With the remuneration disclosure provisions of the Companies Amendment Act still inoperative, wage gap transparency by the country’s largest listed companies is fragmented and inconsistent.
Inequality remains a deeply entrenched and enduring crisis in South Africa, driven in large part by the country’s exceptionally high levels of income and wealth disparity. JSE-listed companies frequently present themselves as committed to addressing this crisis and to upholding the principles of fair and responsible remuneration. However, most have not voluntarily disclosed vertical wage gaps ahead of the full implementation of the Companies Amendment Act.
Just Share’s latest briefing finds that only 15 companies in the JSE Top 40 disclosed vertical wage gap ratios in their 2024 reporting, and only 15 disclosed their internal minimum wage (the two sets of companies are not identical). This is a low number when the JSE’s own guidance documents recommend such disclosure, and sections 30A and 30B of the Companies Amendment Act will make it mandatory.
Of those companies disclosing their internal minimum wage, Shoprite Holdings was the lowest at R71,674 per annum, or approximately R5,972 per month.
Remgro Limited reported the highest disclosed internal minimum wage at R258,148.80 per annum (R21,512 per month), followed by Investec Limited and Impala Platinum Holdings Limited at R250,000 (R20,833 per month), and Harmony Gold at R228,432 (R19,036 per month).
Of the companies reporting in accordance with the Companies Amendment Act, Harmony Gold showed the smallest wage gap. Its top 5% of earners collectively earned R2.93 billion, while the bottom 5% earned R373 million, yielding a ratio of approximately 7.85 to 1. By contrast, Investec Limited disclosed the widest internal pay gap, with the top 5% of earners receiving more than 34 times the remuneration of the bottom 5%.
It is important to distinguish between the living wage and the minimum wage when analysing wage gap disclosures. A living wage is the level of pay that enables workers and their families to maintain a decent standard of living, including the ability to afford essential needs such as food, housing, healthcare, education, transport and clothing. The Living Wage South Africa Network’s 2022 proposed living wage was a minimum net income of R12,000 to R15,000 per month for a 40-hour working week.
By contrast, South Africa’s statutory minimum wage, currently set at R5,614 per month, or just under R67,368 per annum, is the lowest rate an employer can legally pay.
For context, the Household Affordability Index (compiled monthly by Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice and Dignity, PMBEJD) calculates the July 2025 average cost of a basic nutritional food basket for a family of four persons at R3 755,87.
With 23 working days in July, the maximum that a worker on minimum wage could earn is R5297,36. With the average wage supporting four people, “PMBEJD calculates that workers’ families will underspend on food by a minimum of 39,4%”, meaning that there is “no possibility”, after other essential costs, for a worker on minimum wage supporting four people to afford enough nutritious food for their family.
The Living Wage SA Network highlights that the amount earned by many low-income workers in South Africa, even when it exceeds the national minimum wage, often allows only for basic survival and keeps people trapped in poverty.
The Network argues for the importance of employers paying living wages to “maintain business sustainability, stability in society, and social and ethical responsibility”. By failing to pay a living wage, employers perpetuate low living standards and deny workers the opportunity to lead dignified lives, undermining both individual well-being and broader social progress.
Just Share’s briefing also highlights that South Africa has extremely high levels of executive pay, and that the lack of transparency and accountability in how executive pay is determined, conflicts of interest among those tasked with setting remuneration, and opaque, convoluted, overly complex reporting practices hinder meaningful scrutiny.
Once fully operational, the Companies Amendment Act will enable shareholders to push for meaningful reform. In the past, weak accountability mechanisms such as non-binding shareholder votes allowed companies to avoid scrutiny over excessive pay gaps. The success of the new legal framework will depend on whether investors choose to use their power as owners to demand more equitable and transparent remuneration practices.
