Honchar Larysa, PhD (Economics), Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of Economics and Law, Ukrainian State University of Science and Technologies, Educational and Scientific Institute “Ukrainian State University of Chemical Technology”, Dnipro, Ukraine

ORCID: 0000-0003-4847-3977
e-mail: gonchar.larisa.63@gmail.com

Demchenko Mykola, Postgraduate Student of the Department of Economics and Law, Ukrainian State University of Science and Technologies, Educational and Scientific Institute “Ukrainian State University of Chemical Technology”, Dnipro, Ukraine

ORCID: 0009-0003-4363-7132
e-mail: dema.nn1976@ukr.net

Assessment of Enterprise Competitiveness in Ukraine: a Multidimensional Approach

Abstract. Introduction. Enterprise competitiveness in Ukraine is being reshaped by war-related disruptions, supply chain instability, damaged energy infrastructure, challenges to post-war recovery, and European integration processes. Under these conditions, assessing competitive positions requires a multidimensional, theoretically grounded approach that considers internal capabilities and external market pressures.

Purpose. This study aims to evaluate the competitiveness of Ukrainian enterprises by applying a five-force competition model integrating Michael Porter’s competitive forces framework, the resource-based view, and dynamic capabilities theory. The study also seeks to identify strategic approaches to strengthen sustainable competitive advantages.

Results. The study analyzes 15 indicators grouped into five dimensions: Productivity, Profitability, Image, Stability, and Growth, based on official financial and statistical data of leading Ukrainian enterprises. The results reveal heterogeneous competitive profiles, with strong sectoral concentrations in metallurgy, mining, agriculture, the food industry, energy, utilities, IT, and high-tech services, as well as retail and consumer goods distribution. Dual aggregation methodology, based on both arithmetic and geometric means, demonstrates the significant sensitivity of competitiveness measurement. The arithmetic mean is more appropriate for the Ukrainian competitive environment, which is shaped by economic uncertainty and structural transformation. Most enterprises show strong advantages in specific dimensions rather than balanced excellence across all indicators, confirming the existence of multiple strategic paths to competitive success.

Conclusions. The research confirms that enterprise competitiveness in Ukraine depends on effectively combining internal capabilities and adapting to external environmental challenges. Strategic priorities should include capability development, digital transformation, export orientation, and market repositioning. The findings provide business managers and policymakers with practical recommendations aimed at strengthening Ukraine’s long-term economic resilience and sustainable enterprise development.

Keywords: competitiveness of enterprises; the five forces model of competition; multidimensional analysis; strategic paths; post-war recovery; European integration.

References:

1. Ivanov, Y. B., Kyzym, M. O., Tyshchenko, O. M., Ivanova, O. Yu., Revenko, O. V., & Chechetova-Terashvili, T. M. (2010). Upravlinnia konkurentospromozhnistiu pidpryiemstva. VD «INZhEK».
2. Mykhasiuk, I., Hukaliuk, A., & Kosovych, B. (2021). Innovatsii yak chynnyk pidvyshchennia konkurentospromozhnosti Ukrainy v umovakh makroekonomichnoi nestabilnosti. Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu. Seriia ekonomichna, (60). https://doi.org/10.30970/ves.2021.60.0.6003
3. Mykhasiuk, I., Hukaliuk, A., & Kosovych, B. (2019). Problemy konkurentospromozhnosti ukrainskoho pidpryiemnytstva i torhivli v umovakh hlobalizatsii. Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu. Seriia ekonomichna, (56), 308–315. https://doi.org/10.30970/ves.2019.56.0.3028
4. Sukhanova, A. V. (2021). Metodychni pidkhody do otsiniuvannia konkurentospromozhnosti pidpryiemstva. Ekonomika ta suspilstvo, (26). https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0072/2021-26-62
5. Agazu, B. G., Kero, C. A., & Debela, K. L. (2024). Innovation strategy and firm competitiveness: A systematic literature review. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 13, Article 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-024-00381-9
6. Chen, C.-M., Delmas, M. A., & Lieberman, M. B. (2015). Production frontier methodologies and efficiency as a performance measure in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 36(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2199
7. Fainshmidt, S., Smith, A., & Judge, W. Q. (2016). National competitiveness and Porter’s diamond model: The role of MNE penetration and governance quality. Global Strategy Journal, 6(2), 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1116
8. Hermundsdottir, F., & Aspelund, A. (2021). Sustainability innovations and firm competitiveness: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 280, Article 124715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124715
9. Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, J.-C., & Groen, A. J. (2010). The resource-based view: A review and assessment of its critiques. Journal of Management, 36(1), 349–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309350775
10. Lazzarini, S. G. (2015). Strategizing by the government: Can industrial policy create firm-level competitive advantage? Strategic Management Journal, 36(1), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2204
11. Le Thanh, T., Tran, T. T. H., Hoang, T. C., & Nguyen, D. T. (2021). Determinants for competitiveness in the context of international integration pressure: Case of small and medium enterprises in emerging economy. Cogent Business & Management, 8(1), Article 1893246. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1893246
12. Morris, S. S., Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B., & Molloy, J. C. (2017). Firm-specific human capital investments as a signal of general value: Revisiting assumptions about human capital and how it is managed. Strategic Management Journal, 38(4), 912–919. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2521
13. Schilke, O., Hu, S., & Helfat, C. E. (2018). Quo vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic review of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 390–439. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0014
14. Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.06.007