Stakeholders have called for comprehensive reforms in state-owned enterprises (SOEs), urging Government to prioritise merit-based appointments, stronger performance monitoring and inclusive governance to improve efficiency and financial sustainability. The calls emerged during a stakeholder consultation on the SOE ownership policy held in Francistown, where participants raised concerns about leadership quality, institutional accountability and the effective use of public resources. Their submissions highlighted the need for state-owned enterprises to operate more efficiently while delivering meaningful economic and social benefits. Participants stressed that appointing qualified leaders, strengthening oversight structures and measuring organisational performance should form the foundation of the reform process. The consultation comes as Government reviews its approach to managing state-owned enterprises amid growing fiscal pressures and increasing expectations for public institutions to become financially sustainable.
A key issue raised during the consultation was the importance of appointing competent board members and senior management based on qualifications, experience and demonstrated ability. Francis Moswela of FHR Management Consultancy argued that the performance of state-owned enterprises depended heavily on the quality of leadership guiding their operations. He emphasised that board members and executives should be selected through transparent, merit-based processes rather than appointments that do not adequately consider professional competence. Effective leadership plays an important role in determining an organisation’s strategic direction, financial management and ability to meet its objectives. When boards and management teams possess the necessary skills, they are better positioned to make informed decisions, manage risks and ensure that public resources produce measurable results.
Merit-based appointments are particularly important because state-owned enterprises often operate in sectors that require specialised knowledge, strong financial oversight and sound corporate governance. Board members are expected to provide strategic guidance, monitor management performance and ensure that organisations fulfil their mandates. Without the appropriate experience and expertise, boards may struggle to challenge poor decisions, identify operational weaknesses or respond effectively to financial difficulties. Competent management is equally important because it translates strategic plans into practical operations and measurable outcomes. Strengthening recruitment and appointment procedures could therefore help improve institutional performance, build public confidence and ensure that SOEs operate according to professional standards.
Moswela also proposed dissolving state-owned entities with overlapping responsibilities as a way of reducing duplication and unnecessary expenditure. The proposal highlights concerns about institutional structures that may perform similar functions without producing sufficient additional value. Where multiple entities carry out comparable activities, Government may face higher administrative costs, duplicated staffing requirements and inefficient use of public funds. Reviewing the mandates of existing SOEs could help identify opportunities for consolidation, restructuring or the elimination of unnecessary functions. However, any decision to dissolve or merge an entity would need to consider its legal responsibilities, service delivery obligations, employees and the potential consequences for the wider economy.
Reducing duplication could also create opportunities for better coordination across government institutions and public enterprises. Organisations with clearly defined responsibilities may find it easier to establish performance targets and avoid conflicts over mandates. Consolidation could potentially reduce operating costs while allowing resources to be directed towards essential services and productive activities. Nevertheless, restructuring should not become an exercise focused only on reducing the number of institutions. Government would need to assess whether proposed changes would improve service quality, strengthen financial management and deliver lasting economic benefits. A careful review of institutional mandates and operational performance would be necessary to ensure that restructuring produces practical improvements.
Inclusive governance was another important issue raised during the Francistown consultation. Meshen Mathews of Lephoi Centre called for greater representation of persons living with disabilities on the boards of state-owned enterprises. He argued that people with disabilities possess relevant skills, qualifications and professional experience that should be recognised when Government makes appointments to public institutions. His submission highlighted the importance of ensuring that disability inclusion becomes part of corporate governance and leadership selection processes. It also challenged organisations to move beyond treating inclusion as a policy requirement and instead create meaningful opportunities for qualified individuals to participate in decision-making.
Greater representation of persons with disabilities can contribute to broader perspectives in board discussions and improve understanding of the challenges experienced by different sections of society. Their participation can also help SOEs develop more inclusive employment practices, accessible services and policies that respond to the needs of diverse communities. Board appointments should therefore consider the full range of available talent rather than overlooking qualified candidates because of disability. Inclusive governance does not mean lowering professional standards. It means ensuring that recruitment processes provide fair opportunities for competent individuals to demonstrate their abilities and contribute their expertise.
Mathews further stressed that Government must ensure reforms translate into actual changes rather than remain commitments contained in policy documents. This concern reflects a wider challenge facing public sector reform, where well-designed policies do not always produce the intended results because of weak implementation, insufficient monitoring or limited accountability. For SOE reforms to succeed, Government must establish clear responsibilities and practical measures for assessing progress. Institutions should demonstrate how they are implementing governance requirements and what improvements they are achieving. Regular assessments would help identify gaps between policy objectives and operational realities while ensuring that commitments to inclusion and good governance receive sustained attention.
Local business operator Kelebogile Calendar also emphasised the need for regular monitoring and evaluation of employee and institutional performance. She argued that performance assessments should form an ongoing part of SOE management rather than occur only when problems become visible. Monitoring employees can help organisations identify skills gaps, improve productivity and establish whether staff members are meeting their responsibilities. At institutional level, performance evaluations can reveal weaknesses in financial management, operational efficiency and service delivery. Consistent assessments would also give boards and management teams reliable information for making decisions and introducing corrective measures.
Effective performance monitoring requires clear objectives and measurable indicators. State-owned enterprises need to understand what they are expected to achieve and how their progress will be assessed. These measures could include financial performance, operational costs, service quality, customer satisfaction and the achievement of organisational targets. Institutions that consistently fall short of their objectives should be expected to explain the reasons and present credible improvement plans. At the same time, organisations that perform well should have their achievements recognised and their effective practices considered for wider adoption. This approach could strengthen accountability while encouraging a culture of continuous improvement across the SOE sector.
Calendar also raised concerns about boards not having sufficient authority to carry out their responsibilities effectively. The issue points to the importance of clearly defining the relationship between boards, executive management and Government as the shareholder. Boards need appropriate decision-making powers to provide strategic direction, oversee management and respond to operational challenges. When their authority is unclear or restricted, they may struggle to hold executives accountable or make timely decisions in the interests of their organisations. However, greater board authority must also come with clear accountability requirements to prevent weak oversight or misuse of institutional resources. A balanced governance framework should give boards sufficient independence to perform their duties while ensuring that they remain answerable for their decisions and results.
The proposal to introduce competitions among state-owned enterprises was another suggestion aimed at encouraging innovation and improving service delivery. Calendar argued that competition could motivate institutions to improve their operations and deliver better results. Comparisons between organisations performing similar functions could help identify efficient practices, highlight performance gaps and encourage management teams to develop new approaches. Such competitions could also create incentives for employees to improve productivity and focus more closely on customer needs. For the approach to be effective, Government would need to establish fair assessment criteria that recognise differences in institutional mandates, operating environments and available resources.
Competition within the SOE sector would need to focus on meaningful improvements rather than superficial performance targets. Organisations should be assessed on their ability to use resources responsibly, provide reliable services and meet their established objectives. Clear performance benchmarks could make it easier to identify institutions that demonstrate effective management and innovative solutions. Sharing successful practices could then help other enterprises address similar challenges. However, competition should not encourage institutions to prioritise favourable rankings over their public responsibilities or compromise service quality to achieve short-term results.
The stakeholder submissions reflect growing expectations that state-owned enterprises should operate with greater efficiency, transparency and financial discipline. SOEs play important roles in economies by providing essential services, supporting strategic industries and contributing to national development. However, their effectiveness depends on whether they can fulfil these responsibilities without placing excessive pressure on government finances. Enterprises that repeatedly require financial assistance without demonstrating improvements in performance can limit the resources available for other public priorities. Strengthening corporate governance, reducing unnecessary expenditure and improving operational management could help ensure that public investment generates greater value.
Government’s review of the SOE ownership policy therefore presents an opportunity to reconsider how the state exercises its ownership responsibilities. An effective ownership policy should establish clear expectations for the performance of public enterprises while defining the respective responsibilities of Government, boards and management. It should also provide a framework for monitoring financial sustainability, institutional effectiveness and service delivery. Stronger oversight can help Government identify emerging financial risks before they become serious problems. At the same time, clearly defined governance arrangements can give boards and management teams the authority and accountability needed to run their organisations professionally.
Financial sustainability remains a central concern as Government faces mounting fiscal pressures. Reducing dependence on public funding does not necessarily mean that every state-owned enterprise must operate solely for profit, particularly where institutions provide essential public services or fulfil broader development responsibilities. Instead, financial sustainability requires organisations to manage their resources responsibly, control avoidable costs and demonstrate that public funding supports clearly defined objectives. Government must also distinguish between enterprises that can generate sufficient revenue through commercial activities and those that require public support to deliver services in the public interest. This distinction would help create more realistic performance expectations and improve decisions about funding, restructuring and institutional mandates.
The consultation in Francistown demonstrates that stakeholders want SOE reforms to address practical governance and performance challenges. Their proposals cover several connected priorities, including merit-based leadership appointments, the removal of unnecessary institutional duplication, disability inclusion, stronger performance monitoring and more effective board oversight. These issues cannot be addressed independently because leadership quality, accountability and operational efficiency influence one another. A qualified board requires clear authority to oversee management, while effective monitoring requires measurable objectives and reliable reporting systems. Inclusive governance must also form part of the appointment process rather than remain separate from wider institutional reforms.
The success of the revised SOE ownership policy will ultimately depend on its implementation and the willingness of Government and public enterprises to measure their progress. Clear performance standards, transparent appointments and regular evaluations could help establish a stronger foundation for accountability. Restructuring should focus on improving institutional effectiveness rather than simply changing organisational arrangements. Equally, commitments to inclusive governance must create real opportunities for qualified individuals to participate in leadership and decision-making. By translating stakeholder recommendations into practical reforms, Government has an opportunity to strengthen state-owned enterprises, reduce unnecessary pressure on public finances and improve the value they deliver to the economy.
The calls made during the Francistown consultation highlight an important principle: state-owned enterprises must demonstrate that they have the leadership, governance structures and operational capacity to fulfil their responsibilities. Merit-based appointments can strengthen decision-making, regular performance monitoring can expose weaknesses and inclusive governance can ensure that institutions benefit from a wider pool of skills and experience. Stronger board authority, when supported by transparent accountability, can also improve oversight and institutional independence. As Government continues reviewing the SOE ownership policy, the priority should be to move beyond policy commitments and deliver measurable improvements. A more efficient, accountable and financially sustainable SOE sector would not only strengthen public institutions but also help protect public resources and support Botswana’s long-term economic development.
