As Ukraine continues to navigate the realities of war and the long road toward reconstruction, questions about integrity are no longer abstract. They sit at the center of how markets function, how reconstruction funds are used, and how businesses make decisions in environments shaped by uncertainty and risk.

In a recent episode of the AccountabiliTea Podcast, Sofiia Sapihura (Anti-Corruption Studies Consultant & Researcher) joined Cheri-Leigh Erasmus (Co-CEO, Accountability Lab) to unpack findings from the report, Leveraging Integrity for Ukraine’s Reconstruction: The Role of Ethical Businesses. 

Drawing on interviews with companies across sectors, the research looks beyond traditional anti-corruption narratives to examine how ethical businesses operate in practice – and what they need to sustain integrity during reconstruction.

What emerges is a more nuanced story: integrity is not simply a moral position. It is a set of choices shaped by incentives, market pressures, and institutional realities.

We’ve created a few resources to accompany the report, available below.

A summary of the report’s key recommendations, including key drivers of business integrity maturity, major operational constraints, and emerging opportunities for collective action.

A Donor Roadmap of structural realities that should inform donor strategies to strengthen business integrity and anti-corruption outcomes in Ukraine’s reconstruction context.

Moving beyond risk: Ethical businesses as agents of change

Much of the existing discussion around corruption in reconstruction focuses on risk – particularly the risk posed by the private sector. This research takes a different angle. Rather than viewing companies primarily as potential sources of corruption, the study asks how ethically committed businesses can act as drivers of integrity within the wider ecosystem.

Sofiia explains that ethical business conduct goes beyond legal compliance. It includes transparency in procurement, responsible engagement with public authorities, strong governance practices, and accountability toward employees, partners, and communities. Importantly, the research treats ethical business not as a fixed category, but as a continuum shaped by internal governance and external conditions.

Through interviews and case-based discussions, the research explored how companies understand integrity, how mature their compliance systems are, and how they navigate real-world pressures – from regulatory bottlenecks to market competition. What quickly became clear was that while many companies use the same language around integrity, they apply it in very different ways.

The hard truth: Ethical businesses sometimes lose

One of the most striking findings from the report is also one of the most uncomfortable: ethical businesses can lose out.

Companies reported losing contracts, profits, or competitiveness because they refused to accept informal payments or opaque arrangements. Some experienced delays in customs clearance or inspections due to strict compliance procedures. Others faced administrative pressure or dismissive treatment from regulators after rejecting corrupt practices.

These realities challenge the assumption that integrity is always a “win-win.” Instead, they highlight structural tensions – especially in environments where enforcement is uneven and informal practices persist.

Acknowledging these challenges is not about weakening the case for integrity. Rather, it helps policymakers and donors understand what ethical businesses are actually navigating. Without that honesty, reforms risk overlooking the incentives that shape everyday decisions.

Reconstruction risks: Why construction matters

As reconstruction accelerates, certain sectors are more vulnerable – particularly construction. Large budgets, complex supply chains, and urgent timelines create multiple points where discretion and pressure intersect.

The research found that many construction companies currently operate with early-stage integrity systems compared to sectors such as energy or financial services. In high-risk environments, companies described facing degrading or arbitrary treatment when refusing informal arrangements – reflecting deeper rule-of-law challenges rather than isolated incidents.

For donors and policymakers, this raises an important question: how can reconstruction frameworks ensure that speed does not come at the cost of accountability? Formal rules alone are not enough. Market incentives must also reward integrity. If ethical companies struggle to compete, the long-term sustainability of reform efforts becomes fragile.

What is working: Incentives from within

Despite these challenges, the report surfaces reasons for cautious optimism. Many companies still see integrity as valuable – not just ethically, but strategically.

Businesses working with international partners often described clearer donor requirements and global standards as creating more predictable environments. Internally, companies with well-defined governance systems reported fewer tensions and more confident decision-making.

Reputation also emerged as a powerful motivator. Several companies described integrity as a long-term investment – one that shapes relationships, trust, and resilience even when immediate financial returns are uncertain.

Collective action: Practical collaboration over symbolism

Another strong theme from the research is the growing interest in collective action among businesses. Companies expressed readiness to collaborate on shared reporting standards, procurement commitments, and knowledge-sharing platforms that reduce individual risk.

But there is also caution. Collective initiatives lose credibility when they remain purely symbolic. Businesses emphasized the need for mechanisms tied to real processes – not just public declarations. For reconstruction to succeed, collaboration must move beyond messaging and create tangible shifts in how markets operate.

A key lesson for reconstruction: Make integrity the rational choice

As the conversation concluded, Sofiia offered a clear takeaway for donors, policymakers, and accountability practitioners: integrity cannot rely solely on moral commitment. It must be supported by incentives and enablers.

The research highlights the importance of accessible digital tools, open data systems, training, and strong legal frameworks that help companies operationalize compliance. While many Ukrainian businesses sustain integrity efforts independently, most require targeted support – from capacity building to technological infrastructure – to scale these practices.

The broader goal, she notes, is simple but profound: to make integrity the easy, practical, and commercially rational choice – not a heroic exception.

Looking ahead

Ukraine’s reconstruction will shape not only physical infrastructure but also the norms that define its economic future. By listening directly to businesses navigating these realities, this research challenges simplified narratives about corruption and reform.

Integrity is not a static ideal. It is a process – one that depends on incentives, collaboration, and systems that allow ethical actors to thrive. As reconstruction moves forward, the question is no longer whether integrity matters. The real challenge is ensuring that those who choose integrity are not left behind.

Accountability Lab