Zimbabwe’s cooperative movement poised for transformation

Walk through Mbare’s busy markets, visit a farming community in Mashonaland provinces, speak to members of a housing cooperative or sit with a savings and credit society, and one thing quickly becomes apparent: cooperatives are already part of Zimbabwe’s economic life.

They may not always attract the attention given to banks, large corporations or government programmes, but Zimbabweans use collective structures every day to save, invest, produce, build homes, access finance and pursue business opportunities.

For years, however, the cooperative sector has rarely featured prominently in conversations about the country’s wider economic transformation.

That may now be changing.

The National Cooperative Societies Development Policy 2025–2030, launched by President Emmerson Mnangagwa in July 2026, has placed cooperatives more firmly within the national development conversation, with attention to governance, professionalisation, access to finance, digitalisation, markets, education and employment.

For Last Matema, Acting Principal of the Zimbabwe Institute of Co-operatives and Microfinance Professionals (ZICMP), the policy presents an opportunity to reconsider not only what cooperatives are, but what they could become.

“The public image of the cooperative sector has at times been disproportionately shaped by negative stories involving governance failures, financial disputes, mismanagement and other challenges,” he says.

Those challenges cannot be ignored. Cooperatives handle members’ money and, in many cases, represent the economic interests of entire communities. Weak governance can therefore have consequences far beyond an individual organisation.

But Matema believes the discussion should not stop at failure.

“The question must shift from ‘What has gone wrong with cooperatives?’ to ‘What can Zimbabwe’s cooperative movement become, and what will it take to build a professionally governed, financially sustainable and internationally competitive cooperative movement?’”

It is a question that increasingly matters to businesses and institutions outside the cooperative sector itself.

For banks, microfinance institutions, insurers and other financial-service providers, cooperatives represent an organised market with potentially significant demand for savings, payments, insurance, investment and appropriately structured credit.

SACCOs and other financially oriented cooperatives can aggregate members and create a scale that individual customers may not achieve on their own.

But financial opportunity brings financial responsibility.

As cooperatives grow, so does the need for sound accounting, internal controls, risk management, compliance and transparent leadership.

“A modern cooperative movement requires modern skills. Good intentions cannot substitute for competent financial management, governance, risk management, legal compliance and strategic leadership,” Matema says.

For financial institutions, this means that meaningful engagement with cooperatives may require more than designing a loan product. It requires understanding how cooperative enterprises are structured, how members exercise ownership and how collective financial decisions are made.

Agriculture provides perhaps the clearest illustration of the potential.

A small farmer buying inputs or searching for a reliable market may have limited bargaining power. Hundreds of farmers operating through a properly managed cooperative present a different proposition.

They can aggregate production, negotiate input purchases, improve access to storage and transport and potentially establish stronger relationships with processors, retailers and exporters.

“Cooperatives should not simply be viewed as membership organisations,” Matema says. “Properly structured, they can become economic platforms connecting producers, financiers, markets, technology and communities.”

That distinction is important because it places cooperatives inside economic value chains rather than treating them as peripheral community organisations.

The same principle extends into housing, mining, manufacturing and retail.

Housing cooperatives can allow members to pool resources and negotiate collectively for land, infrastructure and construction. Mining cooperatives can potentially help smaller producers and communities access equipment, technical expertise and markets. In manufacturing and retail, cooperatives can become customers, suppliers, distributors and organised consumer markets.

Yet in each case, collective strength only becomes an economic advantage when supported by competent governance.

Technology is likely to become another important part of this transition. Digital membership systems, accounting platforms, mobile payments, agricultural technology and data-management tools can change how cooperatives communicate with members, manage transactions and reach markets.

But technology alone cannot fix institutional weaknesses.

“Digitalisation and technology can change how cooperatives operate, serve members, access markets and make decisions. But technology without governance simply digitises existing weaknesses,” Matema cautions.

The point is increasingly relevant as technology companies, financial institutions and development organisations look for ways of engaging the cooperative economy. Understanding the sector’s institutional architecture becomes as important as understanding the product being offered.

Development partners, too, have an opportunity to support cooperatives as locally owned economic structures. But sustainable development cannot be measured only by the number of beneficiaries reached or projects established.

“The objective should not simply be to support cooperatives as beneficiaries,” Matema says. “It should be to strengthen their ability to govern themselves, operate sustainably and participate meaningfully in markets.”

That requires investment in leadership, financial stewardship, business models, market access and professional skills.

It also requires a deeper pool of people who understand cooperatives themselves.

As the sector becomes more sophisticated, accountants, auditors, lawyers, economists, risk specialists, governance professionals, technology experts and management advisers will increasingly be required. Educational institutions have a role in developing those skills, while specialist institutions can provide the bridge between technical expertise and the realities of cooperative enterprise.

This is one area in which the emergence of institutions such as ZICMP could become significant.

Rather than competing with individual cooperatives or existing sector structures, a specialist professional institution can provide the technical knowledge that businesses, development partners, financial institutions and policymakers need when attempting to engage the sector. Its value lies in understanding the cooperative model, building professional capacity, facilitating knowledge exchange and connecting practitioners with the wider commercial and professional ecosystem.

For an organisation considering a serious, long-term engagement with Zimbabwe’s cooperative movement, such specialist knowledge is unlikely to be optional. A bank needs to understand the governance of its cooperative clients. A technology provider needs to understand the operating environment. A development partner needs to understand sustainability. Professional advisers need to understand the distinctive legal, financial and member-owned nature of cooperative enterprises.

That makes cooperative-sector expertise an increasingly important part of the infrastructure around the movement itself.

Zimbabwe can also learn from cooperative experiences in countries such as Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Rwanda, particularly in cooperative education, SACCO development, finance, governance and agricultural value chains. But the objective should not be to reproduce another country’s model.

The challenge is to learn, adapt and develop solutions that fit Zimbabwe’s own economic circumstances.

There is also a role for the media.

A stronger cooperative movement does not require a public-relations campaign. Where members lose money, governance breaks down or institutions fail, those issues deserve scrutiny. Equally, successful cooperatives, reforms, innovation and lessons from institutions that have survived difficult conditions deserve serious coverage.

Matema describes the balance simply:

“Educating without being academic, challenging without being negative, celebrating achievement without ignoring accountability.”

That may be the kind of conversation the sector needs as it enters a potentially important phase.

Zimbabwe does not need to invent a cooperative movement. It already has one.

Farmers are organising around production. Workers are saving together. Communities are pursuing housing projects. Small businesses are pooling resources. SACCOs are mobilising savings. Entrepreneurs are seeking ways to enter markets collectively.

What remains less developed is the infrastructure connecting this activity to capital, technology, professional expertise and reliable markets.

The opportunity, therefore, is not simply to register more cooperatives. It is to build better governed, better connected and more economically productive cooperatives.

“We should see cooperatives not simply as institutions of the past or organisations associated with isolated failures, but as modern, professionally governed and commercially viable vehicles for economic participation and national development,” Matema says.

Achieving that will require more than policy.

“It requires public understanding, professional capacity, responsible leadership, successful examples, informed citizens and sustained national dialogue.”

The sleeping giant, therefore, is not simply the cooperative movement itself.

It is what can happen when people who are already working, saving, farming, building and trading together are connected to the finance, technology, skills and markets needed to turn collective effort into sustainable economic value.

Zimbabwe’s cooperative story is already being written. The next chapter may depend on whether the institutions around it can provide the knowledge, professional standards and partnerships needed to turn collective organisation into lasting economic value.