White Group
Average four-person wealthiest white household
R5.39mEstimated household wealth
Not a designated B-BBEE beneficiary
CAMPAIGN 1 · B-BBEE & EMPLOYMENT EQUITY · SHOW US THE EVIDENCE
Who Really Benefits from B-BBEE?
JusticeSA asks Government to show the numbers: are B-BBEE and Employment Equity reaching poor and genuinely disadvantaged South Africans, or are the largest benefits going to people who are already economically better off? We also ask why race should still outweigh a person's present-day disadvantage.
CAMPAIGN 1 EVIDENCE IN 60 SECONDS
One policy. Two equal-sized groups. A question that deserves an answer.
Non-White Group
Average four-person wealthiest non-white household
R7.33mEstimated household wealth
May qualify as a B-BBEE beneficiary
Model finding
Non-White Group is approximately R1.94 million, or 36%, wealthier on average.
This does not prove that B-BBEE created the difference. It shows why current beneficiaries, actual benefits and policy effectiveness should be measured independently.
Read the full method and sources →OUR DEMAND
Commission an independent, public and disaggregated B-BBEE impact assessment.
The assessment should measure benefits by income and wealth—not merely repeat aggregate racial ownership percentages.
Who actually benefits?
Publish how many beneficiaries are poor, lower-income, middle-income and already affluent.
What reaches poor households?
Measure the actual value of ownership, procurement, training, finance and enterprise support.
When is the policy reviewed?
Set objective tests for necessity, proportionality, success, reform and eventual termination.
Is race-based disadvantage fair or rational?
Explain whether Government considers it fair and rational to treat white South Africans less favourably because they are white. If so, publish the evidence and legal basis showing why that differentiation is fair, necessary and proportionate today.
The legal framework we are asking Government to apply
Section 9(2) of the Constitution permits measures designed to protect or advance persons or categories of persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination. Sections 9(3)–(5) prohibit unfair racial discrimination and presume discrimination on a listed ground to be unfair unless fairness is established. ICERD recognises limited special measures for adequate advancement, provided they do not maintain separate rights and are not continued after their objectives have been achieved.
JusticeSA therefore asks not merely whether a policy is race-conscious, but whether Government can show that its present treatment remains fair, rational, necessary, proportionate and reviewable within those limits.
THE SIX QUESTIONS YOUR SIGNATURE SUPPORTS
If race still outweighs actual disadvantage, show us why.
JusticeSA asks Government not merely to defend the outcome, but to justify the present use of race against people's actual economic circumstances with measurable evidence.
What evidence demonstrates that race remains a sufficiently accurate proxy for present-day disadvantage in 2026?
Why should an affluent black male potentially receive remedial preference over an economically disadvantaged white male solely because of their racial classification?
Has Government modelled alternatives based on actual disadvantage—income, household wealth, education, unemployment, geography or family circumstances—instead of, or alongside, race?
What measurable outcomes will show that race-based remedial measures have achieved their purpose and can be reduced or ended?
Why do the 2025 sector-target percentages explicitly exclude white males without disabilities rather than assessing each person's actual disadvantage?
How does Government ensure that measures intended to advance people disadvantaged by unfair discrimination do not become permanent racial categories detached from present circumstances?
ADD YOUR NAME
Sign to support the study and these six questions to Government.
This petition does not ask for anyone to be targeted or demeaned. It asks that public policy be justified with public evidence.
I call on the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition and the B-BBEE Commission to commission and publish an independent, publicly available and disaggregated study of who actually benefits from B-BBEE, how much reaches poor households, and whether the policy measurably advances equality. I also ask Government to explain whether it is fair and rational to treat white South Africans less favourably because they are white and, if so, to publish the evidence and legal basis for doing so, with reference to section 9 of the Constitution and ICERD's limits on special measures. By signing, I also support the six questions above asking why racial classification should still outweigh actual present-day disadvantage.
Privacy
JusticeSA does not collect your race or IP address. Your email is used to prevent duplicate entries and only for updates when you opt in.
SEND THE OPEN LETTER
Put your support directly before the decision-makers.
The letter is addressed to the office of the Minister and the B-BBEE Commission. At publication in August 2026, the Minister is Mr Parks Tau.
To: The Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition; the B-BBEE Commission
Subject: Request for an independent B-BBEE beneficiary impact assessment
Dear Minister and Commission
B-BBEE is justified as a measure that advances equality and broad economic participation. The public should therefore have access to independent, disaggregated evidence showing who receives its benefits and whether it achieves its stated purpose.
We request that a credible independent institution assess the actual beneficiaries, the value and distribution of benefits, the impact on poor households, and the policy's effectiveness, necessity and proportionality. We also ask Government to answer explicitly whether it is fair and rational to treat white South Africans less favourably because they are white, and to publish the constitutional, international-law and evidence-based justification if its answer is yes.
Six questions we ask Government to answer separately:
- What evidence demonstrates that race remains a sufficiently accurate proxy for present-day disadvantage in 2026?
- Why should an affluent black male potentially receive remedial preference over an economically disadvantaged white male solely because of their racial classification?
- Has Government modelled alternatives based on actual disadvantage—income, household wealth, education, unemployment, geography or family circumstances—instead of, or alongside, race?
- What measurable outcomes will show that race-based remedial measures have achieved their purpose and can be reduced or ended?
- Why do the 2025 sector-target percentages explicitly exclude white males without disabilities rather than assessing each person's actual disadvantage?
- How does Government ensure that measures intended to advance people disadvantaged by unfair discrimination do not become permanent racial categories detached from present circumstances?
The full methodology, data, limitations and findings should be published, together with objective criteria for periodic review and reform. We respectfully request a written response addressing each numbered question separately within 30 calendar days of receipt.
Supporting research and sources: https://justicesa.com/en/campaign/show-us-the-evidence/evidence/where-white-south-africans-miss-out
Kind regards
FOUR SIMPLE ACTIONS
Sign. Share. Invite someone. Stay informed.
Sign
Add your name to the call for independent evidence.
Sign now →Share
Use the ready-written message or your phone's share button.
Invite one person
Send the campaign personally to someone who values evidence and equal treatment.
Stay informed
Join the JusticeSA email list. No account is required, and you can unsubscribe at any time with one click.
Keep me informed →MEDIA AND SUPPORTER KIT
Ready material for accurate reporting and discussion.
ACCURACY AND SAFETY
What this campaign says—and does not say.
The comparison is a model
It uses published totals and a custom three-group definition. It is not an official Stats SA or Momentum-Unisa classification.
Eligibility is not a cash payment
The campaign does not claim that every qualifying person receives the same benefit. That is precisely why beneficiary data is requested.
No harassment or intimidation
JusticeSA asks for peaceful, lawful and respectful participation. Do not target or threaten employees, beneficiaries or public officials.
Sources are public
The underlying population, wealth and B-BBEE sources are linked on the research page, with assumptions clearly marked.