mining Charter

The table above outlines various permutations for meeting a Level 5 compliance rating, with the total score fixed at 51%. The key areas assessed are Employment Equity (EE), Inclusive Procurement, and Human Resource Development (HRD). Each permutation adjusts these components while assuming that ownership, LED projects, and HLC are compliant.

A key underlying assumption in this discussion of complyin with the mining charter is that the mine has already met the compliance requirements for ownership, local economic development projects, and housing and living conditions. These areas are foundational to Mining Charter compliance, and once they are in place, the remaining targets, such as employment equity, procurement, and human resource development, become much more manageable. Essentially, qualifying for the Mining Charter hinges on ensuring that these core elements are in order, allowing the mine to focus on achieving the remaining scorecard targets with relative ease.

Why Qualifying Isn’t Hard

1. Human Resource Development (HRD):
   The target for HRD is typically 100% of the designated percentage of the company’s salaries and wages. For example, this would mean 5% of the total salaries and wages budget. In our table, the HRD score in each permutation stands at 20%, which amounts to 67% of the HRD target (67% * 5% = 3.35% of total salaries and wages). As you can see, the requirements for HRD are not overly demanding, especially considering the resources mines typically allocate to training and development.
2. Inclusive Procurement:
   Historically, procurement targets have been one of the more complex aspects of compliance, but recent developments have simplified this process. With the new codes being thrown out, mines now have more flexibility in meeting these targets. This means that even at 40% of the target (as seen in some permutations above), a mine can still easily comply and achieve a Level 5 rating.
3. Employment Equity (EE):
   Today, most mining companies already comply with Employment Equity requirements, which makes this a less challenging aspect of the scorecard. Mines typically already have systems in place to ensure fair representation, which means that achieving 50% of the EE target, for instance, is quite achievable.

The Bigger Picture

Ultimately, what this means is that achieving compliance with the Mining Charter is not an insurmountable task. While certain elements, such as HRD, procurement, and EE, need attention, the reality is that many mines are already well-positioned to meet these targets with minimal effort. Assuming the core areas of ownership, LED projects, and HLC are sorted, compliance essentially becomes a matter of fine-tuning, rather than a significant overhaul of current operations.