03.08.2026
On July 16, Kyiv hosted the forum “Corporate Governance in Energy: From Formal Rules to Real Responsibility” – the final offline discussion of the Energy Club special project dedicated to reforming the management system of state-owned energy companies.
Participants discussed practical issues rather than theoretical principles: how the state should exercise ownership rights without manual intervention in company operations; what the real role of supervisory boards should be; how to evaluate their effectiveness; where the boundary between control and political pressure lies; how to ensure the accountability of management and governing bodies; and what exactly builds the trust of international financial institutions, donors, and investors in Ukrainian energy companies.
Participants paid special attention to the changes of 2025–2026: updating supervisory boards in key state energy companies, implementing OECD standards, and strengthening requirements for transparency, compliance, and governance accountability.
One of the forum speakers was Volodymyr Kholosha – President of the Ukrainian Nuclear Society, the country’s largest industry public organization, which brings together specialists in nuclear energy, industry, nuclear science, and technology.
Ukrainian nuclear power engineer at the Chernobyl NPP, statesman, former Minister of Ukraine for Emergency Situations and Protection of the Population from the Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe (1994–1996), Head of the State Agency of Ukraine on Exclusion Zone Management (2010–2014), Candidate of Economic Sciences, laureate of the State Prize of Ukraine in Science and Technology (2000), he focused on the specifics of corporate governance in nuclear energy, the necessity of executing strategic state decisions, and the real limits of supervisory board authority in 100% state-owned companies.
Strategic decisions must be executed
Volodymyr Kholosha recalled that even under full-scale war conditions, Ukraine adopted a new Energy Strategy that defines nuclear generation as the baseline foundation of the country’s power system. That is why, in his view, the decision to complete the third and fourth power units of the Khmelnytskyi NPP is a logical continuation of state policy.
The expert emphasized that the structural constructions of the future power units have already been built, and the investments made in them amount to about $2 billion. Their technical condition has been confirmed both by Ukrainian regulatory and construction organizations and by relevant expert evaluations.
Separately, the President of the Ukrainian Nuclear Society commented on the debate regarding the equipment planned for procurement from Bulgaria to complete the power units. According to him, independent international expert organizations confirmed its quality and operational suitability, making it incorrect to label it as “scrap metal.”
“This is licensed equipment whose quality characteristics are confirmed by foreign experts. We must be responsible about such assessments and about the decisions that determine the future of nuclear energy,” he stressed.
Supervisory board authority has its limits
Speaking about corporate governance, Volodymyr Kholosha noted that JSC NNEGC “Energoatom” has been at the center of the most intense discussions regarding supervisory board activities in recent years. In his view, it is essential to consider that supervisory board capabilities in state companies are significantly limited by the decisions of the owner – the state.
He drew attention to the fact that Energoatom executes an increasing volume of public service obligations (PSO) every year, which significantly impacts the company’s financial condition. According to Volodymyr Kholosha, in 2025 alone, the company allocated about UAH 160 billion to fulfill PSO, representing over half of its cash flow.
At the same time, it is the supervisory board that approves the company’s financial plans, strategy, and policies, yet it lacks the ability to influence state decisions regarding the scope of assigned public service obligations.
“The supervisory board function in such cases is very limited. We must understand this when evaluating its work,” noted the President of the Ukrainian Nuclear Society.
Balance between state interests and company development
Summarizing his address, Volodymyr Kholosha emphasized that the main challenge of corporate governance in strategic state companies remains the search for a balance between the owner’s interests and the enterprise’s development needs.
On one hand, the state as an owner sets the rules of the game and assigns important social functions to companies. On the other hand, energy enterprises must have sufficient resources for investment, modernization, and the construction of new capacities to replace power units that will gradually be decommissioned in the future.
That is why, the expert is convinced, when evaluating the effectiveness of supervisory boards in companies with 100% state ownership, it is necessary to consider not only their formal powers, but also the objective constraints within which they operate. Only with such an approach can corporate governance become a truly effective tool for the development of Ukrainian energy.
Corporate governance in state energy companies today extends far beyond formal compliance with legal requirements. It must ensure a balance between the interests of the state as an owner, the social obligations of companies, and their ability to develop, invest in new capacities, and execute strategic projects. It is upon a clear division of responsibility between the owner, management, and supervisory boards, transparency in decision-making, and consistency of state policy that not only governance efficiency depends, but also the country’s energy security and long-term development.
