28.07.2026
Can corporate governance protect state-owned energy companies from political interference? This very question became key during the Energy Club forum “Corporate Governance in Energy: From Formal Rules to Real Responsibility,” held on July 16, which concluded a three-month special project dedicated to state enterprise management reform.
One of the event’s key speakers was Volodymyr Omelchenko, Director of Energy and Infrastructure Programs at the Razumkov Centre — an expert with many years of experience in the public sector and the energy industry. In his speech, he shared his assessment of corporate governance reforms, analyzed the situation surrounding Ukrenergo and Energoatom, and outlined the risks of political interference in the activities of strategic enterprises.
In his address, the expert drew attention to the main challenge of corporate governance in the public sector: the constant confrontation between the principles of independent management and the desire of officials to maintain political control over strategic companies.
According to him, Ukraine has made significant progress in implementing modern corporate governance standards in recent years; however, this progress was made possible not by internal political will, but primarily through the principled position of international partners, donors, and financial institutions.
The board as a “shield”: why independent management frightens officials
“A real supervisory board, operating according to OECD standards, is a dangerous instrument for officials and politicians,” Volodymyr Omelchenko emphasized.
He explained that an independent supervisory board creates barriers to manual management, political appointments, financial flows control, and opaque procurement. That is why behind the scenes there is often quiet resistance to real reforms, and attempts are made to turn supervisory boards into formal or controllable bodies.
Using specific examples, Volodymyr Omelchenko analyzed how political pressure affects strategic state-owned companies. In particular, he focused on the situation around Ukrenergo, where the dismissal of the head of the company without proper justification and consultations with international partners led to a crisis of trust.
“What happened at Ukrenergo demonstrated how fragile independent governance can be when political motives prevail over procedure and standard rules,” the expert noted.
The consequences of such decisions were not long in coming: independent members of the supervisory board resigned, and international financial institutions temporarily froze funding for critical energy infrastructure projects.
Risks for nuclear energy and controversial legislative initiatives
Volodymyr Omelchenko paid special attention to the state of affairs in nuclear energy, specifically in Energoatom, which operates in a war environment and requires maximum managerial transparency and technological safety.
The expert critically commented on draft law No. 11190 on nuclear energy safety, noting that some of its provisions create risks of lowering safety standards, blurring responsibility, and increasing political control over the operator. According to him, such initiatives may contradict long-standing developments in Ukraine’s nuclear regulation system, established after the Chernobyl disaster.
In addition, he critically assessed the idea of completing power units No. 3 and No. 4 at the Khmelnytskyi NPP using equipment from the Bulgarian project, calling it economically and technically unjustified.
Is complete independence possible in strategic companies?
Concluding his speech, the Director of Energy and Infrastructure Programs at the Razumkov Centre raised the issue of balance between international expertise and state sovereignty in managing strategic enterprises.
He posed a rhetorical question: “Is it possible to imagine that in the US, France, or Germany, the majority on the supervisory board of a state strategic company would be foreign representatives?”
Ukraine must build its corporate governance system in such a way that it simultaneously meets international standards, guarantees management independence, and ensures the protection of national interests and the state’s strategic security, Volodymyr Omelchenko emphasized.
The discussion once again confirmed: corporate governance has long ceased to be merely an internal issue of state-owned companies. In conditions of war and post-war recovery, it directly impacts the financial stability of the energy sector, cooperation with international partners, and the level of trust in Ukraine. That is why finding a model that combines management independence, professional responsibility, and national interest protection remains a key task for the state.
