Red tape chokes industry

Zimbabwe’s industrial sector is slowly suffocating under the weight of an outdated and excessively burdensome regulatory framework that business leaders warn is dismantling the country’s productive base.

Once a pillar of national economic strength, the manufacturing sector now finds itself trapped in a complex web of compliance costs, bureaucratic overlap, and fragmented state agencies—each demanding its own levies, licenses, and penalties.

At a time when Zimbabwe is seeking to reposition itself under the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and revive industrial capacity, business leaders argue that the country is inadvertently sabotaging its own recovery.

Leading the charge for change is the Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries (CZI), which has issued its most forceful warning yet: unless sweeping reforms are enacted without delay, the decline of Zimbabwean industry could become irreversible.

CZI chief executive Sekai Kuvarika described the country’s regulatory environment as “fundamentally misaligned with economic reality.”

“It is urgent and necessary that we undertake radical regulatory reform if we are to unlock growth,” Kuvarika said. “Sometimes it’s not about the lack of will or capacity from businesses to comply—it’s the system itself. It’s bureaucratic, multilayered, duplicative, and completely out of sync with the pace of modern business.”

In a striking example, Kuvarika revealed that a single food manufacturing company in Zimbabwe must obtain 25 different licenses and permits annually just to remain operational.

For companies seeking to scale, attract investment, or compete in export markets, this level of red tape is not merely inconvenient—it’s fatal.

While government officials often tout digitalisation and e-governance platforms as progress, Kuvarika was unequivocal: unless the substance of regulation changes, cosmetic fixes will not reverse the sector’s decline.

“Our regulations must become instruments of economic strategy—not obstacles,” she said. “Too many of our laws are relics from the 1960s and 1970s, completely disconnected from today’s policy goals.”

The consequences of that misalignment are already being felt. Local manufacturers are steadily losing ground to cheaper imports, while efforts to grow value-added exports have stalled.

Kuvarika argued that this underperformance is not due to lack of capacity or innovation, but to an entrenched regulatory regime that actively undermines competitiveness.

Beyond inefficiencies, she identified a deeper systemic flaw: many regulatory agencies continue to see their role strictly as enforcers, not as facilitators of productivity, employment, or national development.

Economist Dr Cornelius Dube echoed those concerns, arguing that Zimbabwe’s newly adopted Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) framework must be embedded into the policymaking process to prevent new regulations from becoming inadvertent roadblocks.

“RIA must become a core part of Zimbabwe’s regulatory architecture,” Dube said. “We are not opposed to regulation per se—but we take issue with the magnitude of penalties and fees. The question must always be: does this enhance viability—or destroy it?”

A central concern, Dube and others warn, is the unchecked autonomy of regulatory bodies that impose and collect their own fees to fund operations. From the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) to the Standards Association of Zimbabwe, dozens of state agencies operate with minimal oversight—what business leaders are calling a “self-financing bureaucracy.”

Economist and former Reserve Bank Monetary Policy Committee member Eddie Cross was even more blunt.

“There is no doubt that excessive regulation and the existence of so many state-owned and state-run agencies—each demanding taxes or levies to sustain themselves—is a major restriction on private sector activity throughout the economy,” Cross told Business Times.

He called for a fundamental restructuring of how these regulatory bodies are financed, insisting that they should be funded through the national budget rather than by directly taxing businesses.

“Funding should be allocated by Parliament, not raised through ad hoc levies,” Cross said. “That’s how it worked in the past—and returning to that model would restore transparency and fiscal discipline to what has become a bloated and unsustainable regulatory regime.”

The Zimbabwe National Chamber of Commerce (ZNCC) added its voice to the growing chorus.

ZNCC president Tapiwa Karoro said the current framework is not only misaligned with Zimbabwe’s industrialisation agenda but is also actively hindering efforts to build productive capacity.

He pointed to escalating input costs—particularly for energy and logistics—as further pressures bearing down on manufacturers. Without urgent regulatory reform and tariff alignment, he warned, local producers will continue to fall behind.

“Strategic policy reforms are essential if Zimbabwe is to revive its manufacturing sector and drive sustainable economic growth,” Karoro said. “We must focus on lowering operational costs and building a regulatory environment that supports—not punishes—productive enterprise.”

Despite years of promises and reform blueprints, business leaders say tangible change remains elusive. Kuvarika warned that prior reform initiatives have failed to deliver, and the private sector has grown increasingly frustrated by repeated rhetoric without results.

With the mid-term budget review scheduled for next week, the business community is watching closely.

Industry leaders are urging government to use the opportunity to signal a clean break from the past—and to take concrete steps to dismantle the regulatory gridlock that continues to strangle Zimbabwe’s productive sector.

“This is no longer about red tape,” Kuvarika said. “This is about choosing between growth and decline. If we don’t act now, we are choosing decline.”