Asian Basic and Applied Research Journal

Kenya's energy sector combines state-owned utilities, regulated petroleum markets, independent power producers, and rapidly evolving off-grid enterprises. This institutional diversity makes the relationship between competitive strategy and firm performance more complex than conventional market-positioning models imply. This critical narrative review evaluates empirical evidence on cost leadership, differentiation, focus, innovation, collaboration, organisational alignment, and business-model adaptation across electricity, petroleum, liquefied petroleum gas, solar, and mini-grid activities. Literature published from 1980 to 1 June 2026 was identified through accessible scholarly indexes, DOI and metadata services, institutional repositories, citation searching, and authoritative energy-sector sources. The synthesis indicates that competitive strategies are generally associated with improved financial, operational, market, project, or service outcomes, but the strength of this conclusion is limited. Most Kenya-specific studies use cross-sectional questionnaires, managerial perceptions, single-informant designs, and simple regression models; few use objective longitudinal performance data or address endogeneity. Cost leadership is most credible when interpreted as logistics efficiency, asset utilisation, procurement discipline, loss reduction, and working-capital control rather than unrestricted price competition. Differentiation operates through reliability, safety, convenience, digital interfaces, customer service, and clean-energy positioning. Focus strategies are particularly important in rural, low-income, and off-grid markets, although affordability, demand density, payment risk, and regulatory uncertainty constrain their returns. Innovation and collaboration can strengthen resilience, but their effects depend on complementary capabilities, organisational clarity, institutional fit, and the distribution of risks across partners. The review concludes that Kenya's energy firms gain less from isolated generic strategies than from coherent configurations that align positioning, capabilities, business models, and regulatory adaptation. More credible inference requires matched firm-level panels, quasi-experimental designs, objective performance indicators, and explicit comparison across subsectors.