Integrating Indigenous Financial Frameworks in Zimbabwean Banks: A Decolonial Economics’ Approach to Sustainable Finance

Abstract

This study explores, from decolonial economics perspective, how nineteen Zimbabwean banks engage with both Euro-American and indigenous knowledge systems in their sustainable finance practices. Despite growing global interest in sustainability, limited research has examined the relevance of these models within Zimbabwe’s socio-economic context. Addressing this gap, the study employs transformative sequential mixed methods, incorporating 289 structured questionnaires, 30 focus group discussions, and 45 archival documents. Data were subjected to descriptive statistics, narrative analysis, Marxist immanent critique, and decolonial theory. Findings reveal that Zimbabwean banks predominantly adopt Euro-American sustainability frameworks such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals, Paris Accords and accounting standards. However, these frameworks often misalign with local realities, obscuring sustainability colonialism, promoting exclusion of indigenous knowledge, reinforcing Global North dominance, and perpetuating weak sustainability theory. This results in superficial compliance that conceals extractive investments and carbon-intensive practices. Moreover, these models deepen subordinated financialization, commodification, elite capture, resource expropriation, and socio-environmental inequalities. The study calls for a paradigm shift, either rejecting Euro-American models in favor of indigenous approaches or adopting a hybrid model that integrates indigenous knowledge. Such a shift would promote strong sustainability, pluralism, and decolonized institutional frameworks to foster financial inclusion, community resilience, and ecological regeneration in Zimbabwe.

1. Introduction

Sustainable finance aims to protect the planet, people, prosperity, and principles of governance (Schwab & Vanham, 2021). While definitions of sustainable finance vary, scholars generally agree it involves integrating environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors into business decision-making (Migliorelli, 2021; Jackson & Larsen, 2025). The rise of sustainable finance in Zimbabwean banks has been largely influenced by international frameworks such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement (Schwab & Vanham, 2021; Osuji, 2024). These models are often adopted under pressure from multilateral institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and African Development Bank (Kamuti, 2022). Adoption of these models is not ideologically neutral and frequently misaligns with Zimbabwe’s socio-economic and cultural realities (Moosa, 2023; Kamuti, 2022). Despite policy efforts by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe and the Ministry of Finance, a persistent epistemic tension exists between Euro-American centric sustainability models and indigenous knowledge systems (Kamuti, 2022; Golka, 2024; Zhou & Brown, 2024).

Zimbabwe’s postcolonial context marked by resource extractivism, elite capture, ecological injustice, and external dependence make it a revealing case for examining how global finance frameworks interact with indigenous knowledge systems. Yet, indigenous finance models remain excluded from mainstream banking practices, reinforcing colonial legacies and prioritizing external legitimacy over local relevance. This study addresses a critical gap in sustainable finance literature and economic development by exploring how Zimbabwean banks engage with both Euro-American and indigenous knowledge systems. It pursues three research questions: (a) How can Zimbabwean banks move beyond Euro-American centric sustainable finance models to embrace indigenous values that reflect plural worldviews, local priorities, and community resilience? (b) What are the limitations of Euro- American centric sustainable finance models in capturing the socio-cultural and ethical dimensions of finance in Zimbabwe? (c) How can indigenous knowledge systems, such as Ubuntu/Unhu-based principles, be integrated into sustainable development frameworks?

The study adopts a transformative sequential mixed methods approach grounded in critical theory, critical political finance, and heterodox economics, informed by the five stages theory of sustainability, decolonial theory, Marxism, and African indigenous epistemologies (Langman, 2017; Creswell & Clark, 2011; Chilisa & Mertens, 2021).

This research provides four contributions to knowledge. First, the study critiques dominant Euro-American centric models for subtly maintaining neo-colonial capitalist structures that promote anthropocentrism, ethnocentrism, external dependence, capital accumulation and weak sustainability (Hickel et al., 2022; Zylinski, 2024; Velasco-Herrejón et al., 2022; Kvangraven & Kesar, 2022; Golka, 2024; Zhou & Brown, 2024). Second, it contributes to decolonial scholarship by challenging epistemic hierarchies in sustainable finance and advocating for African frameworks rooted in communalism, relational ethics and strong sustainability (Amin, 1972; Santos, 2014; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2020; Quijano, 2000; Mignolo & Walsh, 2018; Hickel et al., 2022; Benyera, 2021; Mertens & Chilisa, 2024).

Third, it proposes a hybrid approach that combines Ubuntu/Unhu economics with global sustainability goals, aligned with both the 2063 African Union’s Agenda and the 2030 United Nations’ Sustainable Development Agenda (Osuji, 2024). Fourth, this paper offers practical recommendations for policymakers, regulators, and financial institutions. It recommends for embedment of indigenous knowledge systems into financial regulations, promotion of community-led decision-making, and integration of indigenous economics & finance into academic and professional curricula. This pluriversal approach—recognizing multiple worldviews—is essential for achieving environmental justice, inclusive development, and authentic sustainability in Zimbabwe and across the Global South. Echoing Osuji (2024), the paper calls for the development of a unified Afrocentric model for managing sustainable finance (ESG) practices in African banks, one that reflects local realities and values rather than imported frameworks.

1.1. Analytical and Theoretical Framework

To explore how Zimbabwean banks engage with both Euro-American centric and indigenous sustainable finance models to address epistemic tensions and reveal coloniality, this paper applies a three-pillar theoretical framework: the five stages theory, decolonial economics, and Marxist immanent critique.

1.2. Five Stages Theory of Sustainability

The five stages theory classifies institutional approaches to sustainability along a continuum from weak to very strong sustainability (Willard, 2012; Niehoff, 2022). It serves as a diagnostic tool for identifying the underlying assumptions and developmental stages that firms or countries occupy in their pursuit of sustainability (Demastus & Landrum, 2024). The stages are as follows:

• Stage 1: Very Weak (Compliance Sustainability)

Banks comply with minimum and external standards set by regulators and international bodies. Sustainability is adopted reactively as driven by external pressure. This stage is based upon mainstream economics, capitalism, technological growth, anthropocentrism, profit maximization, and intensive resource extraction.

• Stage 2: Weak (Business-Centered Sustainability)

Banks pursue sustainability for profit, cost reduction, reputation, and competitive advantage. Rooted in classical economics and capitalism, this stage emphasizes growth, production, consumption, and resource exploitation.

• Stage 3: Intermediate (Systemic or Mixed Sustainability)

Banks integrate both weak and strong sustainability perspectives, acknowledging the value of plural beliefs in promoting social equity. However, this is rooted in orthodox economics and assumptions of economic growth, technological growth, anthropocentrism and resource exploitation.

• Stage 4: Strong (Regenerative Sustainability)

Banks recognize ecological limits, planetary boundaries, and the inadequacy of Gross Domestic Product/Gross National Product as metrics for economic growth (Raworth, 2017). Economic activities aim to restore and preserve the planet, people, and governance, guided by degrowth principles and embedded in core business strategies.

• Stage 5: Very Strong (Co-evolutionary Sustainability)

At this stage, banks adopt practices that are symbiotic to nature, emphasizing environmental stewardship, communalism, degrowth, and the use of soft technologies that support co-evolution with ecosystems. Traditional economic indicators such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross National Product (GNP) are considered inadequate for measuring economic progress, as they fail to account for social and ecological well-being.

Stages 1 and 2 of the Five Stages Theory represent weak sustainability, where sustainable finance is viewed as the intersection of environmental, economic, and social systems (Crowther & Seifi, 2022; Jackson & Larsen, 2025). This model assumes natural and human-made capital are interchangeable, legitimizing extractivism, privatization, commodification, and enclosure of common resources (Velasco-Herrejón et al., 2022). Rooted in Euro-American capitalist ideologies, it promotes individualism, depoliticization, and growth measured by GDP/GNP (Kvangraven & Kesar, 2022). Studies confirm that current sustainability standards reflect this weak model, failing to address ecological degradation, inequality, and instability (Demastus & Landrum, 2024; Niehoff, 2022; Bruna, 2022; Coen et al., 2022). Decolonial scholars argue these standards reinforce imperialism, financial subordination, and epistemic violence in the Global South, while ignoring irreversible ecological loss and indigenous dispossession through carbon, green, technocentric, and data colonialism (Benyera, 2021; Mertens & Chilisa, 2024).

In contrast, Stages 4 and 5 of the Five Stages Theory constitute strong and very strong sustainability theory. This acknowledges biophysical limits, the intrinsic value of ecosystems, and the socio-political roots of ecological degradation. This paradigm adopts a nested systems perspective, where the economy is viewed as a subsystem of society, and society as a subsystem of the environment (Niehoff, 2022; Demastus & Landrum, 2024). Hence natural capital is considered non-substitutable by manufactured or social capital. Strong sustainability is characterized by principles such as degrowth, simplicity, sharing, conviviality, care, and the commons (Mastini et al., 2021). Although African indigenous knowledge systems inherently support strong sustainability through their ecocentric, ethical, and communal values, they remain marginalized in mainstream sustainability discourse. Firms operating within these stages prioritize precautionary principles, wealth redistribution, community rights, and intergenerational equity.

1.3. Decolonial Economics and the Pluriverse

Chilisa et al. (2017) define decolonization as a critique of Euro-Western dominance in language, thought, knowledge, culture, and academic imperialism. It is also a political process through which formerly colonized nations reclaim sovereignty (Gram-Hanssen et al., 2022). Grounded in critical theory, decolonial economics exposes colonial power structures embedded in global systems of economics, finance, governance, education, health, and development (Amin, 1972; Quijano, 2000; Mignolo & Walsh, 2018; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2020; Ziai, 2024). These structures persist beyond formal decolonization through entrenched systems of knowledge, power, and identity (Benyera, 2021; Mignolo & Walsh, 2018). By positioning Global South indigenous knowledge systems as inferior to Euro- American centric worldviews, they perpetuate epistemic violence, injustice, inferiority, dominance, and inequality undermining inclusive sustainable development (Chilisa & Mertens, 2021). Current sustainable finance frameworks often mask these colonial dynamics by imposing foreign standards such as accounting rules, legal tools, financial models, technologies, market systems, and performance metrics that marginalize indigenous epistemologies (Zylinski, 2024).

Decolonial scholars criticize the exclusive adoption of these models in African economies, arguing they reinforce Western capitalist ideologies, neoliberalism, and technocratic managerialism. Such models obscure ongoing colonial legacies and facilitate capital accumulation by industrialized nations (Ziai, 2024; Santos, 2014; Mignolo & Walsh, 2018; Gumede, 2023). By relying on foreign data systems, disclosure standards, and value frameworks, they marginalize African indigenous knowledge, leading to epistemic exclusion, inferiority and violence (Zhou & Brown, 2024; van Norren, 2022). Additionally, these models promote resource appropriation, widen class inequalities, and increase environmental degradation (Gumede, 2023). As a result, firms and governments that adopt these models often reduce sustainability to “business as usual” and mere “regulatory compliance,” which prioritizes profit maximization and shareholder primacy over genuine sustainability (Demastus & Landrum, 2024). This leads to weak sustainability practices and rhetorical commitments that perpetuate unsustainable outcomes (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018; Hickel et al., 2022; Gumede, 2023).

Precisely decolonial scholars highlight theoretical, empirical, and practical limitations of applying Euro- American centric sustainable development models in African economies like Zimbabwe. Theoretically, these models are grounded in Western ontologies and philosophies which are ethnocentric, anthropocentric, technocratic, individualistic, and neoliberal rendering them irrelevant to local African contexts (Ziai, 2024; Gumede, 2023). Their assumptions of universalism, positivism, depoliticization, and human-nature separation promote privatization and commodification of resources. This reinforces Global North dominance and deepens class exclusion (Kvangraven & Kesar, 2022). These models have limited relevance to Zimbabwean and broader African societies, which are shaped by indigenous economic systems rooted in communalist ideologies. Indigenous knowledge systems promote collective well-being, participatory governance, ecological harmony, community development, and non-exploitative use of capital. They are informed by non-essentialist development theory, heterodox economics, and pluriversal thinking, offering context-specific and inclusive approaches to sustainability (Chilisa & Mertens, 2021).

Empirically, studies increasingly show that Euro- American centric sustainability frameworks reinforce “business-as-usual” and “compliance-oriented” approaches to sustainability, ultimately perpetuating long-term unsustainability and shareholder capitalism (Niehoff, 2022; Demastus & Landrum, 2024). Analysis of over twenty frameworks, including the SDGs, Paris Accord, Taskforce on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), and Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) reveals their alignment with weak sustainability theory, orthodox economics and capitalism. These frameworks are underpinned by the primacy of economic growth measured by Gross National Product and a reliance on cornucopian technology optimism, both of which are insufficient for achieving genuine sustainable development (Raworth, 2017). Rooted in neoliberal and technocratic ideologies, these models marginalize alternative epistemologies and depoliticize sustainability, legitimizing nature’s commodification and reinforcing the dominance of industrialized nations. Hence, decolonial scholars call for a shift from weak to strong sustainability, grounded in degrowth, recognition of planetary boundaries, conviviality and alternative economic and accounting models informed by indigenous knowledge.

Practically, sustainable finance in Zimbabwean banks is shaped by external economic dependence, limited political autonomy, and financial subordination to global institutions and donors, often excluding indigenous knowledge systems (Osuji, 2024). Institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, and United Nations present global frameworks (the SDGs and Paris Accords) as apolitical and technical, while concealing extractive and colonial interests that serve the Global North (Moosa, 2023). Terms like sustainable finance, green finance, carbon neutrality, inclusive growth, decarbonization, sustainable development and Fourth Industrial Revolution are used to subtly legitimize extractivism, market control, data exploitation, class supremacy and debt-driven development (Gumede, 2023; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2020). Scholars advocate for Afrokology referring to indigenous epistemologies guiding governance and development (Nyamnjoh, 2024; Nabudere, 2006; Kothari et al., 2019; Mertens & Chilisa, 2024). Precisely Nyamnjoh (2019, 2024) argues that African financial, health, and education systems must reject imported Euro- American centric templates and instead build on local, lived, and contextual realities. Ziai (2019, 2024) critiques mainstream finance for sustaining colonial hierarchies and sustainability colonialism. Scholars agree that indigenous finance offers sustainability, accountability, and resilience, and should either replace or complement Euro- American centric ESG models.

Decolonial scholars propose transformative ideas such as the pluriverse, conviviality, and greater African representation in global standard-setting institutions like accounting bodies, the IMF, World Bank, and United Nations. Pluriverse economics challenges the universality of neoliberal development and promotes diverse sustainability pathways rooted in indigenous ontologies, relational ethics, and ecological reciprocity (Nyamnjoh, 2024). This vision underpins the call for strong sustainability models that are culturally resonant and contextually embedded within Zimbabwe’s and Africa’s socio-ecological realities. Conviviality advocates for cross-cultural collaboration and inclusivity, embracing indigenous methods in science, research, and economic development (Nyamnjoh, 2024; Chilisa & Mertens, 2021). By accommodating contradictory epistemologies, convivial frameworks foster diversity, epistemic plurality, and social equity.

Increased African representation in standard setting bodies can foster inclusive reforms that integrate indigenous knowledge systems. Moosa (2023) argues that current global development architectures particularly the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and United Nations offer limited value to African contexts. He contends these institutions act as instruments of neoliberal hegemony, promoting market liberalization, privatization, and austerity at the expense of social welfare and economic sovereignty. Hence, they perpetuate global inequality and racial capitalism, serving Western interests rather than addressing the structural challenges of the Global South. He further asserts that these institutions have outlived their original mandates and should be radically reformed or abolished.

Firms adopting indigenous economic frameworks align with strong sustainability theory, hence prioritizing ethical business practices, symbiotic relationship with nature, pluriverse technologies, collective ownership and community development over profit maximization (Hickel et al., 2022; Velasco-Herrejón et al., 2022; Zylinski, 2024). Colonialism, however, disrupted and displaced indigenous knowledge systems, falsely elevating Euro-American centric models as universally superior. Decolonial economists across Africa and the globe agree that indigenous economic frameworks such as Ubuntu/Unhu in Zimbabwe and South Africa, Buen Vivir in Latin America, Sumak Kawsay in Ecuador, Saami in Norway, the Gandhian Economy of Permanence in India, and Maori in New Zealand offer alternative epistemologies that promote environmental, economic, and social values contextualized to their communities (Normann, 2021; van Norren, 2022; Ziai, 2024).

1.4. Marxist Immanent Critique of Sustainable Finance

Marxist immanent critique exposes the dominance and contradictions within a theory by interrogating its normative claims, internal premises, and foundational assumptions (Harvey, 2016; Stahl, 2022; Bond, 2023). In this study, it is applied to reveal the dominance of Euro-American models in sustainable finance, which often promise equity and environmental justice but instead reinforce capital accumulation, external dependency, class inequality, and ecological degradation in Global South countries like Zimbabwe (Harvey, 2016; Bond, 2023). Drawing on Harvey (2012), Moosa (2023) and Matanzima (2024), the analysis identifies four interlocking processes: (a) financialization: the transformation of nature and climate risk into financial assets; (b) privatization: the transfer of public and communal resources into private ownership; (c) commodification: the treatment of life, land, and natural ecosystems as marketable goods; and (d) enclosure: the restriction of access to indigenous ecological systems and commons. These processes sustain a global sustainability regime aligned with capitalism while marginalizing indigenous knowledge systems and ecological ethics, calling for internal reform of Zimbabwe’s banking system.

Despite growing interest in sustainability, the integration of Euro-American and indigenous frameworks within Zimbabwean banks and across Africa remains under-researched. This study addresses this gap by exploring how indigenous knowledge systems can complement Euro-American economic models to promote inclusive and context-specific sustainable development.

2. Methodology

2.1. Research Design

Grounded in critical theory, this study adopted a transformative framework and employed sequential mixed methods design to address the research questions (Langman, 2017; Chilisa et al., 2017; Creswell & Clark, 2011; Saunders et al., 2019; Chilisa & Mertens, 2021). Critical theory served as a lens to interrogate, resist, rebel against and challenge universalism, positivism, external dependency, neo-colonial agendas, class exclusion, and epistemic violence embedded in Euro- American centric sustainable finance models adopted by African banks (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018; Mertens, 2010; Chilisa & Mertens, 2021). This approach aligns with postcolonial indigenous paradigms that seek to emancipate Zimbabwean and African banks from epistemic domination and erasure (Held, 2019; Álvarez Valencia, 2025). Hence, the research operationalized Ubuntu economics and indigenous finance alternatives rooted in pluriversal and relational ethics (Mertens, 2010; Chilisa & Mertens, 2021). As shown in

Table 1. Transformative Mixed Methods.

Phase	Data Type	Method	Purpose
1	Quantitative	Structured Questionnaires (n = 289)	To objectively measure the prevalence and distribution of worldviews.
2	Qualitative	Focus Groups (n = 30)	To contextualize and validate identified sustainability worldviews
	Archival analysis	Documents (n = 45)	To analyze how worldviews are embedded in institutional texts

, the research was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 involved a quantitative analysis to assess the prevalence of Euro-American and indigenous knowledge models. Phase 2 used qualitative methods to contextualize and validate the adoption of these models. Both approaches were equally integrated to enable a multidimensional understanding of both objective and subjective worldviews.

2.2. Data Collection

Data for this sequential mixed-methods study was collected using three complementary instruments: structured questionnaires, focus groups, and archival documents. The questionnaires were developed based on the Five Stages model and decolonial theory and piloted with a random sample of 15 bank managers to ensure clarity and reliability (Saunders et al., 2019). The final instrument included Likert-scale items and demographic variables, capturing constructs such as worldview orientation, perceptions of global frameworks, sustainability drivers, patterns of sectoral and portfolio rationalization, adoption of cornucopian technologies, and integration of indigenous knowledge systems.

Using Ahmed’s (2024) sampling table, a representative sample size of 398 was calculated at a 95% confidence level from a population of 1000 bank managers across Corporate, Retail, Risk, Finance, Compliance, and Sustainability departments. A total of 400 questionnaires were physically distributed to randomly selected respondents from 19 banks, ensuring representation across private, indigenous, state-owned, and foreign-owned institutions. Data collection spanned six months, from January to June 2024. Of these, 289 questionnaires were fully completed and included in the final analysis. Reliability was confirmed with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.8, and content validity was ensured through the pilot study.

Focus groups comprising 30 participants were purposively selected from all 19 banks, ensuring equal representation across key departments: Corporate Banking, Retail Banking, Risk, Finance, Compliance, and Sustainability (Manzano, 2022). Discussions were guided by open-ended questions derived from the structured questionnaire used in Phase 1. Topics included sustainability worldview orientation, definitions and interpretations of sustainability, the role of global frameworks (e.g., the Paris Agreement and SDGs), institutional responsibilities, and indigenous ecological practices.

Six focus group sessions, totaling 300 min, were conducted in a single day (Morgan & Krueger, 1993). All discussions were recorded, transcribed, and anonymized to maintain ethical integrity. The researcher facilitated each session using neutral prompts to minimize dominance, promote balanced participation, and reduce social desirability bias (Nibbeling et al., 2021; Bispo Júnior, 2022). An assistant researcher, employed by the principal investigator, observed and documented field notes, non-verbal cues, and session dynamics.

Archival document analysis was conducted to trace how sustainability worldviews have been institutionalized within banking policies and regulatory frameworks (Saunders et al., 2019). A total of 45 documents were purposively selected, including annual ESG reports, internal sustainability guidelines, investment mandates, compliance frameworks, and monetary and fiscal policy documents from the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe and the Ministry of Finance. Reports from the African Development Bank and the World Bank were also included. Selection was based on explicit references to sustainable finance practices between 2015 and 2024.

2.3. Data Analysis

Data were analyzed with multi-methods encompassing quantitative, qualitative and critical interpretive methods. First, quantitative data from structured questionnaires was analyzed with descriptive statistics using SPSS version 15 to determine central tendencies and frequencies across banks and worldview typologies. Second, qualitative data from focus groups and archival documents were examined with thematic and narrative analysis. Transcripts and policy texts were coded in NVivo software version 14 (Nibbeling et al., 2021), with emergent codes mapped to sustainability worldview categories and compared across institutional types. Ethnographic techniques were applied to analyze direct quotations from focus group discussions, offering a nuanced interpretive account of how sustainability worldviews shape banking practices. Finally, the entire study was subjected to Marxist immanent critique and decolonial analysis to interrogate the reproduction of Euro-American centric worldviews and neo-colonial dynamics within Zimbabwe’s banking sector (Stahl, 2022; Zylinski, 2024).

Decolonial theory was employed to challenge the coloniality of knowledge, power, and identity that persist in global finance and sustainability economics (Quijano, 2000; Santos, 2014). This critique advocates for epistemic pluralism and the inclusion of subaltern voices in shaping development discourse. Marxist immanent critique was used to expose the dominance of Euro-American centric sustainable finance models adopted by Zimbabwean banks. The analysis focused on five interrelated processes: financialization (turning nature into financial assets), privatization (shifting public resources to private control), commodification (treating life and land as market goods), cornucopian technology optimism (belief in unlimited technological solutions), and enclosure (restricting access to indigenous ecological systems). These processes sustain extractivism and marginalize indigenous ethics.

2.4. Ethical Considerations

Participants were informed of the study’s objectives and engaged based on informed consent. To uphold anonymity and confidentiality, the identities of banks and participants were withheld in the reporting of findings.

3. Results

3.1. Worldview Orientation and Epistemic Dominance Across Banks

Figure 1 presents respondents’ five-point Likert scale ratings, illustrating the distribution of banks’ sustainability worldviews across the Five Stages Theory and highlighting patterns of epistemic dominance through worldview orientation.

The study reveals that 84% of respondents align with very weak or weak sustainability, 2% with intermediate, and only 14% with strong sustainability. This indicates that most Zimbabwean banks operate within Stages 1 and 2 of the Five Stages Theory, focusing on “compliance and business-as-usual” to meet external expectations, particularly from international regulators, standard setting bodies and donors. As a result, adoption of sustainable finance models in Zimbabwean banks reflects weak sustainability theory rooted in Euro- American centric models and orthodox economics.

Focus group discussions reinforced this view. Sustainability was widely seen as a tool for compliance, branding, profit-making, reputational management and competitive advantage, rather than an ethical or ecological imperative. A Senior Sustainability Manager noted, “We follow the SDGs, Paris Agreement and international standards because it’s expected. Not because we believe they make sense for Zimbabwe.” Similarly, a Corporate Banking Manager stated, “Sustainability talk assists us in attracting international capital, but we still fund extractive sectors in mining and tobacco because we are in a business where profit is a matter.” A Risk Manager added, “Sustainability has led to the privatization and enclosure of communal land for carbon markets and green finance initiatives, primarily by foreign companies from Europe and Asia. It is capitalism repackaged. Nothing has changed in mining, agriculture and waste management. Rather this has displaced local communities from their land and contributed to increased environmental degradation across Zimbabwe”.

Document analysis supported these insights: 37 of 45 documents framed sustainability as a profit-making and investment opportunity, using terms like “green lending,” “sustainable returns,” and “climate-smart lending for profit.” These narratives reflect a Euro-American centric paradigm prioritizing global capitalism over local socio-economic realities, reinforcing financial subordination, elite capture, and uneven development.

From a decolonial and Marxist immanent critique perspective, the findings reveal that sustainability in Zimbabwe is co-opted by global capitalism, serving as a tool for coloniality through commodification, financialization, and enclosure of communal resources. This reflects sustainability colonialism, where ecological and social crises are repackaged into market opportunities dominated by Euro-American centric firms and ideologies. Institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, United Nations, and global consultancies facilitate this process. As Moosa (2023), Gumede (2023), and Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2020) argue, sustainability becomes a mechanism for capital accumulation and epistemic dominance, reinforcing colonial hierarchies and structural inequalities.

3.2. High Perception of Euro-American Centric Global Sustainability Policy Frameworks

Figure 2 shows that 64% of respondents view global sustainability standards as relevant, while 36% express skepticism, reflecting growing awareness of policy mismatches and limited local relevance. Zimbabwean banks adopt a mix of global frameworks including the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Paris Agreement, Taskforce on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) S1 and S2, Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), Equator Principles, and Carbon Disclosure Project.

Focus group participants confirmed the use of multiple standards, yet five noted these were “imposed without epistemic negotiation,” serving donor and financier interests over state sovereignty and ecological justice. A Risk and Compliance Manager stated, “Most of these global guidelines emanate from the West. They don’t speak to our informal sector, communal values, land struggles and indigenous knowledge systems.” A Sustainability Manager added, “These international frameworks are instruments of dominance and ideological capture. I wish we could develop local alternatives that could be integrated into these frameworks.” Document analysis revealed that 40 of 45 documents prioritized international standards, with minimal reference to national policies like Zimbabwe’s National Climate Policy, National Development Strategy 1, and Vision 2030. Few banks engaged indigenous knowledge, highlighting a disconnect between global sustainability agendas and local development priorities.

Figure 3 and focus group insights show that banks operate mainly within Stages 1 and 2 of the Five-Stages theory focusing on regulatory compliance (80%), reputation management (76%), donor access (52%), and risk mitigation (48%), with only 25% citing community development. This reflects performative alignment with global standards rather than genuine transformation.

From a decolonial and Marxist immanent critique, sustainability in Zimbabwean banking is not neutral-it operates as soft power that reinforces global capitalist dominance. As Mignolo and Walsh (2018) argue, this reflects deeper colonial structures of power, knowledge, and identity, where Euro-American norms shape financial governance in the Global South. This alignment sustains epistemic dependency, upholds global financial hierarchies, and marginalizes indigenous values and knowledge systems, undermining efforts toward locally grounded and decolonial sustainability.

3.3. High Adoption of Euro-American Centric Technology

Figure 4 illustrates the growing adoption of Euro-American centric Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) technologies in Zimbabwean banks, including internet of things, big data analytics, artificial intelligence, machine learning, robotics, cloud computing, 5G, blockchain, and augmented reality. While these technologies promise efficiency, energy optimization and sustainable infrastructure development, their deployment reflects a deeper entrenchment of technological colonialism. As Benyera (2021) argues, these innovations are embedded in Euro-American centric paradigms that marginalize indigenous knowledge systems. Developed and controlled by actors from industrialized nations, such technologies facilitate data extraction, commodification and surveillance reinforcing data colonialism and undermining local sovereignty.

Moreover, these technologies create new markets dominated by European, American, and Asian actors, serving as mechanisms of disguised capital accumulation. Participants noted that adoption is driven less by social transformation than by profit, efficiency, and growth imperatives. Consistent with Dunlap (2021), Benyera (2021), and Haag (2023), this trend exemplifies digital imperialism, where 4IR technologies serve as instruments of capital accumulation and soft power, deepening global asymmetries and subordinating African financial systems within global capitalism.

3.4. Patterns of Sectoral Investments Rationalization

Banks engaging in sustainable finance are expected to reduce funding to high-carbon sectors and increase investment in low-carbon alternatives. Figure 5 illustrates sectoral patterns of sustainable funding. Notably, most banks reported substantial investments in carbon-intensive industries viz Industrial processes and product use (e.g., cement production), agriculture, mining, and land use change & forestry, while allocating limited resources to renewable energy, waste management, and transport. These sectors were prioritized due to profitability and competitive advantage. Many institutional documents rebranded extractive industries as green or sustainable, despite their significant social and environmental externalities. A Sustainable Manager from a Commercial Bank noted, “We talk of ESG, but we don’t fund small players in the communal areas. We focus on providing sustainable loans to big players.” Similarly, a Credit Risk Manager stated, “There’s a contradiction: we say we support sustainable finance, but we give loans to coal and fossil fuels’ mining. We also support carbon intensive sectors in mining, energy, manufacturing, cement production and land use because they offer us profits and a competitive edge.”

Progress in shifting Zimbabwe’s economy from high- to low-carbon sectors remains slow due to weak political will. Both local and international actors continue fossil fuel extraction, influenced by global tensions like the Russo-Ukraine War and the Trump Administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, which weakened global climate commitments and added uncertainty to climate policies (Leal Filho et al., 2024). This uncertainty has led some firms to deprioritize ESG goals due to financial and operational risks.

Meanwhile, green extractivism is rising, especially in minerals like lithium, cobalt, and rare earths. Matanzima (2024) reports the displacement of 41 families in Buhera for a lithium mine owned by China’s Sabi Star Mining, worsening rural inequalities. Control over these resources is concentrated among political elites and foreign powers, including Arab states, the United Kingdom, China, the United States of America, and the European Union.

From a decolonial and Marxist immanent critique perspective, sustainable finance in Zimbabwean banks conceals colonial structures rooted in dispossession, extractivism, external dominance, capital accumulation, and class supremacy (Matanzima, 2024). While banks use the language of Sustainable Development, the Paris Agreement, and ESG standards, this rhetoric lacks enforceable targets, localized metrics, and community accountability. Institutions focus on superficial indicators like paperless banking, digital transformation, and tree planting, which ignore deeper issues such as carbon lock-in, land inequality, and extractivism. This reflects the use of “empty signifiers”, where sustainability language legitimizes institutions without challenging underlying systems of capital accumulation, financialization, commodification, and resource enclosure. As a result, the gap between rhetoric and practice reinforces extractivist models that benefit the Global North, while worsening ecological degradation, economic inequality, and social displacement in Zimbabwe.

3.5. Absence of Indigenous and Pluriverse Epistemologies

Indigenous economic views are culturally rooted knowledge systems shaped by lived experience, informal practice, communalism and deep environmental awareness (Malapane et al., 2024).

Although Zimbabwe’s National Climate and Decarbonisation Policy promotes indigenous perspectives like Ubuntu/Unhu, both participant responses and document analysis show minimal adoption. Figure 6 indicates that only 7% of banks systematically incorporate indigenous knowledge, 9% are piloting it, while 84% do not consider it at all. This highlights a significant epistemic gap, with sustainability strategies dominated by Euro-American centric frameworks that lack cultural and ecological relevance.

Focus group participants noted that indigenous finance is often dismissed as unscientific, radical, and difficult to measure. A Treasury Manager stated, “We don’t use traditional ecological knowledge because it is based on oral tradition, unrecorded and difficult to measure and use narratives compared to Western models and standards. Our models come from the standard setting bodies.” This reflects entrenched epistemic hierarchies privileging Euro-American centric models. A Risk Manager added, “Indigenous knowledge systems are extinct, not easily available and difficult to use as a standard. The few available practices are less effective and surpassed by the evolution of technology.”

Document analysis confirmed this marginalization: only 3 of 45 documents made tokenistic references to indigenous knowledge, with no integration into decision-making. One state-owned bank policy noted, “We respect traditional values of conservation in our outreach activities.” None of the documents were guided by indigenous conceptions of land, ecology, or communal finance.

Drawing on decolonial theory and Marxist immanent critique, this reliance on Euro-American centric models reflects persistent epistemic dependence, reinforcing sustainability colonialism and epistemic violence (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018; Chilisa & Mertens, 2021).

In sum this study reveals that sustainable finance practices in Zimbabwean banks reflect coloniality, as evidenced by the preference for foreign standards over indigenous knowledge systems. This reliance on Western values, neoliberal policies, and the perception of their superiority perpetuates the coloniality of power, knowledge, and being (Quijano, 2000). It legitimizes Western definitions of economic governance while marginalizing subaltern knowledge as inferior.

4. Discussion

This section discusses key findings and proposes transformative recommendations grounded in decolonial economics, advocating for context-specific, inclusive, and indigenous approaches to sustainability.

4.1. Euro-American Centric Models Perpetuate Weak Sustainability Theory

This study confirm that Zimbabwean banks adopt predominantly Euro-American centric models of sustainable development based on weak sustainability theory. These models such as Sustainable Development Goals, Paris Accord and Millenium Development Goals emanate from the 1987 Brundtland Report (“Our Common Future”) designed by the UN World Commission on Environment and Development. They view sustainability as the intersection of economic growth, environmental protection and social equity. They assume that natural capital can be substituted with financial and manufacturing capital (Crowther & Seifi, 2022; Jackson & Larsen, 2025). These models align with neoliberalism which emphasizes free markets, technical innovation, economic growth, scientific objective measurement and adoption of sustainable finance in a “casual business as usual” approach to satisfy regulatory compliance (Niehoff, 2022; Demastus & Landrum, 2024; Velasco-Herrejón et al., 2022; Sayson et al., 2024).

This approach fails to account for the irreversibility of either ecological degradation or the socio-political dimensions of resources control. Furthermore, this worldview orientation enables banks to continue financing carbon intensive and extractive sectors because they are necessary for economic growth, job creation, and infrastructural development. Many extant studies argue that these assumptions entrench ecological overshoot, epistemic violence and social inequality especially in postcolonial Zimbabwe and Global South countries where sustainable finance frameworks come with land dispossession, resource enclosure, massive extractivism and class inequalities (Matanzima, 2024; Hill et al., 2023; Hickel et al., 2022). The adoption of these weak sustainability theory-based models further perpetuates unsustainability in Zimbabwe and other African countries (David, 2024; van Norren, 2022).

4.2. Sustainability Colonialism

Sutainability colonialism is the continuation of colonial power structures through global sustainablity frameworks and practices that prioritize interests, values and models of the Global North while marginalizing those of the Global South (Mehta, 2025; Sayson et al., 2024). It reveals how sustainablity efforts such as green finance, green technologies and ESG policies reproduces historical patterns of resource extraction, epistemic dominance and socio-economic inequality under the guise of sustainable development. The study also reveals sustainability colonialism embedded in Euro-American centric models within Zimbabwean banks’ financial governance. Within financial practices, these models mask financialisation of nature, commodification of environmental goods, and enclosure of commons. These processes are meant to reproduce asymmetric power relations between Zimbabwe and the Global North. Despite adopting global ESG language, banks largely serve as conduits for international capital flows designed to secure profits rather than equitable socio-ecological outcomes. This aligns with decolonial critiques that highlight the persistence of colonial epistemologies in sustainability finance (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018; Kvangraven & Kesar, 2022; Ugar, 2023; Moosa, 2023). By depending on externally derived knowledge systems, technology, metrics and financial instruments Zimbabwean banks are inadvertently reinforcing sustainability colonialism, hierarchies, financial subordination, political elite capture and dependencies they should overcome (David, 2024). Sustainability colonialism is existing in Zimbabwean banks under various names: green colonialism, carbon colonialism, data colonialism, techno colonialism and digital imperialism (Kwet, 2019; Ugar, 2023).

4.3. Epistemic Exclusion and Violence

Colonialism is built on domination and control over people and nature, involving systems of knowledge, power, and identity (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018; Hill et al., 2023). A key issue from this study is the ongoing exclusion and rejection of indigenous knowledge and ecological practices that are well-suited to African contexts. This form of epistemic exclusion and violence is central to sustainability colonialism, which keeps African worldviews marginalized (Hill et al., 2023; Chilisa & Mertens, 2021; Zhou & Brown, 2024; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2020). It undermines the inclusive development goals of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Using indigenous knowledge supports strong sustainability, which sees humans as part of ecosystems not separate from or above them. By grounding ESG in local values like relational ethics, social justice, equality, ecological balance, and communalism, African banks can help build more resilient, fair, and culturally relevant sustainability pathways.

4.4. Recommendations and Implications: Decolonial Alternatives

Six recommendations are proposed for academics, banks, and policymakers to address epistemic tensions and challenge the coloniality embedded in sustainability discourse within Zimbabwean banks and across Africa.

4.4.1. Reject Radically Euro-American Centric Models in Favor of Indigenous African Frameworks

To address epistemic exclusion and sustainability colonialism, this study calls for a radical shift in Zimbabwean banking practices which replaces Euro-American centric sustainable finance models with indigenous frameworks rooted in Afrokology, such as Ubuntu/Unhu. These models emphasize ecological harmony, communalism, and intergenerational equity that aligns with strong sustainability and African worldviews where the economy is nested within society and the environment (van Norren, 2022; David, 2024). In contrast, Euro-American models promoted by institutions like the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and United Nations prioritize GDP/GNP growth, individualism, and profit, reflecting weak sustainability and perpetuating environmental harm, racial capitalism, capital accumulation and various forms of sustainability colonialism (Moosa, 2023; Raworth, 2017; Quijano, 2000; Nyamnjoh, 2024). Afrokology offers an ecocentric, ethical, and relational alternative. However, transitioning to indigenous models must be gradual and strategic to avoid destabilizing institutions reliant on global financial norms.

4.4.2. Hybrid Approach: Integrate Afrocentric Sustainable Finance Views into Euro-American Centric Models

A moderate and balanced transformation of Zimbabwean and African banking systems requires integrating Afrocentric financial governance models, such as Ubuntu/Unhu, with existing Euro-American ESG frameworks. This hybrid approach promotes inclusive development, epistemic pluralism, and pluriversal thinking, aligning global standards like the UN Sustainable Development Goals with local priorities such as Agenda 2063. Equal integration of both perspectives can enhance stakeholder engagement, strengthen institutional legitimacy, advance equity and correct dominance by Global North. Achieving this requires systemic reforms in education, governance, and global financial structures (David, 2024).

Table 2. Differences in Ubuntu/Unhu and Euro-American centric models.

Feature	Ubuntu ESG Models	Euro-American ESG Models
Philosophy	Communalism: I am because we are	Neoliberalism and shareholder capitalism
Epistemology	Communal and relational	Individualist and investor-focused
Ontology	Pluriverse: multiple truths and realities coexist	Universalist: one size fit truth
Core Values	People & community first, solidarity compassion, dignity, interconnectedness	Profitability, capital accumulation, stakeholder engagement
Environmental Focus	Ecocentric: nature is symbiotic, intergenerational and land centered.	Anthropocentric: nature is a resource to be managed for long term value. Risk based emission reduction.
Social Ethos	Community first, cultural respect, and human dignity—“We”	Diversity, equity, inclusion and safety based on individualistic human rights—“I”
Governance	Ethical and participatory leadership based on moral duty and communal accountability	Board governance driven by audits, fiduciary duty and shareholder capitalism
Decision Making	Consensus driven—inclusive of all community voices	Board led, shareholder informed & guided by business judgment.
View of Individual	Community well-being drives individual’s well-being	Individual rights and interests are balanced with stakeholder needs
Reporting Approach	Narrative, spiritual and community based	Positivist and quantitative: investor material, data centric and standardized disclosures.

illustrates the integration of Ubuntu/Unhu and Euro-American ESG models, highlighting their distinct differences. Ubuntu/Unhu is rooted in communalism, ethics, cultural identity, and inclusive development making it qualitative, people-centered, and ideal for community-focused finance (Ajitoni, 2024). In contrast, the Euro-American model emphasizes capitalism, profitability, and investor confidence, making it quantitative, standardized, and suited for global markets. Integrating both perspectives balances community needs with market demands, enhancing equity, legitimacy, and stakeholder engagement.

4.4.3. Reform Education and Training in Economics, Banking & Finance

To address coloniality, epistemic exclusion, and inferiority financial and academic institutions should integrate indigenous knowledge into education and training across finance, economics, accounting, and research. As noted by Poyser and Daugaard (2023), Chilisa and Mertens (2021), and David (2024), universities and professional bodies should teach indigenous models alongside mainstream approaches, informing both local and international policy. Financial sector training should also include decolonial and ecological economics, emphasizing communalism, relational value, and ethical sustainability. This will foster inclusive, context-sensitive, and ethically grounded financial systems.

4.4.4. Include Indigenous Values in Sustainability Standards

Regulators and policymakers should mandate the inclusion of indigenous values in financial policies and sustainability standards encouraging banks to adopt a hybrid approach that integrates Ubuntu/Unhu with Euro-American ESG standards. This should align sustainability reporting with both international and local stakeholder needs. Key measures include developing indigenous metrics, promoting financial education rooted in local ethics, and reorienting risk frameworks to prioritize community well-being. These frameworks must be co-created with communities and financial institutions to ensure relevance and legitimacy.

4.4.5. Reduce External Dependence and Financial Subordination

To reduce external dependence and financial subordination, Zimbabwean policymakers should promote domestic innovation in sustainable finance. This includes developing local green bonds, supporting cooperative finance models, and encouraging community investment schemes to mobilize local resources. Strengthening internal financial ecosystems enhances resilience and autonomy, while reducing reliance on donor-driven models that often undermine local ownership. The government should also foster regional cooperation through initiatives like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and adopt and inclusive decision-making frameworks that prioritize justice, equity, and sustainable development.

4.4.6. Increase Africans’ Representation in Standard Setting Bodies

This study recommends increasing Africans’ representation in global financial and accounting standard-setting bodies such as the IMF, World Bank, and accounting bodies. Greater inclusion would support diverse models that respect African epistemic sovereignty and reduce the imposition of neoliberal sustainability standards that reinforce financial dependency, resource exploitation, and ecological commodification (David, 2024; Moosa, 2023). The exclusion of indigenous epistemologies undermines equity and relevance in policy design. Therefore, platforms should be established to integrate Afrokology and community-based sustainability principles into banking policies and ESG reporting standards.

5. Conclusions

This study critically explored how nineteen Zimbabwean banks engage with Euro-American and indigenous knowledge systems in their sustainable finance practices. Findings reveal a predominant reliance on Euro-American frameworks such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Accords, which often misalign with local socio-economic realities. These models obscure sustainability colonialism and perpetuate epistemic violence, manifested through the exclusion of indigenous knowledge. Adopting these models promotes weak sustainability theory, reinforcing capital accumulation and Global North dominance. This leads to superficial compliance and obscures extractive, carbon-intensive practices. Moreover, such models intensify subordinated financialization, commodification, elite capture, resource expropriation, and socio-environmental inequalities. These practices conceal ecological harm, deepen inequality, and sustain economic dependency.

In response, the study calls for a paradigm shift either rejecting Euro-American models in favor of Afrocentric approaches such as Ubuntu/Unhu economics or adopting a hybrid framework that integrates Euro-American models with indigenous knowledge systems. This shift would promote strong sustainability, embrace epistemic pluralism, and support decolonized institutional frameworks. It requires redirecting investment to regenerative sectors, embedding indigenous values in financial regulations, involving communities in decision-making, and incorporating indigenous knowledge into academic and professional curricula. A pluriverse approach to finance, recognizing diverse worldviews and technologies is essential for the success of sustainable development.

Ultimately, this transformation is vital for fostering financial inclusion, community resilience, and ecological regeneration in Zimbabwe. Future studies should develop an Ubuntu/Unhu-based sustainable finance model for Zimbabwean banks and explore the impact of integrating indigenous knowledge into financial regulation. Methodological triangulation strengthens the study’s validity despite potential social desirability bias.