By Pam Yako
Follow the money in South Africa’s transition to a greener economy and you will find the decisions that matter most to women’s empowerment.
Who receives financing? Who owns the assets? Who wins the contracts? Who decides which skills are worth developing, which jobs are created and where? These questions deserve as much attention as the number of women attending a sustainability conference. Their answers will reveal whether we are widening economic opportunity or giving old patterns of exclusion a new industry in which to operate.
South Africa’s just transition is often discussed through the language of energy, infrastructure and investment. All are essential. But the choices behind them will determine whose businesses become viable, whose expertise becomes valuable and whose livelihoods become more secure.
Women must have authority over those choices.
In my experience across leadership and governance, organisations can be more comfortable inviting women into discussions than allowing them to shape the outcome. A woman may be visible in an institution without being influential within it. She may have a leadership title yet limited control over the resources needed to deliver. This distinction matters when we talk about building a more inclusive economy. Representation is necessary, but we should judge its substance by what women are empowered to decide.
Can they redirect investment? Challenge the assumptions behind a project? Influence who gets appointed or contracted? Insist that a community’s concerns change the plan? Those are practical tests of power.
The economic starting point makes them urgent. Statistics South Africa’s figures for the second quarter of 2026 put women’s official unemployment rate at 37.5%, compared with 30.3% for men. These inequalities will not disappear simply because the next investment is in cleaner technology.
A project can cut emissions and still exclude women from ownership. It can create jobs that women cannot realistically access. It can report extensive consultation while leaving the people consulted with little influence over its design. Environmental progress is essential. Its benefits must also be examined.
Take a proposed energy project in a community facing economic change. Long before the first job advertisement appears, its financing, ownership structure, procurement approach and skills requirements will begin to take shape.
If women enter the conversation only when recruitment or community engagement starts, they may be invited to participate in an economy whose terms have already been settled. The point of inclusion should come much earlier, while those terms are still open to negotiation.
Women need meaningful representation in the boards, investment committees and planning structures directing the transition. Women in affected communities also need accessible ways to influence decisions, with evidence that their contributions have been considered and explanations when their proposals are rejected. Inviting people to speak creates an obligation to listen while change is still possible.
For corporate leaders, this requires a different approach to developing talent. As a leadership coach, I know the value of helping women strengthen their confidence, judgement and ability to navigate complex institutions. But we must be honest about what coaching can achieve when access to responsibility remains restricted.
A woman cannot train her way past a succession process that consistently overlooks her. Nor can a mentor provide the operational experience that her employer refuses to entrust to her. Leadership development should lead somewhere identifiable: responsibility for a budget, a major assignment, a role in investment decisions or a credible path to executive leadership.
Senior leaders must be willing to sponsor that progression. That means backing a woman for a consequential role, giving her the resources to succeed and evaluating her fairly when the work becomes difficult. It also means accepting that women appointed to lead may make decisions that challenge the preferences of those who appointed them.
The same seriousness must extend to women-owned businesses.
Consider an entrepreneur invited to explore opportunities in a new green supply chain. She can attend the briefing and complete the supplier development programme. But if the contract requires working capital she cannot access, or payment terms her business cannot sustain, the opportunity exists largely on paper.
A company serious about participation would examine those conditions. Could contracts be structured so that capable smaller firms can compete? Could supplier finance address a specific funding gap? Could faster payment help a business fulfil its next order and employ more people? These are commercial decisions with direct consequences for empowerment. They belong in procurement and finance discussions, supported by executive authority.
Boards should insist on that connection between ambition and implementation. When management promises to train women, directors should ask what paid work the training will make possible. When a strategy promises opportunities for women-owned businesses, they should examine contract values and the conditions attached. When a project claims community support, they should ask what changed because the community was consulted.
Counting participation is a beginning. Understanding its consequences is the harder work of governance. Some will argue that energy security and economic growth must take precedence, with inclusion addressed once projects are operating. But early decisions can establish ownership and commercial relationships for years. Exclusion becomes harder to correct once the financing is agreed, the contracts are signed and the leadership team is in place.
Urgency should sharpen our attention to who benefits.
Women should not have to prove that they are inherently more caring or environmentally conscious to justify their leadership. Women bring expertise, judgement, ambition and experience. They have a right to help shape the economy in which they work and live. The responsibility now rests with those approving investments, appointing leaders and designing opportunities. Before endorsing another empowerment commitment, they should be able to identify the authority and resources that accompany it.
South Africa’s greener future is taking shape in today’s budgets, contracts and appointments. If women are absent from those decisions, we are already deciding how much of that future they will own.
Pam Yako is a Certified Executive and Women’s Coach, Since founding Zenande Leadership Consulting in 2019, she has focused on cultivating purpose-driven leadership that balances human development with environmental stewardship.
