South Africa’s planned R1-trillion infrastructure programme is undoubtedly a chance to revive the struggling construction sector and to stimulate industrialisation.

After more than a decade of weak demand and ongoing deindustrialisation, however, realising this potential will require a combination of ambition and pragmatism, together with a relentless focus on execution.

At present, nowhere is the gap between ambition and execution bigger than in infrastructure; a reality underlined by a recent Infrastructure South Africa analysis showing that fewer than one in five advertised tenders were actually awarded in 2025.

Without credible execution, including through the awarding of tenders, the big infrastructure commitment will become meaningless.

The first priority must therefore be actual implementation, anchored in proper project preparation.

It’s clear that too many projects enter the tender stage without adequate planning, feasibility work or institutional capacity behind them. This leads to cancellations, delays and the return of unspent funds to the National Treasury.

The second requirement is a clear and credible procurement framework that reflects the realities of industry.

As Steel and Engineering Industries Federation of Southern Africa president Mervyn Naidoo highlighted recently, the issue is not policy intent, which clearly states that public procurement should stimulate local industry. Rather, it’s the reality that procurement decisions are not aligned with that intent.

Besides stop-start procurement, which has weakened the case for investment, there has also been little enforcement of localisation commitments; a problem that can be attributed partially to the lacuna that arose when the country’s previous preferential procurement framework was struck down in court.

The absence of clear procurement commitments, together with a previous lack of enforcement, has continued to make it difficult for manufacturers and construction firms to scale up and mobilise, notwithstanding the promise of large future demand.

Industry is, thus, advocating for a more strategic approach; one that moves beyond transactional tendering to coordinated, multi-year procurement.

This sounds promising in principle, but given the demand doldrums from which local industry has yet to escape, it is clear that localisation will also have to be pursued pragmatically.

Directing demand towards domestic producers is essential for industrialisation, but South Africa currently lacks the capacity to supply every input competitively.

Attempting to enforce blanket localisation risks raising costs and delaying projects that the rest of the economy and communities require urgently and affordably.

A more targeted approach is needed, focusing on areas where domestic capability exists or can be developed without undermining overall competitiveness.

Underlying all of this is the challenge of high input costs, particularly in energy and logistics, which continue to erode the basis for meaningful industrial progress.

The R1-trillion programme represents an opportunity to align policy intent with economic necessity.

It is also taking place in an atmosphere where other countries may be more forgiving of industrial policy interventionism than was the case previously.

But converting this potential into industrialisation and employment will require disciplined execution, backed by a credible procurement approach and a localisation policy that is rooted in measured ambition.