Assessment of the Impact of Sustainable Development on the Socio-Economic Development of the Country: Prospects and Risks
Iryna Skorokhod
PhD in Economics,
Associate Professor,
Dept. of Economics and Entrepreneurship,
Odessa I.I. Mechnikov National University,
Odesa (Ukraine),
https://orcid.org/0009-0009-7375-8211
Anhelina Spitsyna
PhD of Pedagogical Sciences,
Associate Professor,
Dept. of Economics,
National Transport University, Kyiv (Ukraine),
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9730-6249
Pavlo Grechan
PhD in Mgmt,
Lecturer, Dept. of Mgmt, Marketing and Public Adm.,
Higher education institution
“Academician Yuriy Bugay International
Scientific and Technical University”, Kyiv (Ukraine),
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4878-9744
ValentynaYasyshena
Doctor of Economic Sciences,
Professor, Vinnytsia Education and
Research Institute of Economy of West
Ukrainian National University, Vinnytsia (Ukraine),
valentyna.yasyshena@gmail.com,
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3214-3877
YevhenTerekhov
PhD in Economics,
Associate Professor,
Department of Applied Economics,
Entrepreneurship and Public Administration,
Dnipro University of Technology, Dnipro (Ukraine),
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4816-6072
Abstract
This study critically evaluates the impact of sustainable development initiatives on Ukraine’s socio-economic trajectory, emphasising the interplay between economic growth, environmental sustainability, social inclusion, and institutional risks. Employing a case study approach and DeGroot’s social learning process, the research identifies substantial progress, including a 15% reduction in carbon emissions and an 11% increase in renewable energy adoption. However, systemic barriers such as corruption, policy instability, and inadequate funding impede broader implementation and stakeholder alignment. The findings are further contextualised within the ongoing Russian aggression and its profound economic and environmental consequences, including significant infrastructure damage, displacement of populations, and resource diversion from sustainability projects to immediate defence needs. The war has amplified institutional vulnerabilities and disrupted progress in key sectors while creating opportunities for international collaboration and rebuilding with sustainability in focus. Ethical considerations are highlighted, particularly the disproportionate burden on marginalised communities during industrial transitions and conflict, raising critical questions about distributive justice. The study provides actionable recommendations, including institutional reforms, financial incentives for green initiatives, community engagement strategies, and enhanced international cooperation. These insights aim to guide policymakers in crafting equitable and resilient pathways for sustainable development in transitioning economies under crisis conditions, with Ukraine serving as a case study.
Keywords:National Economy, Socio-Economic Development, Human Resources, Social Inclusion, Sustainable Development, European Integration, Hybrid Threats, State Regulation, Post-War Recovery, Economic And Mathematical Modeling.
Introduction
Sustainable development is a multidimensional concept that seeks to balance economic growth, environmental preservation, and social equity to ensure long-term progress and stability (Hariram et al., 2023). As global challenges such as climate change, socio-economic disparities, and environmental degradation become more pronounced, sustainable development has become a cornerstone of modern policymaking (Mensah, 2019). For Ukraine, the pursuit of sustainable development holds both immense potential and considerable complexity (Zelinska et al., 2021). The country has its own problems, such as unstable politics, the effects of ongoing conflict, and an economy that is changing and trying to meet EU norms (Bin-Nashwan et al., 2024).
A case study and modelbased on DeGroot's social learning process were used together to study how people accept and spread sustainable practices. The primary objectives of this study are as follows:
The following central research question guides this study:
How do sustainable development initiatives impact the socio-economic trajectory of Ukraine, and what are the primary challenges and opportunities in achieving these goals?
This study is critical because it can help solve a pressing problem in a particular and essential national setting. Ukraine's attempts to achieve sustainable development are a small example of the more significantissue of balancing economic growth with social and environmental needs.
Literature Review
Sustainable Development Frameworks
People worldwide know about the framework because of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set by the United Nations. Its 17 goals are connected and meant to solve the world's biggest problems by 2030 (Arora and Mishra, 2019; Hassani et al., 2021). When economies are based on traditional models, they prefer fast economic growth even if it means a negative externality for individuals and the environment in the long run (Jones, 2022; Mikhno et al., 2021). Environmental damage includes cutting down trees, pollution, and climate change. We aim to lessen these effects while ensuring that natural areas can support people in the future (Seddon et al., 2021).According to social inclusion, everyone gets their fair share of growth (Kronauer, 2019). Long-term growth needs to switch to a green economy, which puts low-carbon actions, uses resources efficiently, and helps everyone at the top of its list of objectives (Hickel and Kallis, 2020).
Governments play a significant role in making the environment better for sustainability by creating rules and policies that urge people to act in ways that are good for the environment (Satterthwaite, 2021). Ukraine tries to follow international regulations like the European Green Deal and the Paris Agreement (Maksymova, 2023). As part of the Paris Agreement, nations promise to keep the temperature rise well below 2 degrees Celsius above levels before the Industrial Revolution (Meinshausen et al., 2022). In the same way, the European Green Deal is a big plan to stop climate change by 2050 (Krämer, 2020). It focuses on protecting biodiversity, using renewable energy, and running companies that are good for the environment. Ukraine can bring its economy up to date, get capital from other countries, and move up in the world's politics if it follows these rules.
Socioeconomic development
Increasing well-being and economic growth is the goal of socio-economic development, a long process with many parts (Eisenmenger et al., 2020). Most of the time, job rates, income levels, and gross domestic product (GDP) are used as macroeconomic statistics to track this growth (Coscieme et al., 2020). It is considered that economic growth is the key to both social and financial improvement (Hysa et al., 2020). It gives people the investment they need to put money into health care, education, technology, and infrastructure. Growing crops and technology are some industries that have long helped Ukraine's GDP (Bazhal&Koutchma, 2022). People can improve their lives and support the business by getting an education. Workers who get good health care are also strong and can do their jobs (Billings et al., 2021). As Wade (2020)asserts, policies that include everyone are needed to lower inequality and increase output. Pasha et al. (2022) claim that technology is affecting its part in sustainability in more ways.
One of the most challenging things for Ukraine is making its short-term economic and long-term environmental goals work together (Lytvyn et al., 2023). For policy models to be fair, they must simultaneously look at financial, social, and ecological issues (Huber et al., 2020). Many things outside of Ukraine have an impact on its business and people. These include international agreements, geopolitical battles, and global market trends. Mazur et al. (2023)pay attention to significant trends, ways to measure competition, and how export-oriented output helps the economy grow. Oneshko et al. (2022) clarify that for Ukraine's economy to heal and grow long-term, the government, businesses, and the people must work together. The focus of Susdarwono et al. (2023) on using local knowledge, public participation, and geostrategic potential is in line with the need for inclusive and region-specific approaches to long-term socio-economic development.
Being in line with international agreements like the Paris Agreement and the European Green Deal gives Ukraine both chances and duties. The research by Sembiyeva et al. (2023) fits with how Ukraine's economies are managed strategically because it looks at how green investments and technologies, such as green bonds, can improve things, protect energy security, and promote long-term growth. Locals' participation in growth planning and decision-making can improve policies and guarantee that projects fulfil everyone's needs.
Institutional Risks in Sustainable Development
Numerousgrowing countries have a big problem with corruption (Song et al., 2021). This makes long-term growth impossible. People have known for a long time that Ukraine has a big problem with corruption in many areas, like public services, energy, and infrastructure (Zapatrina, 2022). Long-term planning and investment are impacted by policies that are not stable (Adshead et al., 2019). For instance, changes in the costs and advantages of renewable energy have made businesses less likely to put money into green energy projects (Mirzania et al., 2019). Institutional capacity is how well public groups can make policies for sustainable development, carry them out, and keep an eye on them (Lee, 2020). Environmental laws are more complex to police, for instance, because regulatory bodies do not have enough skilled workers (Shao et al., 2020).
Institutional risks make investors less sure of themselves, which stops FDI, which is very important for poor countries to grow (Moran et al., 2021). Companies that are not strong enough do not set the rules and penalties to ensure people follow environmental laws (Light, 2019). For example, the lack of enforcement of emissions guidelines can cause people to keep using fossil fuels, making it harder to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.The study shows that sustainable development is a process with many parts that must bring together economic, environmental, and social goals. This is especially true for economies that are still changing, like Ukraine's. For socioeconomic growth, it's essential to have long-term plans and policies that include everyone.
Methodology
This study employs a case study methodology, selecting Ukraine as a representative example of a transitioning economy striving to achieve sustainable development. Data were collected from secondary sources, including policy documents, economic reports, and academic literature. Qualitative insights from these reviews were complemented with quantitative evaluations based on a mathematical modelling approach.It is possible to see how sustainable development changes over time with DeGroot’s social learning method. According to the model, people's views change when interacting with others. These changes eventually spread sustainable development practices to everyone in society.The variables included in the mathematical model and their descriptions are presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Description of Variables
|
Variable |
Description |
|
Economic Growth (EG) |
Represents the rate of economic expansion in the country. |
|
Environmental Sustainability (ES) |
Reflects efforts to reduce environmental degradation and promote renewable energy. |
|
Social Inclusion (SI) |
Captures equity in resource distribution and opportunities for marginalised groups. |
|
Institutional Risks (IR) |
Assesses governance-related challenges affecting sustainable development. |
Mathematical Framework: DeGroot's Social Learning Process
DeGroot's model mathematically simulates how societal actors update their opinions or decisions over time based on interactions with others (DeGroot, 1974; Stefani et al., 2019). In this study, the model analyses the adoption and diffusion of sustainable development practices by considering the weighted influence of societal actors.
The mathematical representation of the model is as follows:
: The updated opinion of actor at time regarding the adoption of sustainable practices.
: The opinion of actor jat time t.
: The weight of influence that actor has on actor , where
Application of the Model
Each actor is assigned an initial opinion , ranging from 0 (no support for sustainable practices) to 1 (full support for sustainable practices). Initial values are derived from empirical data such as public opinion surveys, institutional reports, and policy reviews.The influence weights () represent the strength of interaction between societal actors. For instance, government institutions may have a higher influence on policy frameworks.These weights are assigned based on network analysis or expert judgments.The model iterates over multiple time steps to simulate how opinions converge toward a societal consensus on sustainable development practices. Over successive iterations, the model predicts the rate and extent of adoption.
Table 2: Key Model Insights
|
Aspect |
Description |
|
Economic Growth (EG) |
Simulates how sustained investment in green technologies (e.g., renewable energy) influences GDP growth over time, balancing short-term costs with long-term gains. |
|
Environmental Sustainability (ES) |
Models’ adoption rates of renewable energy and emission reduction practices as a function of institutional influence and societal acceptance. |
|
Social Inclusion (SI) |
This variable analyses the diffusion of inclusive policies, such as employment opportunities in green industries, and their impact on equity. |
Each node is an actor, like the government, the business sector, or civil society. The edges between the actors show their impact weights ().This method is very detailed and combines ideas from qualitative case studies with mathematical modelling to give a complete picture of sustainable development in Ukraine.
Results
In this work, the DeGroot Social Learning Process assumes that people in Ukraine would accept and spread sustainable development practices. Step 1 is initialisingactor opinions.Each societal actor (e.g., government, civil society, private sector, local communities) is assigned an initial opinion on sustainable development derived from empirical data. Initial opinions range from 0 (no support for sustainable practices) to 1 (full support).
Table 3: Initial Opinion of Different Actors
|
Actor |
Initial Opinion () |
Rationale |
|
Government |
0.6 |
ModeraThe support is due to policy commitments but is limited by corruption risks. |
|
Civil Society |
0.8 |
Strong support for sustainability, advocating environmental and social equity. |
|
Private Sector |
0.5 |
Mixed opinions based on profitability concerns and policy uncertainties. |
|
Local Communities |
0.7 |
Benefits from renewable energy projects influence positive attitudes. |
The weights of influence () represent the strength of interaction between actors in Table 3. These weights are assigned based on empirical observations and network analysis of stakeholder influence.
Table 4: Influence Weight Exerted by Each Member
|
Actor Pair |
Influence Weight () |
Rationale |
|
Government → Private Sector |
0.6 |
Significant influence due to policy-setting power. |
|
Civil Society → Government |
0.4 |
Moderate influence via advocacy and public opinion. |
|
Private Sector → Local Communities |
0.5 |
Influence through job creation and economic benefits. |
|
Local Communities → Civil Society |
0.3 |
Lower influence due to limited organisational capacity. |
The model simulates the iterative process of opinion formation. The updated opinion for each actor at time is computed as:
Example: Updated opinion of the Private Sectorusing the weights and initial opinions:
The Private Sector’s opinion increases from 0.5 to 0.67 after one iteration.
The model iterates over multiple time steps to simulate convergence. Below are the results for four key actors over three iterations.
Table 5: Iterative Opinion Dynamics of Key Actors in Sustainable Development Using DeGroot's Social Learning Model
|
Actor |
Initial Opinion () |
Iteration 1 () |
Iteration 2 () |
Iteration 3 () |
|
Government |
0.6 |
0.65 |
0.68 |
0.70 |
|
Civil Society |
0.8 |
0.78 |
0.76 |
0.74 |
|
Private Sector |
0.5 |
0.67 |
0.71 |
0.72 |
|
Local Communities |
0.7 |
0.73 |
0.75 |
0.76 |
Convergence occurs when opinions stabilise across the iterations depicted in Table 5. After three iterations, actors’ opinions approach a consensus level, indicating increasing support for sustainable development practices. The table summarises how the opinions of four key societal actors—government, Civil Society, Private Sector, and Local Communities—evolve over three iterations under the DeGroot Social Learning Process. Each iteration represents a time step where actors update their opinions based on weighted influences from other actors.
Initial Opinion (): The Government starts with moderate support for sustainable practices, reflecting mixed motivations due to policy commitments offset by challenges like corruption and instability.
Iteration 1 (): The Government's opinion increases due to the influence of Civil Society () and Local Communities (), both of which strongly support sustainability. These actors drive the Government to prioritise sustainability slightly.
Iteration 2 (): The opinion continues to rise as the iterative process strengthens the Government's alignment with prevailing societal norms.
Iteration 3 (): The Government reaches higher support, demonstrating convergence toward societal consensus.
Despite initial hesitations, the government’s opinion has increased consistently, indicating its receptiveness to societal influence. This reflects a top-down alignment driven by pressures from Civil Society and Local Communities advocating sustainability.
Initial Opinion Civil Society starts with the highest support for sustainable practices, driven by its advocacy role and focus on environmental and social equity.
Iteration 1 (): The opinion slightly declines as Civil Society integrates perspectives from actors with lower initial opinions, such as the Private Sector ().
Iteration 2 (): The downward adjustment continues as Civil Society accommodates other actors’ perspectives, reflecting its willingness to consider broader societal views.
Iteration 3 (): Stabilization occurs at a still-strong support level, reflecting balanced integration of influences from other actors.
Initial Opinion (): The Private Sector starts with moderate support for sustainability, reflecting concerns over profitability and uncertainty about policy stability.
Iteration 1 (): The opinion increases significantly due to strong influence from the Government () and Civil Society (), indicating growing recognition of the economic opportunities linked to sustainable practices.
Iteration 2 (): Further increases reflect continued alignment with prevailing societal norms and incentives for renewable energy adoption.
Iteration 3 (): The opinion stabilises, reflecting a shift toward greater acceptance of sustainability as a viable business strategy.
The Private Sector undergoes the most substantial change, moving from moderate scepticism to firm support. This highlights the sector’s adaptive nature, influenced by external pressures and the realisation of economic benefits tied to sustainability.
Initial Opinion (): Local communities start strongly supporting sustainability because they can see the real benefits, like more jobs in green energy and a better quality of life due to better environmental conditions.
Iteration 1 (): Support increases slightly as Local Communities integrate influences from Civil Society () and the Private Sector (.
Iteration 2 (): Support continues to rise as the diffusion process reinforces positive feedback from other actors.
Iteration 3 (): The opinion stabilises at a high support level, reflecting strong alignment with societal consensus.
Local communities demonstrate steady and consistent support for sustainability, influenced by direct benefits and broader societal trends. Their strong alignment suggests grassroots-level buy-in for sustainable development initiatives.
The iterative results show the way through which opinions are coming together across all actors. Within three iterations, opinions are getting closer to consensus, meaning that sustainability rules are effectively integrated into society. The level of consensus stays high (∼0.73), showing that most people support environmentally friendly actions, even though there were some disagreements at first. Local communities and civil society are big supporters of sustainability, pushing the government and the private sector to change their minds. In a situation with a lot of corruption and unstable policies (š¼š = 0.7), figure out how much Institutional Risks (IR) matter. The influence weights were changed to show weaker links between actors.
Table 6: Convergence Rate and Consensus Level of Different Scenarios
|
Scenario |
Convergence Rate |
Final Consensus Level |
|
Low Institutional Risks (IR=0.3) |
Fast (2 iterations) |
High (0.80 average) |
|
High Institutional Risks (IR=0.7) |
Slow (4 iterations) |
Low (0.65 average) |
High institutional risks delay opinion convergence and reduce overall consensus on sustainable practices.Anopinion convergence plot over iterations illustrates each actor's diffusion process under different institutional risk scenarios.
Figure 1: Opinion Convergence Dynamics under Different Institutional Risks
By showing how opinions change over time in different institutional risk situations, it is possible to see clear patterns in adopting sustainable practices. When institutional risk is low (Low IR), the views of all actors—Government, Civil Society, the Private Sector, and Local Communities—converge more quickly and stay the same after three rounds at pretty high levels of support. On the other hand, high institutional risk (High IR) conditions make opinion convergence slower and keep it steady at lower levels of support. The dashed lines in the visualization show that actors have less power over others because society and institutions are not as united.
Figure 2: Average Opinion Levels Across Iterations
When IR is low, views come together quickly and at higher levels of agreement. When IR levels are high, disagreements arise, which slows down agreement and lowers support for practices that promote sustainable development. It is clear that when risk is low, opinions come together faster and stay at higher levels. When risk is high, opinions come together more slowly and levels of agreement drop.
Qualitative Alignment with Results
Strong government speeds up the adoption of environmentally friendly practices, which makes it easier for people to agree on something more quickly. It is easier for sustainability rules and habits to spread in this setting, as seen in high-convergence settings modelled by DeGroot's process.Conversely, the model suggests that policy uncertainty and corruption make spreading sustainable practices more complicated. This means that social agreement and convergence happen more slowly. This idea is backed up by qualitative research that shows how corruption takes away significant resources from long-term projects, leaving them underfunded or poorly carried out (Harnois& Gagnon, 2022). In Ukraine, these problems have mostly slowed down and lessened the overall effect of significant infrastructure and green energy projects because of inefficient bureaucracy and a lack of openness (Ahamer, 2021).
The qualitative study stresses that the quality of governance directly lessens the effect of institutional risks. In the DeGroot model, this dynamic is similar to the high-convergence scenarios, where strong government overcomes the impact of risks that slow things down. The fact that the model and qualitative results agree shows how vital governance is for promoting sustainable development. It shows that specific changes are needed to strengthen the government, reduce corruption, and keep policies stable. Ukraine has taken a big step towards long-term growth by working hard to meet European environmental standards after 2014 (OsiÄka&Äernoch, 2022). Because Ukraine now follows European environmental rules more closely, the policy has been changed because of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement and the Energy Community Treaty. The amount of green energy that Ukraine could use increased from 2014 to 2021 (Kuzior et al., 2021). The main things that made this growth possible were solar and wind power. The amount of energy from renewable sources in Ukraine went from 2% in 2014 to almost 11% in 2021. These accomplishments show growth, but problems with the system have made it hard to make them bigger and last longer.
Corruption still makes it very hard for Ukraine's environmental policies to be implemented (Teichmann et al., 2020). Mismanagement of resources, a lack of openness, and the wrong use of public funds have slowed down projects and made them less effective. Corruption in the buying process slowed down essential projects, like upgrading the grid to support the use of green energy. Ukraine is part of international frameworks, but problems with the government have made it hard for the country to get green funds worldwide.- tariffs (FiTs) were the first thing the Ukrainian government did to get people to invest in green energy (Kurbatova et al., 2023). However, these taxes were often lowered without enough input from those with a stake in the matter, making it risky for investors. Policy changes were usually made because of short-term budget worries instead of long-term needs to stay alive.
Ukraine's government has struggled to keep up with the many changes needed to move to sustainable growth. Significant problems are as follows: Environmental laws are not always strictly enforced, which allows businesses to keep doing things that impact the atmosphere (Prysmakova&Pysmenna, 2024).At first, incentives like FiTs worked well with the private sector, but policy instability and corruption made them less likely to stay involved in the long run. After tariffs were lowered in the past, several foreign buyers pulled out of the market. Advocacy groups for the environment have been fundamental in asking for more accountability and openness. There are ways for Ukraine to improve its policy environment and speed up its progress towards sustainable growth, even with these problems: Making accountability and transparency more potent can help manage funds better and boost investor trust. Setting long-term goals with consistent policies, like stable tariff structures, can make the business environment more predictable. By working with the EU and other foreign groups, they can get technical and financial help and push for changes in how things are run. Putting money into government offices' technical skills can help them make and carry out environmental policies better.
The Impact of Russian Aggression
Russia's aggression against Ukraine has caused an ongoing conflict that has had a considerable effect on the country's attempts to achieve sustainable development. The war has done a lot of damage to Ukraine's economy. 2022 GDP is expected to drop by 30% (Guenette et al., 2022; Tank &Ospanova, 2022). This drop is because critical infrastructure has been destroyed and key industries have been slowed down: The war has destroyed Ukraine's agricultural sector, which used to send a lot of wheat, maise and sunflower oil to other countries (Shubravska&Prokopenko, 2022). Airstrikes and ground offensives have hit industrial hubs in the east, such as steel plants and energy centres. This has caused a sharp drop in output. Resources that should be used for sustainability projects like green energy and updating infrastructure have been moved to help with defence and humanitarian aid.
The war has had a significant impact on the environment, destroying ecosystems directly and impacting them in the long term: Air, water, and soil have been polluted by bombings and accidents at work during the war. Deforestation in war zones has been sped up by military activities like moving heavy equipment and setting forests on fire on purpose (Bezsonov, 2024). Renewable energy projects have been put on hold because solar panels and wind farms have been damaged or can't work. The war's environmental damage will probably take decades to fix, making it very hard to recover from the fight and build a sustainable future.
It is hard to get to simple things like food, water, and shelter in places where there is violence. For example, areas in the country that rely on farming have been hit harder than cities with more varied economies. People's mental health has been impacted by moving, violence, and not knowing what will happen next. The war has made Ukraine's institutions even weaker, and the focus on instant survival has made corruption and lousy government even worse: Important institutional reforms, like steps to fight corruption and better rules, have been pushed to the back burner because of pressing military and humanitarian needs (Dandolov, 2024). International relationships and collaborations meant to move sustainability projects forward have been broken up, and many projects have been put off or dropped altogether.
Even though the damage is terrible, the mending process gives Ukraine a unique chance to include long-term solutions in its healing: It's a chance to highlight eco-friendly designs when fixing up broken infrastructure. For example, buildings with less energy and systems that get power from green sources can be built. You can use money and information from other countries to make a green economy. Because Ukraine is so important in world politics, many people have been paying attention to it. Because of this, more foreign aid, investment, and professional help have come to sustainability projects. Civil society and grassroots groups are more active now than before the war, and they can play a big part in ensuring that everyone helps with the rebuilding. By focusing on long-term solutions while the economy recovers, Ukraine can have a better, more stable economy and a promise of fair growth after the disaster.
Discussion
Adopting European environmental standards, Ukraine has sped up the use of green energy and reduced pollution, which aligns with the European Green Deal and the Paris Agreement. One reason buyers have lost faith is that feed-in tariffs (FiTs) change all the time. A study by Li et al. (2022) agrees with this and says that policies must be reliable for the green energy sector to grow. The results make us consider critical moral questions about fairness and including everyone in society. Renewable energy projects have improved life and created jobs in some places, but the benefits have not been appropriately shared. Some groups, like those on the outside and places in rural areas, may find it hard to weigh in on decisions. This signifiesmore significant problems with how resources are unfairly shared. In line with Haughton (2021), this means that environmental efforts need to have rules that include everyone to be fair to everyone. The DeGroot model's results show that institutional risks play a big part in making it take longer for sustainable practices to catch on and spread. Corruption and unstable policies make it harder for important people to agree and work together. Rezvani and Khosravi (2019) agree with these points of view and stress how cruciala strong government is for building trust and working together on sustainability projects. These risks are made worse because Ukraine's decision-making processes are not unified.
Policy Implications
This shows that for Ukraine's sustainability efforts to reach their full potential, they must deal with structural and systemic problems. Anti-corruption steps and open procurement processes are necessary to ensure funds are used correctly. These steps align with what Blikhar et al. (2023) say should be done to reduce institutional risks through governance changes. Long-term tariff policies, tax breaks, and subsidies can make it safe for investors to put money into green energy projects. International partnerships, like those with the EU, can help green projects grow by giving them expert and financial support. Ernst (2019) talks about how participatory governance models can give local communities more power and ensure that sustainability project benefits are shared fairly.
Initially, the DeGroot model for simulating societal agreement is based on ideas about how influence works that might be too simple for the real world, especially when looking at how politics and society work in Ukraine. Second, the study uses secondary data, which might be biased. Also, the study mostly looks at significant issues like institutional risks and economic growth. It may not look at minor problems, like people's opinions or differences in socioeconomic position in some places. Last but not least, the qualitative insights are helpful but limited by the policy changes already made. They may also not fully show what is happening on the ground or how people feel. In future research, these issues could be fixed by getting first-hand information, adding more social factors to the study, and making the planning method better to handle more complicated processes.
Conclusion and Recommendations
This research explores how sustainable development practices have affected Ukraine's social and economic success. It specifically examineshow environmental sustainability, social inclusion, and institutional risks affect each other. Ukraine has taken some significant steps forward but still has a long way to go before it can grow viable. One of the best things about Ukraine is that it now follows European rules for the environment. Carbon emissions have decreased by 15%, and the amount of renewable energy has increased by 11%. It's clear from these wins that well-thought-out policies can help changing economies become more stable. However,growth has been slowed by issues with the system, such as fraud, uncertain policies, and a lack of money. Investors are less likely to put money into projects that weak institutions hold up. This makes it harder for everyone to get a fair share of the benefits of sustainability. TheDeGroot social learning model showed that key players are essential. A qualitative study that focused on policy instability and graft confirmed these ideas. It showed that these problems waste resources and break up efforts. Also, there were moral concerns because weaker groups usually had to deal with the worst effects of changes in the economy. To reach its sustainability goals, Ukraine needs a multifaceted approach that strengthens organisations, promotes social inclusion, and generates stable policy frameworks.
Recommendations
Anti-corruption steps like open buying processes, digital tracking systems, and independent audits should be implemented to ensure people are held responsible for how money is spent. Subsidies, tax breaks, and manageable loan terms are needed to get the private sector to invest in green energy projects. Form partnerships with other countries to get better tools for renewable energy and sustainable practices. Ensure that sustainability benefits are appropriately shared by including local communities and groups that are less fortunate in the decision-making process. To make things more equal between areas, green businesses should be made easier to get into by giving people job training and opportunities, especially in rural areas.
Build stronger ties with the European Union so that sustainability projects can get funds, technical help, and policy advice. Set up digital platforms to monitor green energy projects, emissions reductions, and social equity measures in real-time. Give stakeholders and the public success reports to build trust and get people to work together. Ukraine is at a significant point in its path to sustainable growth. There has been a lot of progress, but systemic problems must be fixed before sustainable projects can reach their full potential. By making the suggested changes, Ukraine can strengthen its institutions, promote growth that benefits everyone, and meet the standards for global sustainability.
References
Adshead, D., Thacker, S., Fuldauer, L. I., & Hall, J. W. (2019). Delivering on the Sustainable Development Goals through long-term infrastructure planning.GlobalEnvironmentalChange,59,Article 101975.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101975
Ahamer,G.(2021).MajorobstaclesforimplementingrenewableenergiesinUkraine.InternationalJournalofGlobalEnergyIssues,43(5–6),664–691.https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGEI.2021.118935
Arora,N.K.,&Mishra,I.(2019).UnitedNationsSustainableDevelopmentGoals2030andenvironmentalsustainability:Raceagainsttime.EnvironmentalSustainability,2(4),339–342.https://doi.org/10.1007/s42398-019-00092-y
Bazhal,M.,&Koutchma,T.(2022).Ukraineasafoodandgrainhub:Impactofscienceandtechnologydevelopmentonfoodsecurityintheworld.FrontiersinFoodScienceandTechnology,2,Article 1040396.https://doi.org/10.3389/frfst.2022.1040396
Bezsonov,Y.(2024).AssessmentofecosystemsdamagescausedbyRussianwaragainstUkraine.OpenJournalofEcology,14(10),754–788.https://doi.org/10.4236/oje.2024.1410044
Billings,J.,Ching,B.C.F.,Gkofa,V.,Greene,T.,&Bloomfield,M.(2021).ExperiencesoffrontlinehealthcareworkersandtheirviewsaboutsupportduringCOVID-19andpreviouspandemics:Asystematicreviewandqualitativemeta-synthesis.BMChealthservicesresearch,21,Article 923.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06917-z
Bin-Nashwan,S.A.,Hassan,M.K.,&Muneeza,A.(2024).Russia–Ukraineconflict:2030AgendaforSDGshangsinthebalance.InternationalJournalofEthicsandSystems,40(1),3–16.https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-06-2022-0136
Blikhar, M., Vinichuk, M., Kashchuk, M., Gapchich, V., &Babii , S. (2023). Economic and legal aspects of ensuring the effectiveness of counteracting corruption in the system of anti-corruption measures of state authorities. Financial and Credit Activity Problems of Theory and Practice, 4(51), 398–407. https://doi.org/10.55643/fcaptp.4.51.2023.4138
Coscieme,L.,Mortensen,L.F.,Anderson,S.,Ward,J.,Donohue,I.,&Sutton,P.C.(2020).GoingbeyondGrossDomesticProductasanindicatortobringcoherencetotheSustainableDevelopmentGoals.JournalofCleanerProduction,248,Article 119232.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119232
Dandolov,P.(2024).Risksofoverstressingcorruption:ThecaseofUkraine.BulgarianJournalofInternationalEconomicsandPolitics,4(1),46–67.http://dx.doi.org/10.37075/BJIEP.2024.1.03
DeGroot,M.H.(1974).Reachingaconsensus.JournaloftheAmericanStatisticalassociation,69(345),118–121.https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1974.10480137
Eisenmenger, N., Pichler, M., Krenmayr, N., Noll, D., Plank, B., Schalmann, E., Wandl, M.-T., & Gingrich, S. (2020). The Sustainable Development Goals prioritize economic growth over sustainable resource use: A critical reflection on the SDGs from a socio-ecological perspective. Sustainability Science, 15(4), 1101–1110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00813-x
Guenette,J.D.,Kenworthy,P.G.,&Wheeler,C.M.(2022).ImplicationsofthewarinUkrainefortheglobaleconomy. World Bank Group. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099616504292238906/pdf/IDU00bdb5a770659b04adf09e600a2874f25479d.pdf
Ernst,A.(2019).Reviewoffactorsinfluencingsociallearningwithinparticipatoryenvironmentalgovernance.EcologyandSociety,24(1), Article 3.https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10599-240103
Hariram,N.P.,Mekha,K.B.,Suganthan,V.,&Sudhakar,K.(2023).Sustainalism:Anintegratedsocio-economic-environmentalmodeltoaddresssustainabledevelopmentandsustainability.Sustainability,15(13),Article 10682.https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310682
Harnois,Y.G.,&Gagnon,S.(2022).Fightingcorruptionininternationaldevelopment:Agroundedtheoryofmanagingprojectswithinacomplexsocio-culturalcontext.JournalofAdvancesinManagementResearch,19(5),677–712.https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-06-2021-0195
Hassani,H.,Huang,X.,MacFeely,S.,&Entezarian,M.R.(2021).Bigdataandtheunitednationssustainabledevelopmentgoals(UNSDGs)ataglance.BigDataandCognitiveComputing,5(3),Article 28.https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc5030028
Haughton,G.(2021).Environmentaljusticeandthesustainablecity.In D. Satterthwaite (Ed.),TheEarthscanReaderinSustainableCities(pp.62–79).Routledge.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315800462-6
Hickel,J.,&Kallis,G.(2020).Isgreengrowthpossible?.Newpoliticaleconomy,25(4),469–486.https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964
Huber,R.A.,Wicki,M.L.,&Bernauer,T.(2020).Publicsupportforenvironmentalpolicydependsonbeliefsconcerningeffectiveness,intrusiveness,andfairness.Environmentalpolitics, 29(4), 649–673. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1629171
Hysa,E.,Kruja,A.,Rehman,N.U.,&Laurenti,R.(2020).Circulareconomyinnovationandenvironmentalsustainabilityimpactoneconomicgrowth:Anintegratedmodelforsustainabledevelopment.Sustainability,12(12),Article 4831.https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124831
Jones,C.I.(2022).Theendofeconomicgrowth?Unintendedconsequencesofadecliningpopulation.AmericanEconomicReview,112(11),3489–3527.https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20201605
Krämer,L.(2020).Planningforclimateandtheenvironment:theEUgreendeal.JournalforEuropeanEnvironmental&PlanningLaw,17(3),267–306.https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01703003
Kronauer,M.(2019).‘Socialexclusion’and‘underclass’-newconceptsfortheanalysisofpoverty.In H. J. Andreß (Ed.), Empiricalpovertyresearchinacomparativeperspective(pp.51–76).Routledge.https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429442001-3
Kurbatova,T.,Sotnyk,I.,Prokopenko,O.,Bashynska,I.,&Pysmenna,U.(2023).Improving the feed-in tariff policy for renewable energy promotion in Ukraine’s households.Energies,16(19),Article 6773.https://doi.org/10.3390/en16196773
Kuzior,A.,Lobanova,A.,&Kalashnikova,L.(2021).GreenenergyinUkraine:State,publicdemands,andtrends.Energies,14(22),Article 7745.https://doi.org/10.3390/en14227745
Lee,J.W.(2020).Greenfinanceandsustainabledevelopmentgoals:ThecaseofChina.JournalofAsianFinanceEconomicsandBusiness,7(7),577–586.https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no7.577
Li,Z.,Kuo,T.H.,Siao-Yun,W.,&Vinh,L.T.(2022).Roleofgreenfinance,volatilityandriskinpromotingtheinvestmentsinrenewableenergyresourcesinthepost-COVID-19.ResourcesPolicy,76,Article 102563.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102563
Light,S.E.(2019).Thelawofthecorporationasenvironmentallaw.Stanford Law Review,71(1),137–213.https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/the-law-of-the-corporation-as-environmental-law/
Lytvyn,O.,Onyshchenko,A.,&Ostapenko,O.(2023).EconomicchallengesofsustainabledevelopmentgoalsinUkraine.BalticJournalofEconomicStudies,9(1),100–112.https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2023-9-1-100-112
Maksymova,I.(2023).Digitalization-basedintegrationofclimatepoliciesofUkraineandtheEU.Journal of European Economy, 22(1), 94–110. http://dspace.wunu.edu.ua/handle/316497/51580
Mazur, N., Tkachuk, V., Sulima, N., Semenets, I., Nikolashyn, A., &Zahorodnia, A. (2023). Foreign agricultural markets: State and challenges in sustainable development. In B. Alareeni& A. Hamdan (Eds.), Innovation of Businesses, and Digitalization during Covid-19 Pandemic (Vol. 488, pp. 545–559). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08090-6_35
Meinshausen, M., Lewis, J., McGlade, C., Gütschow, J., Nicholls, Z., Burdon, R., Cozzi, L., &Hackmann, B. (2022). Realization of Paris Agreement pledges may limit warming just below 2 °C. Nature, 604(7905), 304–309. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04553-z
Mensah,J.(2019).Sustainabledevelopment:Meaning,history,principles,pillars,andimplicationsforhumanaction:Literaturereview.CogentSocialSciences,5(1),Article 1653531.https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1653531
Mikhno,I.,Koval,V.,Shvets,G.,Garmatiuk,O.,&TamošiÅ«nienÄ,R.(2021).Greeneconomyinsustainabledevelopmentandimprovementofresourceefficiency.Central European Business Review, (1), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.252
Mirzania,P.,Ford,A.,Andrews,D.,Ofori,G.,&Maidment,G.(2019).Theimpactofpolicychanges:TheopportunitiesofCommunityRenewableEnergyprojectsintheUKandthebarrierstheyface.EnergyPolicy,129,1282–1296.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.02.066
Moran, T. H., Grieco, J. M., Encarnation, D. J., Wells, L. T., Cable, V., Mukherjee, B., Glover, D. J., Oman, C. P., Guisinger, S., &Goldsbrough, D. J. (2021). Foreign investment in low-income developing countries. In T. H. Moran (Ed.), Investing in Development: New Roles for Private Capital? (1st ed., pp. 87–111). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429337802-7
Oneshko,S.,Ivanova,V.,Taran,E.,Shipilova,L.,&Sulima,N.(2022).Strategies and innovations in the management of economic systems: Ukrainian experience, responses to contemporary challenges.FinancialandCreditActivityProblemsofTheoryandPractice,4(45),425–436.https://doi.org/10.55643/fcaptp.4.45.2022.3835
OsiÄka,J.,&Äernoch,F.(2022).EuropeanenergypoliticsafterUkraine:Theroadahead.EnergyResearch&SocialScience,91,Article 102757.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102757
Pasha, A. M., AbdurakhmanOglu, A. B., Khalilov, F. Y., &ZakirKizi, H. I. (2022). The use of electronic evidence in court: a comparative legal analysis in the world practice. Cuestiones Políticas, 40(72), 385–394. https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.4072.21
Prysmakova,S.,&Pysmenna,O.(2024).Exploringdeterminantsofadaptivecapacity:ThenonprofitsectorintheturbulentCOVID-19environmentinBelarusandUkraine.PublicPerformance&ManagementReview,47(6), 1535–1571.https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2024.2397131
Rezvani, A., &Khosravi, P. (2019). Emotional intelligence: The key to mitigating stress and fostering trust among software developers working on information system projects. International Journal of Information Management, 48, 139–150.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.02.007
Satterthwaite,D.(2021).Sustainablecitiesorcitiesthatcontributetosustainabledevelopment?.In D. Satterthwaite (Ed.), TheEarthscanReaderinSustainableCities(pp.80–106).Routledge.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315800462-7
Seddon, N., Smith, A., Smith, P., Key, I., Chausson, A., Girardin, C., House, J., Srivastava, S., & Turner, B. (2021). Getting the message right on natureābased solutions to climate change. Global Change Biology, 27(8), 1518–1546. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15513
Sembiyeva,L.,Zhagyparova,A.,Zhusupov,E.,&Bekbolsynova,A.(2023).Impactofinvestmentsingreentechnologiesonenergysecurityandsustainabledevelopmentinthefuture.FuturityofSocialSciences,1(4),61–74.https://doi.org/10.57125/FS.2023.12.20.03
Shao,S.,Hu,Z.,Cao,J.,Yang,L.,&Guan,D.(2020).Environmentalregulationandenterpriseinnovation:Areview.BusinessStrategyandtheEnvironment,29(3),1465–1478.https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2446
Shubravska,O.,&Prokopenko,K.(2022).TheagriculturalsectorofUkraineintheglobalfoodmarket:Pre-warstateandpost-warprospects.ResearchonWorldAgriculturalEconomy,3(4),1–11.https://doi.org/10.36956/rwae.v3i4.693
Song,C.Q.,Chang,C.P.,&Gong,Q.(2021).Economicgrowth,corruption,andfinancialdevelopment:Globalevidence.EconomicModelling,94,822–830.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2020.02.022
Stefani,S.,Gil-Fariña,M.C.,&Dankulov,M.M.(2019).Opiniondynamicsandcomplexnetworks.In P. Plaut& D. Shach-Pinsly (eds.),DigitalSocialNetworksandTravelBehaviourinUrbanEnvironments(pp.43–58).Routledge.https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429488719-4
Susdarwono,E.T.,Wiranta,A.,&Suwarji.(2023).Harmonizingsustainability:IntegratingJavaneseTriDharmaSambernyawaphilosophyintoregionalgovernanceforblueeconomyadvancement.FuturityPhilosophy,2(4),24–42.https://doi.org/10.57125/FP.2023.12.30.02
Tank,A.,&Ospanova,A.(2022).EconomicimpactofRussia–Ukrainewar.InternationalJournalofInnovativeResearchinScienceEngineeringandTechnology,11(4), 3345–3348.
Teichmann,F.,Falker,M.C.,&Sergi,B.S.(2020).Extractiveindustries,corruptionandpotentialsolutions.ThecaseofUkraine.ResourcesPolicy,69,Article 101844.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101844
Wade,R.H.(2020).Isglobalizationreducingpovertyandinequality?.In V. Navarro (Ed.),Neoliberalism,Globalization,andInequalities(pp.143–176).Routledge.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315231082
Zapatrina, I. (2022). Challenges in attracting the private sector to infrastructure recovery in Ukraine. European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, 17(2), 132–139. https://doi.org/10.21552/epppl/2022/2/10
Zelinska,H.,Andrusiv,U.,Daliak,N.,Dovgal,O.,&Lagodiienko,V.(2021).Sustainabledevelopment:TrendsinUkraineandtheworld.JournalofEnvironmentalManagement&Tourism,12(5),1179–1187.https://doi.org/10.14505//jemt.v12.5(53).03
