Abstract
South Africa’s competition law is unique in terms of the requirement that mergers are assessed not only on their competitive effects but also on the impact on employment, ownership, and transformation. This dissertation conducts an ex-post assessment of public interest conditions imposed in three landmark company mergers in South Africa, namely, Simba (PepsiCo)/Pioneer, AB InBev/SABMiller, and Walmart/Massmart. The intention is to evaluate their effectiveness and alignment with national socio-economic and industrial policy frameworks such as the National Development Plan and the Industrial Policy Action Plan. In this present study, a qualitative case study design is adopted in a prediction-versus-outcome framework, whereby conditions imposed by the Competition Tribunal are compared with post-merger outcomes. The findings show that public interest remedies have had a notably mixed effect. Firstly, although questions remain about sustainability, the PepsiCo/Pioneer merger contributed to issues of ownership transformation and supplier development. Secondly, the AB InBev/SABMiller merger established large-scale agricultural and enterprise-development initiatives that support emerging farmers and SMMEs, although monitoring challenges limited their broader developmental impact. Thirdly, Walmart/Massmart’s merger conditions provided short-term job protection and a supplier development fund, although localisation outcomes were modest and vulnerable to external pressures.
This study concludes that public interest conditions generally align with South Africa’s industrial and socio-economic policies, although their effectiveness depends on clear objectives, solid monitoring, and institutional coordination. This dissertation, therefore, contributes empirical evidence beyond legal compliance to assess developmental outcomes. It further debates the role of competition authorities to advance inclusive growth and highlights the need for more systematic post-evaluation frameworks.