Publication date:
Publication from:
Running a business in Ukraine is, in many ways, a survival exercise — and navigating the state is an unavoidable part of it. From the moment a company is conceived to the day it closes, interactions with government bodies and their representatives are far more frequent than any business would choose. These exchanges vary enormously in nature and direction: from a company voluntarily submitting legislative proposals to uninvited inspections by enforcement agencies that effectively bring operations to a halt.
Every interaction with a government representative is unique and demands careful, individual assessment. What remains constant is this: avoidance is not an option, and how a company handles state communication directly affects both its reputation and the outcome it achieves.
Another persistent feature of doing business in Ukraine is the gap between the law on paper and how it is actually applied. Strong knowledge of legislation alone is rarely sufficient to guarantee results — understanding how a given norm, official, or authority actually operates in practice is just as important.
The team at HADZHUK&PARTNERS — comprising specialists with hands-on experience in law enforcement, parliament, business, and the legal profession — has compiled practical guidance on making state communication as effective as possible. The advice below is relevant not only to business owners and executives, but to any employee who may need to contact a government body or deal with an official in the course of their work.
Written correspondence with officials is one of the most common forms of state engagement — not because putting something in writing automatically delivers the desired result, but because in Ukrainian practice, a document on record compels a response and confirms that communication was attempted. Five aspects worth considering when preparing any written submission, regardless of the nature of the request:
1. Know exactly who you are writing to.
This sounds obvious, but it is the most common source of failure. A letter addressed to multiple recipients risks going unanswered entirely: if no one person is being asked or required to act, no one will be held accountable for the response. A letter addressed to an organisation rather than a specific individual carries the same risk. Most frequently, businesses write to officials or bodies that simply do not have the authority to resolve the issue at hand — a common example being letters addressed to senior state figures, which will simply be redirected to whoever is actually responsible. Identify the competent authority and person before drafting anything; it saves time and accelerates results.
2. Your submission reflects your company
Official documents should not resemble a highlighted textbook or a child’s colouring book. The document should look neat, restrained, and easy to read — avoid excessive font sizes, colour, italics, underlining, and bold text. Use emphasis sparingly: no more than one or two passages in the entire document. For formatting reference, consult the national standard ДСТУ 4163:2020 on official document requirements, and consider developing a consistent house style. How your documents look already signals something about your company — and it influences how the submission is received.
3. Keep it to three pages
Most government bodies are, quite literally, overwhelmed with correspondence, and officials rarely have time to work through dozens of pages. In practice, readers focus on what matters most: who is submitting and what they want — meaning the first and last pages. Avoid loading the submission with general context. State your requirements in no more than three pages and attach all supporting material — evidence, case law, examples — as appendices. This structure gives the submission a far better chance of being read in full.
4. Be clear and easy to follow
The person to whom a submission is addressed often does not review it personally — a specialist does, prepares a draft response, and then presents a summary to the signatory. The substance of the submission must be easy to relay from the reviewer to the decision-maker. Aim for one submission, one issue.
5. Ask whether a written submission is actually the right move
Before committing to written communication, consider: is documentary confirmation of the approach necessary? Is there a reason to establish a paper trail? Is the goal to receive a written response for potential appeal? Or is the real priority to understand quickly what is required and what the next steps are? Written communication often demands more resources and takes longer than a phone call or meeting. Many situations are better resolved verbally — and the written route simply adds friction without adding value.
In practice, the majority of state engagement happens verbally: phone calls, meetings, events, conferences, roundtables. Before entering any such exchange, consider three questions:
Does your representative speak for the whole company — and does their conduct reflect it? As with documents, the appearance, manner, and conduct of whoever represents the company shapes the impression it creates. Choose representatives carefully and prepare in advance.
What format and setting are appropriate? There is no shortage of channels for engaging with government — from official working groups to business breakfasts to social media. Attending everything is neither practical nor effective. Focus on what is genuinely most likely to work for the specific issue at hand.
Is there any point communicating without a clear purpose? Engaging with an official for the sake of a handshake and a photo is a different exercise from engaging to resolve a concrete issue. Know the difference. If the goal is to make an impression, make it count — arrive with a defined objective and do the preparation beforehand.
One additional note: some issues are better raised not by individual companies, but through an industry association or business coalition. This is a different level of engagement — harder to ignore, harder to dismiss with a formal non-answer. Use collective platforms as a means of amplifying your voice.
From 1 September 2025, lobbying became a formally recognised form of state engagement in Ukraine. For many, the word carries uncomfortable connotations — backroom dealings, phone-call justice. In legal terms, however, lobbying is simply the professional activity of communicating a position to the state and influencing the regulatory environment in which business operates.
Legitimate lobbying methods include: direct or indirect communication with relevant officials regarding the adoption, amendment, or repeal of legislation; preparation and distribution of analytical materials, policy papers, and research; participation in or organisation of events related to legislative matters; and any other method not prohibited under Ukrainian law.
For businesses that engage systematically with regulators and legislators, understanding these rules is now a mandatory part of any communication strategy. What previously took place in the grey zone of informal contact now has a clear legal framework — and ignoring that framework exposes a company to both reputational and legal risk. Lobbying is worth serious consideration as a tool for achieving policy objectives.
The state is not an abstract entity. Behind every title is a person who reads your submission, answers your call, gives advice, appears at events, and ultimately makes decisions that shape the conditions in which your business operates tomorrow. Understanding the rules of the game substantially increases the chances of achieving the outcome you are after.
Building a constructive dialogue with the state is now a core business function — on a par with data protection and financial management. It cannot be avoided, and its outcomes directly affect the environment in which your company, your sector, and Ukrainian business as a whole will find itself tomorrow. Approach it with care, expertise, and a clear sense of purpose.
Olena Hadzhuk, Advocate, Managing Partner of HADZHUK&PARTNERS, PhD, External Consultant to the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Law Enforcement.
To learn more, watch the recording of the ITU Legal Talks webinar with Olena Hadzhuk: “From Enquiries to Interrogations: How Businesses Should Communicate with the State”:
