Unions Want Shein and Temu Banned in South Africa, But a Ban May Not Fix Their Retail Struggles
South African unions want Shein and Temu banned over job-loss concerns. What would a ban mean for local businesses, workers and consumers?
Imagine opening a shopping app and finding a dress for less than what a local store charges for a similar one. Add a discount, a spinning wheel, a referral bonus, or a promotion promising gifts, and suddenly you are browsing for things you did not plan to buy. You might even get the chance to invite friends to unlock different rewards that give you access to well-affordable products.
This is the experience platforms such as Shein and Temu have turned into a shopping habit, making affordability feel like a game. But in South Africa, the success of these platforms has become a concern for trade unions worried about the future of local jobs.
The Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU)has resolved to campaign for a ban on the two Chinese-founded online retailers, following a proposal from the Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers’ Union (SACTWU).
The unions argue that the platforms threaten local retailers, manufacturers and employment. SACTWU warns that 34,000 jobs could be at risk by 2030, a projection rather than a count of jobs already lost. For now, this is a campaign for a ban, not a government order shutting either platform down.
How Did Shopping Become This Cheap?
Online shopping has always been changing how people bought things before Shein and Temu arrived. The pandemic accelerated that shift, while digital payments, smartphones and delivery networks made it easier to order without visiting a store.
The trend extends across Africa, where mobile money is also helping people transact beyond traditional banking. In 2024, 40% of adults in sub-Saharan Africa had a mobile money account, up from 27% in 2021, according to figures cited by Fintech News Africa.
Shein built its popularity around inexpensive fashion, a constantly changing catalogue and a model designed to respond quickly to consumer demand. Temu expanded internationally with a broad marketplace of low-priced clothing, household goods, accessories and gadgets. Both use aggressive digital advertising and promotional incentives to attract customers. Temu’s games, referral rewards and free-gift offers can encourage repeat visits, although rewards may depend on conditions, and free shipping or gifts are not guaranteed on every order.
For shoppers managing tight budgets, the appeal is obvious. Why pay more for an item when a cheaper alternative appears to serve the same purpose? South Africa’s online retail market reached approximately R130 billion in 2025, with turnover forecast to rise to R159 billion in 2026.
Shein and Temu recorded combined sales of about R7.3 billion in 2024, equivalent to 3.6% of the country’s clothing, textile, footwear and leather market. These figures show that online shopping is no longer a fringe activity, and that the two platforms have secured a meaningful share of fashion spending.
Is a Ban the Answer?
The unions’ concerns are not without substance. Local businesses have wages, rent, electricity, transport and other operating costs to cover. Manufacturers also support workers and production networks that can be weakened when cheaper imported goods take a larger share of the market.
If offshore retailers benefit from tax or customs arrangements that local businesses cannot access, competition may not be happening on equal terms. Protecting local industry and employment is a legitimate economic concern.
South Africa has already taken steps to address some of these disparities. In 2024, the South African Revenue Service announced that VAT would be added to low-value imports that had previously faced a flat 20% customs charge without VAT.
The change was intended to address concerns about unfair competition and improve compliance. It suggests that the government can intervene through tax and customs rules without immediately resorting to an outright ban.
But what would a ban mean for consumers? Physical shops offer something online platforms cannot fully replicate: customers can inspect fabric, test a product, check its size and quality, and take it home immediately. They can also speak to a seller and resolve certain problems in person.
Online shopping offers convenience, broad selection, and potentially lower prices, but customers must contend with delivery delays, sizing differences, product quality, and returns. Neither channel is perfect; each serves different needs.
An outright ban could protect some local businesses as the South African Union is proposing, but it would also remove a source of affordable goods without automatically fixing the reasons local products cost more.
The National Clothing Retail Federation has questioned whether banning the platforms is the right response, arguing for enforcement of existing rules and fairer competition instead.
South Africa’s challenge is not simply to stop people from buying cheap accessories or products. It is to build conditions in which local manufacturers can compete, workers can keep their jobs, and consumers retain meaningful choices. If the price of protecting local industry is making everyday shopping less affordable, the policy must explain what replaces the value consumers are losing.
The unions have raised a serious question about jobs; the answer should be more than a ban. It should address the conditions that made these platforms so attractive in the first place.