HARARE — Zimbabwe is reassessing the structure and future of its auditing and professional services sector following the gradual withdrawal of the global “Big Four” audit firms, Deloitte, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), Ernst & Young (EY) and KPMG, a shift that has reshaped corporate oversight and exposed long-standing capacity constraints within the local industry.
Senior officials say the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, working alongside Treasury and regulatory bodies, has been exploring the feasibility of developing strong domestic audit and consulting firms capable of operating to internationally recognised standards.
The discussions form part of a broader government push to reduce strategic dependence on foreign professional services and to build resilient local capacity in key economic sectors.
Over the past decade, the Big Four progressively reduced their footprint in Zimbabwe, moving from full-service operations to affiliate or correspondent arrangements, and in some cases, exiting entirely. Firms cited sanctions exposure, reputational risk, currency instability and challenges in fee repatriation as key constraints to continued operation.
Their departure altered the corporate services landscape. Large corporations, banks, and state-linked entities are increasingly relying on offshore audits or regional hubs, which raises compliance costs and complicates regulatory oversight. At the same time, local audit firms were thrust into roles that require scale, specialist expertise and global credibility, often without the capital or network support previously provided by multinational firms.
Zimbabwe’s audit sector is now dominated by small to mid-sized domestic firms, many of which are staffed by well-trained professionals but are constrained by limited resources and market reach.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Zimbabwe (ICAZ) remains the primary professional regulator, maintaining qualification standards and disciplinary processes, yet enforcement capacity remains stretched.
Regulators and market participants acknowledge persistent weaknesses in auditing complex financial structures, multinational group accounts and sophisticated risk instruments. In a small and closely connected market, concerns around auditor independence and conflicts of interest are heightened, particularly where firms rely heavily on consulting work from the same clients they audit.
These challenges have been underscored by repeated qualified audit opinions across public entities, delayed audits, and governance failures in both the private and state-owned sectors.
Against this backdrop, government officials say Zimbabwe is studying international reform models aimed at diluting excessive market concentration while strengthening domestic firms. The objective is not to exclude foreign participation, but to ensure that Zimbabwe has locally rooted firms with the capacity to audit large institutions, support capital markets and meet global reporting standards.
Policy discussions have centred on strengthening the legal and regulatory framework governing audit firms, encouraging consolidation among domestic players to achieve scale, and limiting conflicts arising from the provision of non-audit services. Authorities are also examining how audit firm networks and foreign affiliations are structured, with a view to improving transparency and accountability.
The withdrawal of the Big Four has reignited debate over whether Zimbabwe’s audit profession should continue to rely primarily on self-regulation. Globally, high-profile audit failures have prompted many jurisdictions to establish independent oversight bodies to supervise audit firms and enforce standards.
Zimbabwean policymakers are considering whether a similar independent regulatory structure could strengthen public confidence, improve enforcement and align local practices with international expectations, particularly for public interest entities such as banks, listed companies and state-owned enterprises.
A central concern in the reform debate is the blending of audit and consultancy services. While this model once allowed global firms to dominate the market, it has also been criticised for weakening auditor independence.
In Zimbabwe’s context — where economic power is concentrated among a small number of institutions and politically connected entities — regulators are assessing whether stricter separation between audit and advisory services is necessary to safeguard integrity and credibility in financial reporting.
The exit of the Big Four has forced Zimbabwe to confront structural vulnerabilities in its professional services ecosystem. Yet policymakers argue that it also presents an opportunity to reimagine the sector in a way that is more sustainable, accountable and aligned with national development goals.
As Zimbabwe seeks to restore investor confidence and deepen corporate governance reforms, the evolution of its auditing profession may prove decisive. Whether domestic firms can rise to fill the gap left by global giants will shape the credibility of financial reporting and the broader investment climate in the years ahead.
