Martin Kadzere
GEO-POLITICISATION of strategic resources, rising price volatility and severe infrastructure bottlenecks pose the most immediate threats to Zimbabwe’s business environment, requiring urgent policy interventions across the financial, regulatory and physical infrastructure sectors.
This is according to the inaugural 2025 National Competitiveness Baseline Survey, jointly produced by the Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency (ZimStat) and the National Competitiveness Commission (NCC) to evaluate the country’s competitiveness standing.
Evaluated on a 0–100 scale, the survey, launched in Harare on Wednesday, assesses executive perceptions across four key pillars: inclusiveness, innovativeness, resilience and sustainability.
The report shows the country faces a complex web of external and domestic risks that threaten to undermine the inaugural baseline competitiveness score of 58,5 out of 100, which places the economy in the moderate performance category.
As Zimbabwe’s first-ever domesticated baseline survey measuring economic competitiveness across four key pillars, 10 provinces and 16 sectors, the report establishes a crucial national benchmark while highlighting critical vulnerabilities facing the productive sector.
Previously, Zimbabwe relied on economic competitiveness data from the World Economic Forum and the World Bank, both of which have since discontinued their respective competitiveness ranking reports.
Business leaders view geopolitical instability as their most pressing short-term vulnerability over the next two years.
They identified the geo-politicisation of strategic resources as the single most significant risk confronting the country, with 38,9 percent of surveyed establishments raising concern over global supply chain disruptions.
The deep concern over resource geo-politicisation reflects rising global competition for strategic critical minerals, particularly rare earth elements and lithium, in which Zimbabwe holds significant reserves essential for green technology and advanced electronics.
Escalating price volatility is closely followed as a primary operational threat, highlighted by 30,4 percent of participating firms across key commercial sectors, while a further 21,3 percent expressed alarm over the potential collapse or weakening of international multilateral bodies and global trade institutions.
On the domestic front, 34,7 percent of businesses cited employment and livelihood crises as their primary social anxiety, followed by inadequate social security nets at 18,6 percent and public infrastructure failure at 15,5 percent.
Cybersecurity breaches emerged as the top technological hazard at 27 percent, whereas human-induced environmental degradation topped ecological concerns at 27,1 percent.
The concerns compound severe operational constraints already crippling daily commerce in the inaugural assessment, where the reliability of electricity supply scored a dismal 28,6 out of 100 on performance indicators.
Unreliable power supply represents the single largest obstacle facing domestic enterprises, alongside severe deficits in start-up equity funding scoring 32,1, low judicial impartiality in business disputes at 36.0, poor water supply reliability at 36,3 and heavy corporate costs associated with corruption at 37,8.
Despite prevailing operational hurdles, business leaders remain optimistic about emerging high-growth sectors, particularly medical services at 51,9 percent and solar backup energy at 37,6 percent.
Converting the private sector optimism into sustainable economic growth requires targeted Government interventions to mitigate systemic risks across six critical policy areas.
To overhaul investment and competition frameworks, the government must open up protected service sectors to foster market competition, lower entry barriers and attract foreign capital.
To expand productive and equity financing, policymakers need to establish targeted financial mechanisms to address acute credit shortages, expanding access to long-term capital and equity financing for micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) as well as emerging start-ups.
In infrastructure, the country must fast-track public and private investments in climate-resilient, green productive infrastructure, prioritising national grid stability, modern water management systems and the rehabilitation of the road transport network, which currently scores 39.7 out of 100.
Regarding institutional integrity, authorities should reinforce judicial independence in commercial litigation, streamline regulatory processes to reduce transaction costs, and enforce strict anti-corruption measures across all state institutions.
Furthermore, policymakers should capitalise on existing workforce strengths, such as strong tertiary skills alignment scoring 79,5 and merit-based management appointments at 79,9, by aligning technical education with emerging digital industries while safeguarding workplace equality.
Ultimately, closing persistent gaps in physical infrastructure, productive financing, market competition and governance institutions offers the Government its highest return on economic reform efforts.
Beyond the systemic risks and priority policy measures, disparities in economic performance across Zimbabwe’s provinces and key economic sectors have also been laid bare by the baseline survey.
National performance across the four pillars remained tightly clustered, with a narrow spread of just 5,5 points separating the highest- and lowest-performing dimensions.
Inclusiveness emerged as the top-performing pillar nationally with a score of 61,5 out of 100, propelled by strong workforce practices such as merit-based hiring and equal opportunities for women.
Innovativeness followed at 59,1, supported by tertiary and vocational skills that align well with industry requirements.
Resilience scored 57,4, backed by a strong talent base but weighed down by institutional challenges such as judicial impartiality, corruption costs and crime.
Sustainability placed lowest among all dimensions at 56,0, constrained by the financial costs of climate change and low investment in green production.
At the provincial level, Manicaland led the country with the highest overall competitiveness score of 62,5 out of 100, outperforming all other regions on every individual pillar except resilience.
Midlands recorded the second-highest overall score at 61,1 and achieved the country’s top resilience score at 60,8.
Mashonaland West followed with an overall score of 60,0, while Masvingo matched the national average at 58,5. Only four of Zimbabwe’s 10 provinces scored at or above the national benchmark.
The remaining six provinces scored below the national average, though all maintained scores above 50.
Matabeleland North posted an overall score of 57,8, closely followed by Matabeleland South at 57,6.
The metropolitan provinces of Harare and Bulawayo scored 57,4 and 57,3, respectively. Mashonaland Central recorded 56,7, while Mashonaland East ranked lowest overall with a score of 55,9.
The Government needs to direct capital deployment and policy support towards lagging regions such as Mashonaland East and Central, the survey notes.
Across regional trends, inclusiveness was the highest-scoring pillar in every single province, whereas sustainability was the lowest-scoring pillar in eight out of ten provinces.
Performance across the sixteen economic sectors varied widely across the country. Arts, entertainment, and recreation emerged as the most competitive sector with a score of 62,5, closely followed by accommodation and food services at 62,4.
Financial and insurance activities scored 61,4, information and communication reached 61,1, utilities scored 60,7, and mining and quarrying recorded 60,4 out of 100.
Real estate at 59,7 and administrative support services at 58,9 also performed above the national benchmark.
Conversely, critical productive and service sectors trailed behind the national average.
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing matched the national baseline at 58,5, while transportation and storage scored 58,3 and professional services recorded 58,1.
Wholesale and retail trade—which represented 36,1 percent of survey respondents—scored 57,5, while manufacturing recorded 57,1.
The lowest-performing sectors were other service activities at 55,5, construction at 53,3 and public administration and defence at 52,2.
Notably, construction was the only sector nationwide to score below 50 on the resilience pillar, recording a score of 49.3.
The survey did not include the informal sector.
