Transformation on Trial: What Tshikululu’s CEO Appointment Reveals About the State of CSI in South Africa

I remember watching the 2018 US Open final when a young Naomi Osaka triumphed over the legendary Serena Williams. It should have been a historic moment of joy and achievement for Osaka—a culmination of years of dedication, talent, and poise. Yet, that victory was overshadowed by controversy. The headlines weren’t about her brilliance on the court, but rather about the umpire’s disputed decisions and Serena’s response. The applause was muted. Her celebration dimmed by the world’s failure to focus on what truly mattered: a young Black woman achieving greatness.

That same feeling of deflation resurfaced when news broke early last week that a white woman had been appointed as the new CEO of Tshikululu Social Investments—an organisation considered a cornerstone of South Africa’s corporate social investment (CSI) sector. Like Osaka’s moment, this should have been a time to reaffirm purpose and progress, to showcase leadership rooted in justice and transformation. Instead, it left many in the sector asking hard, necessary questions.

Let’s be clear: this article is not an indictment of the individual appointed, nor a questioning of her professional competence. Rather, it is a critical examination of what such appointments signify in the broader transformation journey of South Africa—especially in sectors where empowerment, inclusion, and equity are meant to be core values. When a major CSI institution like Tshikululu chooses its new leader, it sends a powerful signal about its values, priorities, and its reading of the socio-political moment.

Tshikululu is no small player in the social development landscape. For over two decades, it has managed billions in social investment funds for some of the country’s largest corporates. Its influence stretches far beyond its own operations; it helps shape narratives, policy direction, and funding priorities for the entire CSI sector. Leadership decisions at this level are not just HR matters—they are statements of intent.

Which brings us to the central concern: how does an organisation so deeply embedded in transformation discourse, in 2025 South Africa, arrive at the decision to appoint a white CEO? It begs a more profound question: to whom is Tshikululu truly accountable? And how deep does the commitment to transformation run—not just in its client-facing rhetoric, but within its own organisational structure and culture?

To some, this appointment may appear procedurally sound and therefore uncontroversial. Tshikululu itself responded to the concerns, stating that the process was open to both internal and external candidates and that the final decision was made based on merit, in accordance with the Employment Equity Act. They highlighted their commitment to fair recruitment and sustainable social change. These statements are not without merit.  But fairness and equity are not always the same thing.

Many critics—particularly Black professionals and sector veterans—have pointed out that after decades of transformation talk, the continued preference for white leadership in CSI intermediary organisations reveals a deeper reluctance to embrace systemic change. If, after all these years, Tshikululu could not identify a single Black candidate within its extensive orbit or the broader talent pool as “ready to lead”, what does that truly say about the organisation’s transformation pipeline—or the sector’s commitment to grooming future leaders?

Former staff members and close observers I spoke to raised serious concerns about the internal culture at Tshikululu, with some alleging that efforts to promote racial equity were met not with support, but with resistance—and in some cases, even retaliation. These accounts are not isolated. As highlighted in the latest issue of Matter Magazine, which examined the state of transformation within the CSI ecosystem, a troubling pattern emerges: despite the sector’s outward commitment to empowerment and change, it remains predominantly led by white intermediaries, governed by white-managed foundations, and shaped by procurement practices that continue to exclude or marginalise Black-owned firms. In many cases, this is transformation in name only—not in practice.

What is particularly troubling is that Black-led innovations are often sidelined, partnerships with Black-owned businesses tend to be transactional rather than strategic, and leadership transitions seldom disrupt entrenched hierarchies. This persistent pattern does not stem from a shortage of qualified Black professionals, but rather from a lack of institutional will to place them at the centre of decision-making.

To Tshikululu’s credit, their board—as presented on their website—appears more representative and reflective of South Africa’s diversity. And yet, the contradiction between governance optics and executive appointments remains perplexing. This disconnect only reinforces the perception that meaningful transformation within the organisation is, at best, superficial or selectively applied.

Leadership is never neutral. It shapes institutional ethos, sets direction, and influences who feels seen and valued. When leadership continues to be drawn from the same demographic—particularly in sectors purporting to champion justice and redress—the message received by young, ambitious Black professionals is clear: the top remains out of reach.

Contrast this with the appointment of Sim Tshabalala as CEO of Standard Bank in 2017. His rise was not only symbolic—it was the outcome of deliberate talent development, succession planning, and an organisational willingness to redefine what executive leadership could look like in a post-apartheid economy. It was a moment that affirmed transformation as more than a legal obligation—it was a principle worth fighting for. In comparison, Tshikululu’s recent decision feels like a missed opportunity to send a similarly bold and affirming signal.

Yes, organisations must follow legal frameworks and fair hiring practices. But equity demands more. It demands intentionality. It demands an understanding that merit cannot be divorced from context—and that in South Africa, historical and racial context is inescapable.  The wider concern here is not just this one appointment, but the broader culture that allows such decisions to feel routine. This points to systemic issues: opaque recruitment processes, power concentrated in familiar hands, and a transformation agenda that too often stops at the level of policy documents and annual reports.

Once again, to Tshikululu’s credit, their willingness to issue a public response indicates a level of engagement. But if transformation is to be real, the sector must move beyond compliance. It must embed equity in how it builds, hires, partners, and leads. That includes making leadership decisions that reflect not only professional qualification, but also a deep understanding of what transformation means and requires.

The CSI sector cannot afford to speak of inclusion while preserving exclusionary structures. It cannot credibly advise others on social justice if it fails to live those values internally. And it cannot hope to maintain legitimacy if young Black professionals continue to look up and find no one who resembles them at the helm.

South Africa’s transformation journey remains incomplete. It is difficult, contested, and often uncomfortable. But discomfort is not a reason to retreat—it is a call to reflect and act. That we can publicly interrogate such decisions is a strength, not a weakness. It is evidence of our democracy still doing the hard work of reckoning with its past and shaping a better future.

We raise these questions not to tear down, but to build better. To hold institutions accountable to the ideals they profess. Because transformation is not just a KPI. It is not just about employment targets or procurement scores. It is a living principle—a way of being, leading, and creating a more just and inclusive South Africa.

Until our organisations truly reflect the people they claim to serve, our work remains unfinished. And unfinished work demands vigilance, courage, and truth.