The back to school season has over the years increasingly been marked by a public outcry from parents who have raised concerns about the soaring costs of school uniforms and learning materials.
These rising expenses highlight a crucial issue: whether the governance structures at schools, particularly the SGBs, are doing enough to ensure that school procurement processes are transparent, competitive, and in the best interest of parents and learners, and whether they are failing to safeguard against unfair pricing practices.
While society continue to navigate the creation of accessible, affordable and inclusive school uniform market, the Competition Commission has long been an advocate for driving compliance with the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (as amended).
Through this advocacy approach, we have been able to enhance competition in the procurement of school uniform and learning-related goods and services. These efforts aim to increase competition in the market and to provide parents and learners with more choices, ensuring that they are not compelled to purchase school uniforms exclusively from selected suppliers.
Since 2010, the commission had been receiving complaints about schools that had signed exclusive supply agreements with specific selected suppliers of school uniform. These supply agreements were entered into without any transparent, or competitive bidding process, which resulted in substantial prevention or lessening of competition in the market.
Consequently, parents had to pay higher prices for school essential items due to these agreements.
In 2017, the commission initiated a nationwide investigation against numerous schools and manufacturers and/or suppliers of school uniform for the potential abuse of dominance and restrictive vertical practices in the supply of school uniform items. The investigation revealed that around 10 schools or school groups had exclusive supply agreements with independent suppliers for their unique school uniforms.
Commission undertook extensive advocacy initiatives targeted at raising awareness and educating parents, schools, governing body associations and retailers on the potential anticompetitive effects that are likely to arise in the procurement process of school uniform and other learning-related goods and services. We referred a complaint to the Competition Tribunal which resulted in settlement agreements with several schools and suppliers and/or manufacturers.
As part of these settlement agreements, the parties committed to following a competitive tender process to allow fair competition.
The commission encourages parents, schools, and SGB to institutionalise School Uniform Guidelines and help reduce prices.
* Makunga is spokesperson for the Competition Commission of SA
SIYABULELA MAKUNGA | Parents not compelled to buy uniforms from selected suppliers
Image: Veli Nhlapo
The back to school season has over the years increasingly been marked by a public outcry from parents who have raised concerns about the soaring costs of school uniforms and learning materials.
These rising expenses highlight a crucial issue: whether the governance structures at schools, particularly the SGBs, are doing enough to ensure that school procurement processes are transparent, competitive, and in the best interest of parents and learners, and whether they are failing to safeguard against unfair pricing practices.
While society continue to navigate the creation of accessible, affordable and inclusive school uniform market, the Competition Commission has long been an advocate for driving compliance with the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (as amended).
Through this advocacy approach, we have been able to enhance competition in the procurement of school uniform and learning-related goods and services. These efforts aim to increase competition in the market and to provide parents and learners with more choices, ensuring that they are not compelled to purchase school uniforms exclusively from selected suppliers.
Since 2010, the commission had been receiving complaints about schools that had signed exclusive supply agreements with specific selected suppliers of school uniform. These supply agreements were entered into without any transparent, or competitive bidding process, which resulted in substantial prevention or lessening of competition in the market.
Consequently, parents had to pay higher prices for school essential items due to these agreements.
In 2017, the commission initiated a nationwide investigation against numerous schools and manufacturers and/or suppliers of school uniform for the potential abuse of dominance and restrictive vertical practices in the supply of school uniform items. The investigation revealed that around 10 schools or school groups had exclusive supply agreements with independent suppliers for their unique school uniforms.
Commission undertook extensive advocacy initiatives targeted at raising awareness and educating parents, schools, governing body associations and retailers on the potential anticompetitive effects that are likely to arise in the procurement process of school uniform and other learning-related goods and services. We referred a complaint to the Competition Tribunal which resulted in settlement agreements with several schools and suppliers and/or manufacturers.
As part of these settlement agreements, the parties committed to following a competitive tender process to allow fair competition.
The commission encourages parents, schools, and SGB to institutionalise School Uniform Guidelines and help reduce prices.
* Makunga is spokesperson for the Competition Commission of SA
SIYABULELA MAKUNGA | Competition regulators secure opportunities for SMEs
SIYABULELA MAKUNGA | Commission’s varied work benefits you as a consumer
SIYABULELA MAKUNGA | Commission advancing efforts to promote inclusive economy
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Latest Videos