22.07.2025
When was the last time you read a news story to the end, rather than stopping at the headline or the first paragraph?
We live at a pace where information is more often scanned than read. Reactions are formed before the context is understood. Now imagine that headline is about your company. This is the new reality—one in which a company without its own voice loses influence.
In the 2010s, the role of independent journalism began to grow in Ukraine. After the Revolution of Dignity, the start of the war, and the launch of reforms, strong editorial teams emerged, supported by international donors. But after 2022, priorities logically shifted toward critical infrastructure, defense, and energy. The media found themselves facing budget cuts and reduced institutional support.
According to various estimates, over 80% of Ukrainian media today operate with the support of affiliated financial or political structures. Those newsrooms that maintain their independence are forced to balance content quality with financial viability.
Today’s information field is no longer a space for open dialogue. It is a competitive environment where companies are forced to defend not only their position but their very presence.
Journalists, Telegram channels, bloggers, and experts are all parts of a single information flow that is formed quickly, emotionally, and often—without fact-checking. In such an environment, a company’s reputation can be threatened by external interpretations or an information vacuum. A single post or the absence of a timely comment is all it takes.
This is especially true for the energy sector. Not only because this field operates at the intersection of state and business interests, but also because it is always a potential point of tension. The energy sector is under close scrutiny from society, journalists, and international partners. Every minute of silence in the public space is a minute that someone else will fill.
Today, it is not enough for companies in the energy sector to have only production capacity—they must have a voice in the public space.
The absence of communication is not neutrality; it is an opportunity for external interpretations. The industry can be written about with assumptions, commented on “on behalf of the community,” or evaluated without real expertise. This creates the risk that the company’s actual position will not be heard.
This isn’t about PR in the classic sense, but about a company’s ability to be a subject in the information field—to shape the context, not just react to it.
Consider a typical situation: an incident occurs at a facility. While technical specialists analyze the causes, a local Telegram channel publishes a post with assumptions—about worn-out equipment, a possible power outage in the area, and residents’ concerns. The information quickly gains traction. Journalists arrive at the scene.
The next day, ministry representatives contact the company with a request: what exactly happened, what is your position, how should this be commented on publicly?
This is not an exception but a common scenario for companies that lack a clear communication infrastructure. Without a prepared press office, crisis protocols, and designated speakers, even a local event can escalate into a full-blown reputational crisis.
In this context, communication is one of the key elements of risk management for energy companies operating in a highly sensitive environment.
To maintain control in the public space, a company must work on the quality of its communication infrastructure. First and foremost, this means having a clear position that can be quickly articulated in a crisis situation—without technical jargon, but also without populism.
It is necessary to identify trained public representatives capable of communicating at various levels—from interviews to industry events. Equally important is the systematic monitoring of the information field: understanding who is mentioning the company, how, and where, which will help prevent reputational risks.
And finally—established working relationships with journalists. This is not about commissioned articles, but about the ability to convey one’s position directly.
This is the basic level of informational resilience that determines a company’s ability to maintain trust under the pressure of the external environment.
In a highly sensitive sector like energy, reputation serves a specific function: it builds trust in conditions of uncertainty, ensures legitimacy in interactions with government agencies, and supports the company’s authority during crisis periods.
It is formed through consistent presence in industry discussions, public positions, speeches by company experts, and open, professional communication.
The modern information environment does not leave companies time for a lengthy reaction. While media influence was once linear and developed within controlled cycles, today it is explosive. A single wave of disinformation can not only distort facts but also call a reputation into question—so much so that regaining trust is no longer guaranteed.
Whereas the media used to primarily report on events after the fact, they now broadcast the process in real time. This means you don’t have days, or even hours, to react—sometimes only minutes.
A communication presence in the public space is a strategic resource. Its main value lies in the ability to speak not just about oneself, but for oneself: on behalf of the industry, on behalf of the specialists who ensure critical processes, and on behalf of a country that today relies on the stability of its energy system.
If a company does not shape its own narrative, someone else will. But there is no guarantee that this narrative will be accurate, professional, or favorable. Therefore, the key challenge is to build communication systematically, reliably, and with a long-term horizon.
