By: Asogan Moodley
A market in disarray
South Africa’s busway (busbar trunking) manufacturing and supply industry is experiencing a quiet but increasing crisis.
Technically, the sector adheres to SANS/IEC 61439-6, which provides detailed standards for low-voltage switchgear and control gear assemblies — including busway systems.
In reality, however, non-compliance is becoming normalised. Products that should be tested, certified, and traceable under SABS and IEC standards are being replaced with cheaper, often untested alternatives. The result is an industry plagued by vague specifications, uneven competition, and compromised safety — all exacerbated by a lack of accountability among professional bodies responsible for ensuring compliance.
As contractors, we often find ourselves amidst this chaos — trying to balance cost, compliance, and client expectation in an environment that increasingly rewards the wrong priorities.
SABS-approved, yet sidelined
One of the most troubling trends is the systematic sidelining of SABS-approved and ISO-certified manufacturers. Companies that invest heavily in full compliance, continuous testing, and certification — including products bearing the SABS mark of approval — are losing out to suppliers offering cheaper, partially tested, or untested products.
Many of these so-called “type-tested” systems rely solely on limited tests, such as temperature rise or short-circuit withstand, rather than undergoing the full suite of verifications required by SANS/IEC 61439-6. In some cases, type test certificates are outdated, irrelevant, or issued for configurations that differ entirely from the intended product.
This raises a vital question:
Should type test certifications have an expiry date — similar to a Certificate of Compliance (COC)?
As technology develops, materials evolve, and manufacturing methods change, it is unreasonable to assume that a test conducted ten years ago remains valid today. Perhaps it is time for regulators and industry bodies to review this and implement stricter validity periods and re-certification requirements for type-tested systems.
The tender trap: when vague specifications breed non-compliance
The tendering environment is another area where the system is breaking down. Many tender documents are vague, generic, or incomplete, merely stating “busbar system including all accessories to be provided” without specifying compliance with SANS/IEC 61439-6. A compliant manufacturer may quote for items deemed necessary based on the standards, while a non-compliant or barely compliant manufacturer might not. It is important to note that differences in products will also result in differences in overall cost. Without a detailed bill of quantities or clear specifications, it is not possible to ensure a fair adjudication.
This lack of precision shifts responsibility onto contractors, who are then compelled to compete mainly on price. In a competitive bid environment, cost almost always prevails, and compliance becomes optional; variation orders are deemed necessary, and budgets become limited.
The result? Contractors procure products from busbar manufacturers, assuming they are getting the best quality at the best price, without verifying compliance. Compliant manufacturers who try to do the right thing by quoting on compliant products are undercut by non-compliant or partially compliant manufacturers, while those willing to cut corners are rewarded. The tender process, instead of promoting technical excellence and adherence to standards, encourages shortcuts and risk-taking. This is fundamentally unfair — and dangerous.
Friendship over compliance: a culture problem
The market has also been flooded by small, unregulated manufacturers, often started by individuals leaving established companies. Equipped with insider knowledge and industry contacts, many launch products that do not meet full SANS/IEC 61439-6 requirements, and yet still gain acceptance through friendship-based business networks.
It has become far too common for projects to be awarded based on personal or political connections rather than on technical merit. This is especially concerning because these non-compliant systems are being installed in hospitals, shopping centres, data centres, and factories, where public safety should never be compromised.
In today’s technologically advanced world, test reports and certificates can be easily altered. Without thorough verification — by SABS, NRCS, SANAS or other accredited bodies — there is no assurance that a product is genuinely compliant.
Who bears the responsibility?
The lack of accountability within the professional hierarchy is one of the biggest enablers of non-compliance.
- Consulting engineers and designers often copy old specifications or leave details vague, assuming contractors will “know what to do,” or they place trust in a manufacturer, expecting to receive the best solutions and products.
- Contractors, under pricing pressure, are compelled to interpret incomplete documents and make supplier choices and decisions that should be conducted by professionals.
- Non-compliant or partially compliant manufacturers, driven by cost, seldom understand the risks of non-compliant systems until it’s too late.
So, the question arises:
Who should be held responsible when non-compliant products are installed? Is it the professional engineer or consultant, the installation electrician who signed off the project, the contractor who ordered and purchased the non-compliant or partially compliant product, or the manufacturer who deliberately supplied non-compliant or partially compliant products?
While all parties have obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Electrical Installation Regulations, the primary responsibility for specifying compliant systems should lie with the Professional Engineer or Consultancy Firm. Contractors cannot and should not be expected to select suppliers based solely on price. Design integrity, clear specifications, and test parameters should always be specified by the responsible professional, and the supplier should be chosen based on the level of compliance. The manufacturer should ensure adherence to manufacturing regulations.
The client’s cost illusion
Many clients believe that choosing cheaper systems saves money — but the reality is quite different. A non-compliant busway system not only shortens the lifespan of the installation but also increases fire and safety risks, can invalidate insurance, void warranties, and expose the client to legal and financial consequences.
Compliance isn’t a luxury; it’s a safeguard. It protects lives, property, and reputations.
Professionals and contractors must take a stand and educate clients about the long-term costs of non-compliance. The SANS/IEC 61439-6 standard exists to ensure safety, reliability, and interoperability — and every deviation from it undermines that foundation.
Rebuilding accountability and integrity
The way forward is clear: accountability, transparency, and enforcement.
Every stakeholder in the value chain must play their part:
- Professionals must specify, verify, and enforce compliance with SANS/IEC 61439-6.
- Contractors must refuse to install untested, non-certified, or partially certified systems.
- Consultants and engineers must insist on documentation, not assumptions.
- Regulators and certification bodies must take action against manufacturers who misuse type test reports or circumvent proper testing procedures.
Compliance should not be a competitive disadvantage — it ought to be the industry standard.
Conclusion: choosing integrity over convenience
The South African electrical industry stands at a crucial crossroads. We can continue to neglect standards, allowing outdated tests, unclear specifications, and non-compliant products to shape our market — or we can demand higher standards.
We owe it to ourselves, our clients, our employees, and our profession to uphold the integrity of SANS/IEC 61439-6. The cost of non-compliance exceeds the cost of doing things correctly.
It’s time to shift the focus from convenience to compliance, from relationships to responsibility, and from price to performance. Only then can we restore trust, fairness, and safety in our industry.