On May 27, the international conference Integrity Matters, organized by the Ukrainian Network of Integrity and Compliance (UNIC), took place in Kyiv. Ethicontrol joined the event as a partner, supporting the discussion on the role of business integrity, compliance, transparency, and responsible governance for Ukrainian companies.
The conference opened the Business Integrity Month — UNIC’s annual initiative that brings together business, government, international partners, civil society, and the expert community around the topic of responsible business conduct.
This year’s theme, Integrity Matters, felt especially relevant. In the context of war, European integration, economic recovery, and growing expectations from international partners, integrity is no longer just an ethical principle. It is becoming a practical condition for trust in companies, public institutions, investment projects, and Ukraine itself.
The discussions focused on issues that are shaping the future of the Ukrainian business environment:
The first discussion focused on Ukraine’s place in the international anti-corruption and governance context. The panel covered European integration, cooperation with the OECD, the development of anti-corruption infrastructure, and the role of integrity in public administration and the business environment.
One of the key points of the panel was that anti-corruption policy is no longer viewed as a separate technical track. In the process of European integration, it is gradually being embedded into sectoral policies: transport, infrastructure, healthcare, education, agriculture, state-owned enterprises, public-private partnerships, and other areas. This means that integrity is becoming part of day-to-day governance, not only the responsibility of separate anti-corruption bodies.
The panel also discussed OECD standards and the importance of ratifying the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials. For Ukraine, this is not only an international obligation, but also a shift toward a new logic of responsibility. The issue is no longer limited to a specific employee or manager who may violate the law. It also concerns the liability of the company as a legal entity. If corrupt conduct is connected to the company’s business interests or brings it a benefit, the risk arises for the entire organization.
For business, this is an important signal. Compliance, internal control, anti-corruption policies, and reporting channels are no longer formalities. They are becoming tools for managing legal, financial, operational, and reputational risks.
Participants also discussed how integrity may gradually become a factor in access to public opportunities: government contracts, licenses, subsidies, public-private partnerships, state aid, and major infrastructure projects. In other words, companies that already invest in transparent procedures, due diligence, internal control, and anti-corruption prevention systems will be better prepared for future expectations.
The public-sector dimension of the discussion was also important. Anti-corruption mainstreaming requires capacity not only from the NACP, NABU, SAPO, or HACC, but from all public authorities. Every ministry, every sector, and every public institution must learn to identify corruption risks in its own area and propose real mechanisms to minimize them.
For business, the main takeaway from this panel is simple: regulatory expectations will continue to grow. It is better not to wait until new rules become mandatory, but to act proactively by building compliance systems that already meet international standards today.
The second panel focused on the connection between a company’s reputation and access to capital. Participants discussed how international investors, financial institutions, and donor organizations assess Ukrainian businesses, which risks can stop a deal, and what companies need to demonstrate to earn trust.
One of the main points of the discussion was that investors do not want to see only a policy or a code of conduct. They want to understand whether the company actually lives by the rules it declares. That is why due diligence is not limited to checking documents at the beginning. It is an ongoing process that requires monitoring changes in ownership structure, sanctions risks, political exposure, counterparty reputation, and the company’s behavior after issues are identified.
It was also emphasized that war does not remove integrity requirements for businesses. On the contrary, in countries affected by war, the risks related to business integrity, compliance, and risk management are usually higher. This is why international partners look more closely at a company’s ability to operate transparently, control risks, and meet standards.
Among the most serious red flags for investors, participants mentioned lack of transparency, concealment of information, unclear beneficial ownership, excessive political exposure, sanctions risks, and serious integrity incidents — for example, criminal investigations related to bribery or corruption, especially when the company cannot clearly explain the situation and its response.
At the same time, the panel also showed another side of this issue: the mere existence of a problem does not always automatically close access to financing. What matters to investors is how the business behaves after an incident. If a company acknowledges the issue, conducts an internal review, strengthens controls, demonstrates readiness to change, and can show what lessons were learned, this may serve as evidence of a mature risk management system.
Another topic was the competitive advantage of companies that already have a clear track record, strong management, and readiness to implement international standards. Such businesses have more opportunities, as international investor interest in Ukraine remains. The issue is not only whether capital is available, but also whether Ukrainian companies are ready to accept it responsibly.
The discussion also offered a broader view of Ukraine’s role in international supply chains. For global organizations working with Ukrainian suppliers, price and product quality are not the only factors that matter. They also look at the origin of goods, sanctions compliance, transparency of operations, and the partner’s ability to meet international standards.
The main takeaway from this panel can be summarized as follows: reputation has become an economic asset. It can open access to capital, partnerships, and international markets. But losing it can close the door not only to foreign financing, but also to cooperation with responsible businesses in Ukraine.
The third discussion focused on the interaction between business and the state in the context of European integration. The panel had a more practical focus: whether compliance remains a priority for companies during the war, how international and Ukrainian businesses respond to new risks, and what integrity means in day-to-day management.
At the beginning of the discussion, a question was raised that strongly reflects the Ukrainian context: can businesses afford not to focus on compliance when survival becomes the main challenge? The participants’ answers showed the opposite: for responsible businesses, compliance has not become less important. In many cases, its importance has only increased.
Representatives of international companies emphasized that, for global businesses, there are no “wartime exceptions” from core integrity standards. In regulated sectors, including pharmaceuticals, compliance is part of the operating model itself. Such companies must follow not only local legislation, but also international standards, group-level internal policies, anti-corruption requirements, and rules for interacting with partners, clients, and professional communities.
One example showed that even during the war, companies may choose not to reduce, but instead strengthen their legal and compliance teams. This demonstrates that compliance is not viewed as a cost, but as an element of security — for the company, its partners, clients, and end users.
Another important example concerned a manufacturing business operating in Ukraine under direct security threats. Even after missile attacks, operational losses, and difficult working conditions, companies do not receive compliance exemptions from their headquarters. On the contrary, there is growing focus on partner screening, sanctions policy, export controls, and responsibility toward employees, communities, and the environment.
Ukrainian businesses are also showing a shift in demand. Previously, counterparty checks in many companies could be limited to basic registration data or the question of “what is the minimum we need to do to avoid a fine.” Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, this demand has become deeper. Businesses now more often check links to sanctioned persons, high-risk jurisdictions, Russian and Belarusian capital, conflicts of interest, and other risk factors.
Another point raised during the panel was that demand for compliance has grown not only among large companies, but also among small and medium-sized businesses. This is an important change for the market: integrity and transparency are gradually ceasing to be requirements only for banks, multinational corporations, or regulated sectors. They are becoming part of normal business practice.
The panel also showed that trust between business and the state must work both ways. Business must act in good faith, but the state, for its part, must ensure predictability, consistency, and fair application of rules. If the state interprets the law inconsistently or applies procedures unevenly, trust disappears just as quickly as it does in cases of unethical business conduct.
In summary, CEO Talks showed that compliance in wartime is not an “additional function for calm periods.” It is part of a company’s operational resilience. It helps businesses manage risks, maintain the trust of partners, meet international standards, and prepare for the more demanding environment that will continue to develop alongside Ukraine’s European integration.
Companies are assessed not only by what they declare, but also by how they act in difficult situations.
Policies and procedures still matter, but real behavior matters even more: how a company makes decisions, responds to incidents, manages risks, and interacts with partners.
Investors want to see transparent ownership structures, clear governance, effective internal controls, and readiness to work according to international standards.
For businesses, this means that reputation directly affects growth opportunities. A trusted company has a better chance of attracting financing, entering international supply chains, working with donors, and participating in major reconstruction projects.
European integration, OECD standards, public-private partnerships, state-owned enterprises, international supply chains, and cooperation with donors are all increasing the importance of internal procedures.
Compliance is gradually becoming not a separate function for large or international companies, but a normal part of business management. This includes counterparty checks, anti-corruption policies, reporting channels, conflict-of-interest management, internal investigations, and control over the implementation of decisions.
War creates additional sanctions, reputational, operational, staffing, security, and regulatory risks. That is why responsible companies do not postpone compliance “until later,” but integrate it into day-to-day management.
In difficult conditions, transparent rules, clear procedures, and reliable control mechanisms help businesses not only reduce risks, but also maintain the trust of employees, partners, the state, and international institutions.
As expectations for transparency and accountability grow, companies need more than policies. They also need tools that help put those policies into practice.
This includes secure reporting channels, case intake and management, internal investigations, counterparty checks, decision documentation, evidence collection, tracking of corrective actions, and maintaining an audit trail.
Technology does not replace ethical leadership, but it helps make integrity visible, manageable, and measurable. For companies preparing to work with international partners, attract investment, or operate in a more demanding regulatory environment, digital compliance infrastructure can become an important advantage.
Ethicontrol supports organizations in building such systems — from reporting channels and case management to tools for managing compliance processes and risks.
Interesting topics, good company, and great food — what else do you need for a good conference?
Integrity Matters confirmed that integrity in Ukraine is gradually moving from declarations to practical expectations. It affects business investment readiness, access to capital, the quality of public governance, international trust, and the country’s ability to move forward on its path toward European integration.
For businesses, this means one simple but important thing: transparency, compliance, and responsible governance are no longer secondary processes. They are becoming part of competitiveness.
Companies that already invest in a culture of integrity, secure reporting channels, risk management, and accountability are not only reducing compliance risks. They are building the trust needed for growth, partnerships, and participation in Ukraine’s recovery.
The Ethicontrol team was glad to join the conference as a partner. We also thank everyone who visited our information stand: participants could receive Ethicontrol merch, speak with our team, and learn more about the reporting channels and case management platform we provide to organizations.