In a world of increasing complexity — rising costs, evolving technology, and growing external pressure — the message from the 2026 Large Herds Conference was surprisingly simple:
The farms that succeed are not the ones doing more; they are the ones doing the right things consistently and doing them well.
This case study is based on a Pinion client using real production and financial data. Names and locations have been withheld for confidentiality. Sometimes the biggest gains are already sitting inside the business When farmers hear the word “benchmarking”, they often assume it is only useful for struggling businesses. But in reality, benchmarking can be even more valuable on farms that are already performing well – because it helps uncover opportunities that are otherwise easy to miss in day-to-day management. That was exactly the case on a mixed livestock farm in the Eastern Cape. The business was already profitable, biologically efficient and well managed. Reproduction figures were strong, direct costs were controlled, and the farm was operating close to its grazing capacity. On the surface, there was very little that looked “wrong”. But once the numbers were unpacked at enterprise level, benchmarking revealed something important. The boer goat enterprise was consistently outperforming the cattle enterprise on several key profitability and efficiency measures – despite making up only a very small part of the overall system. That finding raised a bigger strategic question: Was the farm’s natural resource base being used in the most profitable and resilient way possible? A strong farming business formed the baseline The farm operates under extensive conditions and runs a combination of: The reporting year received approximately 450mm of rainfall, slightly below the long-term average. Even under those conditions, the business delivered strong results. With a total stocking rate of approximately 1,400 LSU and grazing capacity already close to fully utilised, this was not a case of unused capacity waiting to be filled. In fact, benchmarking confirmed that management quality across the business was already high. The cattle herd showed excellent reproductive performance: Under extensive conditions, figures like these generally indicate: The business also showed: That strong foundation is exactly what made the next discovery so significant. The benchmark revealed that goats were “punching above their weight” At the time of the analysis, approximately: That split is fairly common in many Eastern Cape and Karoo systems. However, once enterprise-level benchmarking was done, a very different picture emerged. Across multiple measurements, the boer goat enterprise consistently outperformed the cattle enterprise. The goats generated stronger: Importantly, the same pattern appeared across several different benchmarking methods, which strengthened confidence in the finding. Per LSU: Per hectare: Per kg product: Taken together, the numbers all pointed in the same direction: the goat enterprise was extracting more value from the resources allocated to it. Why this matters Although goats occupied only a small share of the system, they were producing disproportionately strong returns. The table below helps explain why. Beef cattle Boer goats Sales as % of enterprise GPV 59% 52% GPV as % of total GPV 64% 7% Direct costs as % of enterprise GPV 18% 14% Gross margin as % of total GPV 91% 7% Gross production value (GPV) is the total value of production generated by an enterprise before direct costs are deducted. In a livestock enterprise, this includes the value of animals or products sold, together with changes in inventory value where relevant. Direct costs are the costs directly linked to running that specific enterprise and gross margin is what remains after those direct costs are deducted from GPV. In simple terms: Cattle still dominated total farm income because they occupied most of the grazing system. But the benchmark suggested that goats may actually have been under allocated relative to the value they were producing. For us, that is a very important distinction. The issue was not that the cattle enterprise was weak. The issue was that the goat enterprise appeared exceptionally efficient relative to the grazing capacity allocated to it. The biological reason behind the goat advantage The opportunity was not only financial – it was ecological as well. The benchmark highlighted an important biological reality of mixed veld systems: That difference becomes highly relevant in semi-arid environments where a large portion of the available feed resource exists above the grass layer. Goats are able to utilize shrubs, woody species, bush encroachment, forbs and browse material. These are feed resources that cattle often underutilise. As a result, mixed grazer-browser systems can often: This was one of the most important findings of the benchmark. On paper, the farm already appeared close to full grazing capacity. But benchmarking suggested the system may still have been underutilising part of its available feed resource – specifically browse. In other words, the opportunity was not necessarily about running more animals. It was about running a better mix of animals. Scenario modelling explored what a different livestock mix could achieve To test the possible upside, scenario modelling was done using an alternative livestock allocation. The exercise explored what could happen if the enterprise mix shifted from and to: Importantly, this was not presented as a recommendation to suddenly replace cattle with goats overnight. It was simply a strategic modelling exercise designed to test how a larger browsing component might affect whole-farm performance. What the numbers showed: The current system runs: Under the model: This effectively replaces approximately 345 cattle LSU with 345 goat LSU. The financial logic behind the model: The benchmark showed: On gross margin per LSU basis: On a net farm income per LSU basis: Once this difference was applied across the proposed LSU shift, the projected gain became meaningful. The modelling estimated that: There was also a financing benefit. Reducing cattle numbers could potentially release enough capital to reduce the farm’s overdraft by around 40%. At an 11% interest rate, this could save approximately R165,000 per year in interest. After allowing for an additional R75,000 contingency for extra goat-related management costs. The overall net farm income was projected to increase by approximately 10%, improving both profitability and cash flow. For a business that was already profitable, that is significant. The transition would need to be phased The model also highlighted the capital implications of such a shift. Selling 345 cattle units at approximately R18,000-R22,000 each could release
Understanding the New Physical Agents Regulations: What Employers Need to Know The Physical Agents Regulations, which came into effect on 6 March 2025, is set to replace the Environmental Regulations for Workplaces after an 18‑month transition period. These new regulations modernise how workplaces identify, measure, and control exposure to various physical agents that could cause injury or illness. Below is a practical, easy‑to‑digest summary of what the new legislation requires and how businesses can prepare. What Are Physical Agents? A physical agent is any energy source that may harm employees through exposure. The new Regulations outline several key occupational stressors: Indoor air quality is included because it is directly influenced by physical energy sources such as ventilation, heating, cooling, filtration, and airflow systems. A Programme-Based Approach A major shift in the new Regulations is the requirement for a Physical Agents programme-based approach—a structured, ongoing process integrated into an organisation’s existing occupational health and safety management system. This programme must: 1. Anticipating Exposure Competent Person Requirements Exposure monitoring must be performed by a competent person—as defined in the Regulations—who has: This person must be registered as an Approved Inspection Authority (AIA) with the Department of Employment and Labour and may or may not be the same person who conducted the exposure risk assessment. Monitoring Equipment All equipment used to monitor physical agents must: 2. Identifying Hazards: Conducting an Exposure Risk Assessment The employer is responsible for ensuring the workplace remains healthy and safe. A thorough exposure risk assessment must include: Steps in the assessment: When should assessments be reviewed? At least every two years, or sooner if: 3. Analysing Exposure Results Once monitoring is complete, the findings must be evaluated. Employers should: When is exposure a problem? When it exceeds Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs). The Regulations (see link below) include detailed tables—here are the key limits: Thermal Stress (table 1) Illumination (table 4) Indoor Air Quality (table 3) Vibration (table 1) Non‑ionising Radiation (table 1) Electromagnetic fields 4. Controlling Exposure to Physical Agents Once risks are identified, the employer must implement controls. The action plan should address: Final Thoughts The Physical Agents Regulations bring significant changes, emphasising proactive, integrated risk management. By developing a comprehensive Physical Agents programme and ensuring all competency, monitoring, and control requirements are met, employers can protect their workforce and comply with the new legislation. Click here to read the full OHS Act, 1993 (Act no. 85 of 1993) Physical Agents Regulations and view all tables referred to above. For more information, visit our website or contact ohs@pinionza.com.
South Africa’s livestock farming industry remains a cornerstone of the agricultural economy, particularly in areas where cropping is not viable. Yet, for many livestock farm producers, the operating environment has become noticeably tougher in recent years. Disease outbreaks such as foot‑and‑mouth disease, increasing climate variability, global geopolitical tensions and rising input costs are all placing pressure on farm profitability. Many of these challenges are outside a farmer’s direct control, but their impact is felt very clearly at farm level – through higher costs, disrupted markets and increased uncertainty around long‑term planning. In response, more producers are turning their attention to the areas they can control. Data‑driven tools such as benchmarking are increasingly being used to understand how a business is performing relative to similar farms, and where practical improvements can be made. In an environment where margins are tight and risk is elevated, focusing on efficiency, productivity and informed decision‑making is becoming essential for building resilience in livestock farming businesses. The importance of the livestock sector Livestock farming plays a major role in South Africa’s agricultural economy, especially in regions where cropping simply isn’t an option. Large parts of the country are better suited to grazing, and livestock turn natural veld into real value product such as beef, milk, wool and income for thousands of farming families. In many rural communities, livestock farming isn’t just another sector – it’s the main economic driver that keeps people employed and local businesses moving. Livestock type Estimated population Cattle ~12 million Sheep ~21 million Goats ~5 million Table 1: Estimated livestock numbers in South Africa These numbers highlight the scale of the industry. Millions of cattle, sheep and goats help feed the nation, support local processors and create opportunities all along the value chain – from farmworkers and feed suppliers to transporters and auctioneers. Despite its importance, livestock production is increasingly exposed to a range of external pressures that farmers cannot easily control. Disease outbreaks, climate variability, global market disruptions and rising input costs all influence farm performance and profitability. These factors create uncertainty for producers and make long-term planning more difficult. However, while many of these pressures cannot be controlled, farmers can improve how efficiently their businesses operate. FMD and biosecurity – the biggest immediate risk Disease outbreaks remain one of the most significant risks facing livestock farming producers. In South Africa, foot‑and‑mouth disease (FMD) has become the most pressing biosecurity challenge in recent years. The resurgence of FMD has had direct consequences for both farm‑level production and access to key export markets. While FMD does not typically result in high mortality in adult animals, its impact is felt through reduced productivity – including lower milk yields, weight loss and reproductive setbacks. For many producers the biggest risk lies beyond the farm gate. FMD outbreaks trigger immediate trade restrictions, limiting access to export markets and placing downward pressure on livestock prices across the value chain. With outbreaks now reported across all provinces, the scale of the challenge has increased significantly. Indicator Impact Beef export decline ~ 25% drop in 2025 Beef exports to China ~ 70% decrease Estimated annual export loss ~ R5.5 billion Dairy losses per affected cow ~ R5 000 Table 2: Economic impact of FMD on South Africa’s livestock industry These disruptions extend well beyond individual farms. Reduced export volumes, particularly to major markets such as China, have contributed to revenue losses across the red‑meat and dairy industries. Resulting in more uncertainty for producers, processors and exporters, making long‑term planning more difficult at every level of the supply chain. South Africa has strengthened its response by adopting a vaccination‑focused strategy to control outbreaks and work toward regaining disease‑free status. Alongside vaccination, improvements in traceability, animal‑movement control and every day on farm biosecurity are becoming increasingly important. For livestock farming producers, maintaining strong biosecurity is no longer optional – it is essential for managing production risk and protecting access to key markets. Climate and environmental pressure Climate remains one of the biggest uncertainties in livestock farming. Rainfall in South Africa has always been irregular, and when conditions change, farmers feel it immediately. A dry spell means reduced grazing, more pressure on camps and higher feed costs. Even in favourable seasons, conditions can shift quickly, making forward planning challenging. Large‑scale climate patterns like El Niño and La Niña add another layer of uncertainty. La Niña usually brings better rain for summer‑rainfall areas – something many farmers benefited from in the 2025-2026 season. But these cycles don’t last. As La Niña fades, conditions return to normal, and the coming winter is expected to be drier. Recent reports indicate early signs are pointing to a possible El Niño developing for the 2026-2027 season, which could mean below‑average rainfall and tighter grazing pressure. For livestock farming operations, this all comes down to flexibility. As veld conditions shift, management must adapt. Stocking decisions, grazing rotations, feed planning and water availability all become critical levers. And because no farmer can control the weather, knowing your numbers and understanding what’s realistic for your environment, becomes one of the best tools for staying ahead of climate pressure. Rising production costs Rising input costs have become one of the biggest pressure points for livestock farmers. Feed, fuel, transport, labour and veterinary expenses have all increased in recent years, tightening margins across different production systems. For extensive operations, where profitability relies on efficient land use and careful grazing management, these cost increases are particularly challenging. Global uncertainty is also contributing to rising production costs. Ongoing instability in the Middle East has raised concerns about disruptions to global energy and fertiliser supply. This has major effects on farm production as diesel drives almost every part of a farming operation – from transport and water pumps to daily fieldwork. When fuel and oil prices rise, both production and logistics become more expensive. Fertiliser is another major pressure point, as South Africa imports the bulk of what it needs, which means local prices rise quickly when the global market is unstable. Fertiliser
Encouraging Employer Compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993. Compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993 (OHS Act) is often seen as a legislative obligation. However, when applied effectively, the Act and its regulations enhance operational efficiency, reduce losses, and strengthen employee performance. By viewing regulatory requirements as practical management tools, employers can meet legal duties while supporting — and often improving — overall productivity. Employer Duties in Practice: Section 8 of the OHS Act Section 8 requires employers to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure a working environment that is safe and without risk to health. 1. Hazard Identification and Risk Mitigation — Section 8(2)(a) Examples: 2. Information, Instruction, Training & Supervision — Section 8(2)(e) Examples: Incident Reporting: Sections 24 & 25 of the OHS Act Employers must report and investigate incidents and near misses. Reportable incidents must be submitted to the Compensation Commissioner within 7 days. Productivity benefit:Investigations identify root causes and reinforce preventative measures. Learning from near misses reduces the likelihood of major incidents and production disruptions. General Safety Regulations: Foundations for Daily Compliance These universal regulations are often the most practical entry point for influencing compliance. Hazardous Chemical Agents Regulations: Protecting Health and Supporting Efficiency Employers must: Productivity advantage:Improved handling reduces spills, corrosion, illness, and equipment damage — all of which impact production efficiency. Noise-Induced Hearing Loss Regulations: Preserving Long-Term Workforce Capacity Employers must: Benefit:Prevention reduces compensation claims and preserves the skills and capacity of experienced workers. Driven Machinery Regulations: Preventing High-Impact Incidents Requirements include: Operational benefit:Compliance prevents serious incidents that lead to prolonged shutdowns, investigations, and costly repairs. Construction Regulations: Planning for Safe, Efficient Project Delivery These regulations require: Productivity impact:Effective planning reduces delays, prevents stoppages, and improves coordination, resulting in smoother project execution. Role of Health and Safety Representatives and Committees Sections 17–20 require the appointment of representatives and committees where applicable. Practical benefits: Employer advantage:Demonstrating proactive compliance reduces enforcement pressure from authorities. Consequences of Non-Compliance: Enforcement Mechanisms The OHS Act provides several enforcement tools: A single prohibition notice can halt production entirely, underscoring the financial importance of proactive compliance. Building a Culture of Continuous Improvement Sustainable compliance depends on active workforce participation. Key strategies: This approach aligns legal compliance with operational excellence, creating a resilient and productive organisation. Compliance with the OHS Act 85 of 1993 is not merely a legal requirement — it is a strategic advantage. By integrating regulations into daily operations, employers create safer, more efficient, and more profitable workplaces. Prevention reduces disruptions, liabilities, and costs, transforming compliance into a business asset rather than an obligation. For more information, visit our website or contact ohs@pinionza.com.
The 2026 South African Budget Speech introduced a range of tax and allowance adjustments affecting individuals, small businesses, and companies. Below is a clear summary of the confirmed changes that are most relevant to taxpayers and business owners. VAT and Business Registration Thresholds To ease the administrative burden on smaller enterprises, the VAT registration thresholds have been significantly increased: These changes aim to reduce compliance pressure on smaller businesses and growing enterprises. Capital Gains Tax (CGT) Adjustments Several CGT relief measures were announced: Personal Income Tax and Rebates Medical Aid Tax Credits Medical aid tax credits were increased as follows: Subsistence and Travel Allowances Corporate and Investment Taxation Tax-free Savings and Retirement Funding Fuel Levies and Sin Taxes Effective from 1 April 2026, fuel levies will increase: Excise duties on alcohol and tobacco were increased in line with inflation. Offshore Investment Allowance The Foreign Discretionary Allowance was doubled from R1 million to R2 million per year, enabling greater offshore investment and diversification opportunities. LINK TO FULL BUDGET SPEECH – speech.pdf LINK TO SARS 2026 TAX GUIDE – Budget 2026 Tax guide.pdf Contact us at info@pinionza.com or visit our website for more information.
In today’s rapidly evolving corporate landscape, organisations are subject to increasing scrutiny from regulators, investors, employees, and broader society. In South Africa, this scrutiny is shaped by the Companies Act 71 of 2008, together with leading governance standards such as the King IV™ Report on Corporate Governance. The Legal and Secretarial Department at Pinion SA, plays a pivotal role in ensuring that the organisation not only complies with statutory and regulatory requirements, but also demonstrates ethical and effective leadership. At the heart of this responsibility lies corporate governance—the framework through which a company is directed, managed, and held accountable. Corporate governance is more than a compliance exercise. It is recognised as a value creation and sustainability enabler, influencing decision-making, Shareholder and/or stakeholder confidence, organisational performance, and long-term resilience. When applied effectively, good governance strengthens reputation, builds trust, and embeds a culture of integrity throughout the organisation. “Good governance isn’t just a legal requirement—it is a key differentiator between sustainable organisations and those exposed to strategic, regulatory, and reputational risk.” Understanding Corporate Governance Corporate governance refers to the systems, processes, and relationships through which an organisation is governed and controlled. It determines how authority is exercised, how decisions are made, and how accountability is ensured between shareholders, the board of directors, management, and other stakeholders. King IV™ defines corporate governance as the exercise of ethical and effective leadership by the governing body in pursuit of: Core Corporate Governance Principles The following principles underpin effective governance in South Africa: 1. Accountability Directors and executives must be answerable for their decisions, actions, and oversight. The board is ultimately accountable to the company and, by extension, its shareholders, for the organisation’s performance and conduct, as required under the Companies Act. 2. Transparency Transparent reporting and open communication enable shareholders and /or stakeholders to make informed assessments of the organisation’s governance, performance, and prospects. 3. Fairness Good governance requires equitable treatment of shareholders and consideration of legitimate stakeholder interests. This principle supports ethical leadership, prevents conflicts of interest, and reinforces trust in corporate decision-making. 4. Responsibility Boards and management have a duty to ensure compliance with applicable laws, internal policies, and ethical standards. Challenges in Modern Corporate Governance Today’s governance environment is more complex than ever. Organisations must manage: To meet these challenges, our legal and secretarial team can help clients set up governance frameworks that protect assets, improve decision-making, and reduce risk. Why Corporate Governance Matters at Pinion SA Strong corporate governance is essential not only for legal compliance, but for positioning the organisation as a responsible, efficient, and forward-thinking business. A well-designed governance framework supports sustainable growth, informed decision-making, and effective risk management. Sound governance practices help organisations to: By embedding governance principles into its operational and strategic processes, Pinion SA is better equipped to navigate regulatory change, market uncertainty, and evolving stakeholder expectations. The Role of the Legal and Secretarial Department at Pinion SA Our Legal and Secretarial Department supports strong corporate governance by ensuring that company records are properly maintained and that ongoing corporate compliance requirements are met. The department attends to the practical and administrative aspects of compliance with the Companies Act and related governance obligations. This function supports board and shareholder processes, assists with the preparation and maintenance of statutory documentation, and helps ensure that company records are accurate, current, and well managed. Through these services, the Legal and Secretarial Department contributes to effective governance, supports sound decision-making, and helps ensure that company affairs are conducted in a structured, compliant, and professional manner. How Pinion SA can help you Corporate governance is not a once off exercise—it is an ongoing commitment to ethical leadership, accountability, and sustainable value creation. For Pinion SA, effective governance provides a strong foundation for resilience, credibility, and long-term success. By continuously strengthening governance structures and practices, the company can confidently operate within South Africa’s legal framework while meeting the expectations of stakeholders in an increasingly complex corporate environment. If you are ready to take your business or farm to the next level and keep it strong, Pinion SA is here to support you. Contact us today to strengthen your governance framework and build a sustainable future. 📧 info@pinionza.com🌐 Visit our website for more information.
When compliance stops being background noise For years, COIDA sat quietly in the background. Employers registered, submitted returns, and carried on with business. Unless a serious injury occurred, it rarely demanded attention. That has changed. Most of the 2026 amendments commenced on 23 January 2026, with specific provisions following on 1 February 2026 and 1 April 2026. What was once a largely administrative regime now carries real-world enforcement, sharper timelines, and penalties that actually bite. COIDA is no longer passive, and employers can no longer afford to be either. What’s changed—and why it matters 1. Longer window to claim (and more exposure for you) Employees now have three years to lodge an injury or disease claim (up from a year in practice), meaning poorly recorded or unresolved incidents can resurface long after they occurred, creating avoidable compliance and financial exposure. If your incident capture and record‑keeping are weak, your risk profile just went up. 2. Coverage is broader and explicit Including subcontractors and domestic workers COIDA applies wherever someone works for you, including domestic workers. Using subcontractors doesn’t insulate you: if a contractor (or their subs) isn’t COIDA‑compliant, responsibility can shift back to the party who arranged the work. There are no remaining grey areas: if work is performed for you, you carry COIDA exposure unless you’ve checked (and can prove) everyone’s status. COIDA exposure must be understood and managed. 3. Reporting deadlines and penalties are now real COIDA has moved away from rarely used criminal sanctions and now relies on administrative penalties that are easier to impose and more likely to be enforced. Fail to report an accident to the Commissioner within 7 days and you face an administrative penalty of 10% of actual or estimated annual earnings for that year. Knowingly fail to report within 7 days, and you can be hit with a penalty equal to the full amount of compensation payable plus interest from the date of the accident. Refuse to provide requested additional information and the 10% penalty applies again. What once felt like paperwork now carries real consequences and paperwork delays are now expensive. 4. Inspections have teeth (and can happen anytime) Inspectors have wider powers to enter workplaces, examine and copy records, require disclosures, issue compliance orders, and escalate to the Labour Court. COIDA compliance can now be assessed even without a triggering incident. Treat yourself as “always audit‑ready.” 5. Transport you organise can trigger liability Employer-arranged transport, including informal lifts or regular pick-ups, can trigger COIDA exposure and may arise from pick‑up to drop‑off: coverage starts when the employee arrives at the employer‑designated pick‑up point and ends at the employer‑designated drop‑off. If you provide lifts or run shuttles, your “workday risk” might begin long before the clock does. 6. Road accidents and the RAF—clearer boundaries The amendment of Number 18 – section 36 – subsection (5) expressly excludes the Road Accident Fund (RAF) from being treated as a “third party” against whom the Compensation Fund or a licensed insurer may claim recoupment of damages or compensation paid under the Act. Also, subsection (6) states that an employee is not entitled to COIDA benefits where a road accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The lines are drawn to prevent double‑dipping and to focus on work‑related causation. 7. Medical reports and reimbursement Where an employee obtains a medical report at their own expense under the relevant section, the Compensation Fund, acting through the Commissioner, is responsible for reimbursing the full cost once the report is received and accepted. In practice, however, the employer remains procedurally involved: the report must be linked to a valid COIDA claim, supported by the required accident and employment documentation, and properly submitted into the claim process. Budget, process and documentation should anticipate this. 8. Record‑keeping is now a protection tool (and a penalty risk) Employers must retain all required COIDA-related records for five years and produce them on request. Failure brings a penalty of 10% of the actual or estimated annual assessment for the period you failed to keep records. Incomplete files are no longer minor oversights—they’re liabilities. 9. Compensation decisions aren’t “once and done” For permanent disability, the Commissioner may review claims at any time (as contemplated under section 90). Expect more active post‑award oversight. 10. “Earnings” definition is changing—watch the commencement The amended definition of “earnings” is aligned to the Income Tax Act’s Fourth Schedule, but that specific change has not yet commenced. When it does, it will materially affect assessments, compensation calculations and how penalties are computed. Track this closely to prevent downstream recalculations. 11. Rehabilitation and return‑to‑work are expected, not optional The Act’s emphasis on rehabilitation, reintegration and modified duties is clear. Employers are expected to cooperate in rehabilitation and actively support a safe return to work where reasonably possible—across temporary and permanent injuries. Build this into your IOD workflow. 12. Mandators and contractors—no more grey zones The amendments clarify mandators (principals) and contractors/sub‑contractors: ensure all are registered with the Compensation Fund. An employer may pay on behalf of mandators/contractors and then recover those amounts. Principal contractors must verify downstream compliance before a spade hits the ground. What will affect your IOD procedures the most What employers should be doing now At a minimum, employers should: If these have not been reviewed since the amendments, compliance is likely lagging behind the law. Appendix: commencement map (high level) Note on “earnings”: The amendment aligning the COIDA “earnings” definition with the Income Tax Act (Fourth Schedule) has not yet commenced—track the official notice to know when to switch your calculations. How Pinion helps COIDA is louder now, and “we’ll sort it out when it happens” is a costly strategy. Pinion helps employers stay ahead of enforcement with practical systems that withstand inspections: stronger OHS controls to reduce incidents, structured injury and rehabilitation management to cut downtime, and COIDA processes that hold up under scrutiny—reporting timelines, record‑keeping, contractor checks and transport risk included. Pinion also supports employers with input into COIDA-related
Staying on top of SARS tax & regulatory due dates is essential to avoid penalties, interest, and compliance headaches. Below is your practical, plain English calendar covering what each deadline is, why it matters, when it’s due for the 2026/2027 cycle, where to submit, and what happens if you miss it. Quick note on years: Monthly & Bimonthly Compliance (All Year) PAYE (EMP201) submissions & payments VAT — Manual submissions & payments VAT — Electronic (eFiling) submissions & payments Excise duties (Customs & Excise) Provisional Tax (Individuals – PIT) for the 2026 tax year (1 Mar 2025 – 28 Feb 2026) Below are the standard due dates for a February yearend; if your year-end differs, see CIT/PIT general rule next section. Provisional Tax (Companies – CIT) — General rule for any approved yearend Quarter Markers (useful for planning) End of 24/25 Financial Year Start of 25/26 Financial Year Annual Filing Season — Individuals (ITR12) & Trusts (ITR12T) Start of Filing Season 2026 (Individuals) Start of Filing Season 2026 for Trusts (ITR12T) End of Filing Season 26 for Individuals End of Filing Season (general reminder) What & why: SARS announces the official “end of filing season” dates each year (nonprovisional vs provisional). For 2025, nonprovisional closed 20 Oct 2025; provisional/trusts closed 19 Jan 2026—a useful pattern for planning 2026. [sars.gov.za], [fullviewco.za] Employment and Skills Reporting Employer Interim Reconciliation (EMP501) submission deadline Employment Equity (EE) Reporting Consequences of Non-Compliance with EE Legislation Failure to comply with Employment Equity requirements may result in: Skills Development Reporting (WSP and ATR) Benefits of Submitting WSP and ATR on Time Submitting both reports by the required deadline allows employers to: Risks of Not Submitting Skills Development Reports If WSP and ATR submissions are not completed by the deadline: Submission Process and SETA Allocation Examples of Common SETAs COIDA Return of Earnings (ROE) – 2026 Overview According to the latest available guidance on South Africa’s Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA), the 2026 Return of Earnings (ROE) submission is expected to follow the standard annual process applied in previous years. Important note: The information below is aligned with patterns from the 2025/2026 submission cycle. As the official Government Gazette for 2026 is usually issued early in the year, employers should treat these requirements as indicative rather than final. 1. Important Dates 2. Required ROE Information Employers are required to complete and submit the W.As.8 Return of Earnings form, which includes the following details: 3. Financial Thresholds (Expected for 2025/2026) 4. Submission Process 5. Documentation and Information Needed To ensure a successful submission, employers should have the following available: Disclaimer Employers are strongly encouraged to verify final submission dates, thresholds, and requirements by consulting the Department of Employment and Labour or a qualified professional advisor once the official 2026 Government Gazette is released. POPIA & PAIA Compliance POPI Compliance (Protection of Personal Information Act) POPIA requires organisations to lawfully collect, process, store, and protect personal information. Compliance is ongoing and should be reviewed annually. Key compliance requirements: Where registration is done: Information Regulator eServices Portal (IO & DIO registration and status) Why annual reviews are essential: Failure to comply can lead to: PAIA Annual Report Submissions (Promotion of Access to Information Act) All public and private bodies must submit an annual PAIA report to the Information Regulator — even if no information requests were received. Failure to submit can lead to: Additional “Don’t Miss” Dates CIT Provisional Tax Payments (for Feb yearend companies) within 2026/2027 cycle Employer Annual Reconciliation (EMP501) Penalties & Consequences — Summary Cheat Sheet “Where to Submit” — One page routing Pro Tips for you and your team Legislative Reference Income tax Act Section 67 Effective February 2026, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) will apply Section 67 of the Income Tax Act with no exceptions. Employers will be required to include valid Income Tax Reference Numbers for every employee, who is liable to pay tax or have PAYE deducted, when submitting their PAYE reconciliations. If an employee is below the tax threshold, a valid tax number is not necessary for them in order to file the EMP501 return. Any reconciliation files that do not contain these numbers will be declined, and employers who fail to comply will face administrative penalties, as the previously applied leniency has been discontinued. Section 67 Compliance Requirements for 2026 This enforcement forms part of SARS’s broader initiative to improve accuracy, strengthen compliance, and enhance data integrity across PAYE reporting systems. Ready to Take Control of Your Compliance? Contact us today! info@pinionza.com 🌐 https://www.pinionafrica.com Disclaimer: The information contained below is provided for general information purposes only and is subject to change in accordance with updates issued by the relevant authorities. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, we make no representations or warranties of any kind regarding the completeness or reliability of the information. We accept no liability for any errors, omissions, or for any loss or damage arising from reliance placed on the information provided.
Introduction The 2024/2025 Livestock Benchmarking exercise, covering farms across the Eastern Cape, provides a snapshot of a year that rewarded resilience in South African livestock production. The farms in this study are extensive, operating under a wide range of production systems and environments, from 450 mm to 840 mm rainfall areas and stocking rates stretching from 6 ha/LSU to 2 ha/LSU. Over the July 2024 to June 2025 period, farmers navigated rising input costs, seasonal variability, and shifting market dynamics, all while broader economic and geopolitical conditions added further uncertainty. Despite these challenges, many operations leaned into the fundamentals by aligning stocking rates with pasture availability, improving veld utilisation, tightening cost structures, and maintaining reproductive performance under variable seasonal conditions. At the same time, industry conversations continued to emphasise the importance of collaboration, data driven decision making, and building systems that remain profitable under pressure. Alongside overall trends, we benchmark against the top performers on return on total assets (ROTA) and cost of production (COP), as these farms illustrate what is achievable when efficiency, grazing management, and disciplined cost control align. This approach highlights not only what is typical across extensive livestock systems, but also what is possible. Livestock benchmarking acts as a business health check, offering an independent review of both physical and financial performance. In this report, we unpack the key trends revealed in the 2024/2025 results and explore what they mean for livestock businesses planning ahead. “The analysis was comprehensive and highlighted a few blind spots. The data shows clearly where to improve, and the study group continues to give us valuable aiming points.” Physical KPIs: What Drives Performance Physical performance indicators show how effectively livestock farms convert their resources into saleable product (meat and fibre). In the 2024/2025 livestock benchmarking cycle, participating farms operated across diverse landscapes, rainfall zones, and grazing capacities. This variation makes physical livestock benchmarking essential for identifying which systems use their resources most efficiently, and for understanding why some operations consistently outperform others under similar environmental constraints. Key metrics we measured: *Per 100mm Water metrics account for different rainfall zones for each farm What we saw: Overall, the results show that the biggest shifts in physical performance came from improvements in stocking rate, pasture harvest, and product produced per hectare. Reproduction remained steady across the group and did not materially drive the gap between average and top performers. Its impact is more delayed, with gains or losses only reflected in the next season’s stocking, output, and financial returns. As a result, the strongest performers this year were those who managed grazing pressure, utilized more pasture, and converted that feed more efficiently into product. These physical efficiencies are not just operational wins, they form part of the foundation for profitable livestock farming. In the next section, we explore how these factors translate into financial performance. Financial KPIs: A Year of Improved Margins Financial performance in 2024/2025 showed a clear strengthening across the group, supported by higher income and disciplined cost management. Despite rising input costs in several categories, most farms expanded gross margin, improved Earnings Before Interest and Tax (EBIT) per LSU and per hectare and delivered stronger returns on capital than the previous year. Benchmarking against the top 25% of both high-return and lowest-cost producers highlights how operational efficiency and cost discipline combined to reward resilience in extensive livestock systems. *Top 25% refers to the lowest cost of production farms in the 2024/2025 benchmarking group. What we saw: Conclusion As South African livestock farmers continue to navigate rising input costs, climatic variability, and shifting market conditions, livestock benchmarking remains far more than a comparative exercise, it is a strategic management tool. The most consistent performers in this year’s study were farms that executed their production system with discipline, adapted proactively, and aligned decisions with their resource base. This year’s results reaffirm that efficiency, resilience, and land use optimisation are the cornerstones of long-term success in extensive livestock systems. Gains in stocking rate, pasture harvest, and kilograms produced per hectare, combined with disciplined cost structures, drove meaningful improvements in profitability. Importantly, the top performers were spread across a variety of rainfall zones, veld types, and enterprise mixes. What unites them is not their environment, but their ability to consistently implement fundamentals: matching stocking rate to grazing capacity, utilising more of their pasture, converting that pasture into saleable product, maintaining reproductive performance and managing costs relative to output. Looking ahead, continuous learning, open collaboration, and a willingness to test one’s assumptions will be critical in unlocking fresh opportunities. With uncertainty becoming a constant, livestock benchmarking offers a clear, objective lens to guide planning, sharpen execution, and track progress year on year. Take the next step and contact us: We welcome your feedback and if you would like a customised livestock benchmarking report, deeper analysis of your physical or financial KPIs, or support in refining your grazing or business strategy, please reach out to our team. Together, we can build livestock enterprises that are more competitive, more resilient, and better prepared for the seasons ahead. Visit our website or contact info@pinionza.com for more information.
