No ghost towns from net-zero: Why South Africa needs a code of good practice on just transition

As we stay the course in the pursuit to a low-carbon, sustainable economy, our moral and competitiveness compass remain “the just transition”, only through which we can ensure that the shift is fair, mitigating negative job impacts while fostering decent work and social protection for affected workers and communities. A just transition aims to balance decarbonization with employment, particularly in high-emission sectors like coal mining, by prioritizing job creation, skill retraining, and economic diversification.

Underpinned by our global and domestic development goals, South Africa’s just transition can appropriately be defined as a national project to build a more inclusive, resilient, and dignified economy. Rooted in the Just Transition Framework, it recognises that climate action designed deliberately can create opportunities. By prioritising people centred decision making through distributive, procedural and restorative justice a just transition that strengthens livelihoods, deepens democracy, and forges economic renewal can be achieved.

In practice the just transition is currently unfolding and doing so unevenly and with murky rules for all within society.   Coal plants are closing, climate shocks are intensifying, global markets are shifting, and workers and communities are being asked to absorb the costs of change without adequate protection or predictability.

Through Practice – We must live the rules we make

South Africa does not lack good commitments and good intentions, what is missing in the process are binding tools and standards that can translate broad principles into practice. 

 South Africa has strong constitutional, legal and policy foundations for a just transition. The Just Transition Framework, the Climate Change Act, Labour Relations Act (LRA), skills policies, and sectoral master plans are all signals of intent. But intent alone does not protect workers facing retrenchment, communities confronting economic decline, or new workers entering new sectors, with insecure new jobs.

 As the recent legal and policy review prepared for the Presidential Climate Commission (PCC) makes clear the challenge is implementation—particularly ensuring distributive and procedural justice in the face of large-scale economic change.

The scale of the risk is stark. 100,000 coal miners, tens of thousands of workers in energy-intensive industries, and over a million workers in petroleum-based transport could be affected by mitigation policies and global decarbonisation trends. Climate impacts threaten livelihoods in agriculture and tourism, sectors dominated by low-paid, insecure, and often informal work. These risks are geographically concentrated, complex and politically sensitive. Left unmanaged, they will deepen unemployment, inequality and erode social stability and trust.

Previous economic transitions in mining, manufacturing, telecommunications, and agriculture produced job losses without adequate mitigation. The just transition differs only in one crucial respect: it is partly policy-driven and therefore carries a duty of care. When the state shifts the development path to meet climate goals and respond to global trends, it must also deliberately manage the consequences.

 This is where a Code of Good Practice becomes essential, and not alien in South African labour law, and as they were central in managing the democratic transition in the workplace—guiding fair dismissal, collective bargaining, employment equity, and HIV/AIDS responses.

Courts recognise them as repositories of agreed norms and values, giving them moral authority and, in some cases, legal weight. A Just Transition Code of Good Practice can serve a similar function: providing certainty, consistency, and legitimacy in a period of profound change.

Crucially, such a Code would not impose a one-size-fits-all solution as there are a number of sectors impacted by the transition. The legal review emphasises that the precise content of just transition interventions cannot be predetermined. What can be set out are minimum expectations: early warning, meaningful engagement, inclusive planning, and a package of support measures tailored to specific contexts. Although not part of South Africa’s decarbonisation plan but was decommissioned due to the end of its economic life, the experience of the Komati power station closure shows what happens when there is late engagement, limited regional integration, fragmented responsibility, and deep community frustration.

 We need to dispel anxiety in times of uncertainty and rapid change.

A Code can help avoid repeating these mistakes by embedding procedural justice at the level of the workplace. It can clarify who must be engaged, when, and on what basis; how and when information should be shared; and how workers and communities can engage on an equal footing. It can reinforce social dialogue as a governance tool, not a box-ticking exercise.

Equally important, a Just Transition Code of Good Practice can guide distributive justice. The review maps a wide range of interventions already available in South Africa—public employment services, skills development, income support, social protection, enterprise development, and occupational health measures. What is lacking is coherence. A Code can knit these instruments together, signalling how severance, retraining, unemployment insurance, relocation support, and job placement should work as a package rather than in piecemeal manner.

International experience strengthens this case. Countries that have managed transitions well—such as Spain, Germany, and Canada—did so through negotiated frameworks that combined income support, skills pathways, regional development, and ongoing social dialogue. These frameworks did not eliminate conflict, but they reduced uncertainty and built social acceptance. The International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) Just Transition Guidelines point in the same direction: co-ordination, anticipation and inclusion are not optional extras; they are preconditions for success.

Some may argue that a Code risks slowing down the transition or burdening employers. The opposite is more likely true. Predictable processes and standards reduce conflict, litigation, and resistance. Employers benefit from clearer expectations; workers benefit from transparency; and government benefits from legitimacy. As the review notes, transitions that are perceived as unfair or chaotic ultimately undermine climate goals themselves.

Lebogang Mulaisi, Executive Manager: Research and Policy at the Presidential Climate Commission.

*** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL.

BUSINESS REPORT