24.07.2026
On July 16, Energy Club hosted a forum in Kyiv titled “Corporate Governance in Energy: From Formal Rules to Real Responsibility” – the final offline discussion of the Club’s three-month special project.
For three months, Energy Club brought together representatives of energy companies, members of supervisory boards, lawyers, consultants, public sector officials, and corporate governance experts to discuss how to make the management system of state-owned companies effective, transparent, and accountable.
Oleksandr Dombrovskyi, President of MHP Eco Energy and former Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Fuel and Energy Complex, speaking at the forum based on his experience in lawmaking and managing an international company, suggested looking at corporate governance not through the lens of formal requirements, but through practical results.
The expert drew a parallel between the current corporate governance reform and the energy sector reform process that Ukraine underwent ten years ago.
“In the previous convocation of the Verkhovna Rada, I headed the Fuel and Energy Complex Committee. And today I have the impression that I have returned ten years back. At that time, we adopted a large package of European integration laws, launched the electricity market, the natural gas market, and passed the law on an independent regulator. We similarly held numerous roundtables and discussed political, philosophical, and practical aspects of the reforms,” noted Oleksandr Dombrovskyi.
According to him, today corporate governance is going through a similar phase – moving from formal implementation of rules to searching for models that will actually work.
The President of MHP Eco Energy emphasized that today’s discussion primarily concerns the public sector, as in large private businesses the corporate governance system has long proven its effectiveness.
“I have been working for many years at MHP, which is a public company listed on the London Stock Exchange. It is one of the most efficient companies not only in Ukraine but also on the European market. Therefore, I can confidently say that the issue of the state as an owner and the issue of private business differ significantly. I don’t quite understand why the state faces problems that private business practically never encounters,” he stressed.
In the speaker’s opinion, this very question should become central in the discussion about the future of corporate governance in state-owned companies.
Oleksandr Dombrovskyi is convinced that it is time to move from general discussions to analyzing specific examples: “It would be very right to analyze state-owned joint-stock companies over the last five to seven years with specific compositions of supervisory boards. Why did problems arise at Energoatom? Why did problems exist for many years at Centrenergo? What was happening at Ukrhydroenergo? The law was practically the same, but the results were completely different.”
According to him, such an analysis will allow understanding the real causes of managerial problems and determining where the flaws lie in the system itself, and where it is about the human factor or corruption risks.
Separately, the speaker recalled the situation with the early dismissal of the head of NPC Ukrenergo, Volodymyr Kudrytskyi.
“We need to support the position of the supervisory board during the politically critical situation with the former head of Ukrenergo, who was dismissed without explanation, even though the company was one of the most transparent and professional,” he said.
One of the key topics of the speech was the quality of supervisory board formation.
According to Oleksandr Dombrovskyi, the main criterion is not the status of an independent or dependent board member, but their professionalism: “In my experience, there were cases when foreigners were formally independent, but in fact remained dependent. And vice versa – state representatives took a completely independent stance, defending professional decisions.”
At the same time, he drew attention to the fact that for a long time, supervisory boards of state-owned companies included officials who had no practical experience in the energy sector.
“For me, the main criterion is professional vs. unprofessional. Very often, supervisory board members were civil servants who had nothing to do with energy, but represented the interests of individual ministers,” the expert stated.
Oleksandr Dombrovskyi also expressed his position regarding the current model of supervisory board formation, where the majority of independent members are foreigners: “Four independent members does not mean they must necessarily be foreigners. Ukrainian professionals know the specifics of our market, wartime conditions, and energy security issues exceptionally well. I am not at all convinced that foreigners are smarter, more experienced, or more effective in Ukrainian realities.”
In his conviction, professional competence, rather than citizenship or formal status, should determine the composition of supervisory boards.
Another fundamental issue named by the speaker was personal accountability: “No matter what models we build, if there are no clear criteria of responsibility – for dependent, independent members of supervisory boards, and management – there will be no effective result.”
He also emphasized that effective corporate governance is one of the most important public tools for combating corruption in state energy companies.
Despite critical assessments of certain aspects of the reform, Oleksandr Dombrovskyi called for looking at the situation comprehensively.
“Ten years ago, the level of corporate governance, especially in state-owned companies, was virtually zero. Today, this discussion is much deeper, more professional, and strategic. Considering the COVID-19 pandemic and over four years of full-scale war, we can say that we are moving in the right direction. The only thing is that the speed of these changes should be significantly higher,” he noted.
Summarizing his speech, the President of MHP Eco Energy outlined the principles without which, in his conviction, it is impossible to build effective corporate governance in the state energy sector.
Results over form. Supervisory boards of state-owned companies should be evaluated by real financial and operational indicators, rather than formal compliance with procedures.
Professionalism over status. The decisive criterion must be sector competence, not a formal division into “dependent” and “independent” members of supervisory boards.
National expertise. Ukrainian specialists are equal to their foreign colleagues in professional level and better understand the specifics of energy operations under wartime conditions and the features of the Ukrainian market.
No “manual” management. The state should exercise ownership rights rather than interfere in operational activities of companies or uphold the interests of individual officials.
Personal accountability. Without clear responsibility of supervisory board members, management, and other participants in the system, no corporate governance model will be effective.
Corporate governance as an anti-corruption tool. Effective governance must become one of the key mechanisms for increasing transparency in state-owned companies, preventing corruption, and strengthening the trust of investors and international partners.
The Energy Club Forum demonstrated: corporate governance in energy has long gone beyond formal implementation of international recommendations. As Oleksandr Dombrovskyi emphasized, today it determines the efficiency of state-owned companies, their resilience to wartime challenges, the level of investor trust, and Ukraine’s ability to build a modern management system based on professionalism, accountability, and results.
