How to conduct sanctions screening of a foreign company, its owners and executives, and reduce the risk of payments and contracts being blocked. The strengthening of international sanctions has made counterparty screening a mandatory part of the work of Ukrainian exporters, importers, banks, logistics companies, and enterprises attracting foreign financing.
Searching for a partner’s name in an open sanctions list is only the initial stage. A company may not be directly subject to restrictions but may be linked to a sanctioned owner, director, parent company, or another legal entity from the same corporate group.
Additional complexity is created by different spellings of company names and surnames, transliteration, trade names, changes in registered addresses, and the use of intermediaries. Because of this, a simple check based on an exact name match may fail to identify a significant risk.
D&B compliance solutions are used to screen legal entities, beneficial owners, and related persons against sanctions lists, lists of politically exposed persons, information on legally significant events, and negative media coverage.
“Sanctions screening should not be reduced to entering a company’s name into a search bar. It is necessary to identify its owners, executives, parent companies, and subsidiaries. Amid tightening international restrictions, an error can lead to a payment being blocked, a contract being terminated, or reputational losses,” said Maksym Urakin, Director of Development and Marketing at Interfax-Ukraine, Head of the D&B-Interfax-Ukraine business unit, PhD in Economics.
Before concluding a contract, a Ukrainian company should identify the legal entity, verify its registration details, establish its ownership structure, and compare the information obtained against sanctions and other risk lists.
Banks, carriers, insurance companies, and other participants in the future transaction require particular attention. Even when the seller and buyer are not subject to sanctions, a payment or delivery may be stopped due to the involvement of a high-risk intermediary, vessel, financial institution, or related company.
Based on the results of the screening, a business may refuse the transaction, request additional documents, change the payment route, include sanctions clauses in the contract, or provide for the right to terminate cooperation if the partner’s status changes.
Sanctions compliance does not end after a contract is signed. The status of a company or its owner may change while a long-term contract is already being performed. That is why regular monitoring is advisable for key partners.
Dun & Bradstreet has been operating in the field of business information since 1841. The company provides solutions for third-party screening, analysis of corporate relationships, identification of beneficial ownership, sanctions screening, credit risk management, and supply chain monitoring.
In Ukraine, Dun & Bradstreet products and data are represented by the Interfax-Ukraine News Agency. Its specialized division helps Ukrainian companies screen foreign counterparties and work with international business information. Interfax-Ukraine is an independent Ukrainian news agency that has been operating since 1992 and is headquartered in Kyiv.
Questions can be submitted through the specialized D&B resource — dnb.ua, by email at Urakin@interfax.kyiv.ua, or by phone at +38 (044) 270-65-74.
According to Interfax-Ukraine, this article presents key macroeconomic indicators for Ukraine and the global economy as of the end of April 2026. The analysis is based on data from the State Statistics Service of Ukraine, the National Bank of Ukraine, the Ministry of Finance, the State Customs Service, the International Monetary Fund, Eurostat, BEA, BLS, NBS, ONS, TurkStat, IBGE, and other official institutions. Monthly and quarterly statistical data published after the end of the reporting period were used for April indicators.
Maksim Urakin, Ph.D. in Economics and founder of the information and analytical center Experts Club, presented an overview of the key trends that shaped the state of the Ukrainian and global economies in April and early May 2026.
Ukraine’s Macroeconomic Indicators
As of the end of April, the Ukrainian economy remained macro-financially stable, although inflationary, currency, and foreign trade risks had intensified. Compared to March, consumer inflation accelerated, international reserves declined for the third consecutive month, and the trade deficit continued to widen. At the same time, the government ensured funding for defense, social benefits, and critical budgetary needs, while the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) maintained control over the foreign exchange market.
According to a preliminary estimate by the State Statistics Service, Ukraine’s real GDP in the first quarter of 2026 decreased by 0.6% compared to the first quarter of 2025. On a seasonally adjusted basis, the decline was 0.7% compared to the previous quarter.
Nominal GDP amounted to 2,047.2 billion UAH. This negative trend was attributed to electricity shortages, infrastructure damage, delays in external financing, weak investment activity, and adverse weather conditions at the beginning of the year. At the same time, private consumption remained relatively stable, while the manufacturing sector, trade, and certain service sectors showed growth.
In its April forecast, the National Bank revised downward its estimate for Ukraine’s real GDP growth in 2026 to 1.3%. The main reasons were further damage to energy and logistics infrastructure, a larger electricity shortage, high energy prices, and weaker first-quarter results. The NBU expected economic growth to be supported by consumer demand and investments in reconstruction and the defense-industrial complex, but did not forecast a rapid transition to a sustainable recovery.
“The first-quarter results confirmed that the Ukrainian economy remains extremely sensitive to energy, military, and fiscal shocks. Positive domestic demand and business resilience can no longer fully offset the losses from infrastructure destruction, electricity shortages, and weak exports. The 1.3% growth forecast implies actual stagnation on a per-capita basis. “Therefore, the main priority should be not only to maintain financial stability but also to restore production capacity,” Urakin noted.
The inflation situation worsened in April. Consumer inflation accelerated to 8.6% year-over-year, up from 7.9% in March. Prices rose by 1.4% over the month and by 4.9% since the beginning of the year. Core inflation rose to 7.6% year-over-year, inflation for services reached 13.3%, and the increase in fuel prices hit 36.1% year-over-year.
The main source of inflationary pressure was the rise in energy and fuel prices, which increased business costs for logistics, electricity, and production. Additional factors included wage increases, the pass-through of the hryvnia’s earlier depreciation to consumer prices, and rising costs of certain food products and transportation services. Bread, grains, sunflower oil, fish, restaurant services, and household services saw the fastest price increases.
The NBU’s April forecast projected that inflation would accelerate to 9.4% by the end of 2026. A return to a steady decline was expected in 2027, when inflation was projected to slow to 6.5%, and to reach the 5% target in 2028.
On April 30, the National Bank’s Board kept the policy rate at 15% per annum. The regulator explained the decision by the need to maintain the attractiveness of hryvnia-denominated assets, keep inflation expectations under control, and ensure the stability of the foreign exchange market. The NBU’s forecast called for keeping the rate at 15% at least until the second quarter of 2027. In the event of further intensification of price pressures, the regulator did not rule out the use of additional measures, including a rate hike.
“The acceleration of inflation to 8.6% and the sharp rise in fuel prices left the National Bank no room to continue its policy easing cycle. Under current conditions, the 15% rate is not so much a tool for curbing lending as it is a mechanism for safeguarding confidence in the hryvnia. The risk of a premature rate cut now significantly outweighs the potential short-term effect on economic activity,” Urakin emphasized.
The foreign exchange sector remained under control but required significant support from the regulator. As of May 1, 2026, Ukraine’s international reserves stood at $48.215 billion, having declined by 7.3% in April. This marked the third consecutive monthly decline in reserves.
In April, the NBU sold $3.577 billion on the foreign exchange market, while inflows into the government’s foreign currency accounts totaled only $377.9 million. $716.6 million was allocated to service and repay foreign-currency government debt, and Ukraine paid another $255.3 million to the IMF. The losses were partially offset by a positive revaluation of financial instruments amounting to $378 million. Despite the decline, the reserves were sufficient to finance 4.9 months of future imports.
“The decline in reserves from nearly $52 billion to $48.2 billion in a single month is significant, but not yet critical. Far more important is the underlying cause: the private foreign exchange market remains structurally in deficit, and international inflows do not always coincide with the timing of intervention needs and debt payments. Therefore, the stability of the hryvnia will continue to depend on the regularity of external financing and Ukraine’s ability to narrow the trade gap,” Urakin believes.
According to the State Customs Service, Ukraine’s trade turnover in January–April 2026 amounted to $46.1 billion. Imports reached $32.2 billion, while exports totaled $13.9 billion. Thus, the trade deficit for the four-month period was approximately $18.3 billion, with imports exceeding exports by a factor of 2.3.
Ukraine imported the most goods from China—$8.7 billion—followed by Poland—$3.1 billion—and Turkey—$2.2 billion. The main destinations for Ukrainian exports were Poland—$1.5 billion—Turkey—$1.2 billion—and Italy—$857 million.
In the import structure, machinery, equipment, and transportation accounted for $13.3 billion; fuel and energy products—$5.3 billion; and chemical industry products—$4.6 billion. Exports were primarily driven by food products at $8.5 billion, metals and metal products at $1.3 billion, and machinery, equipment, and transportation at $1.2 billion.
“The increase in the trade deficit to $18.3 billion in just four months is one of the main macroeconomic challenges. A significant portion of imports is objectively necessary—these include energy resources, equipment, transportation, and defense products. However, the export base remains too narrow and reliant on raw materials. Without the development of processing, machine building, the defense industry, and service exports, Ukraine will continue to offset the trade deficit with international aid and reserves,” Urakin emphasized.
The budgetary situation remained tense but under control. From January through April, the general fund of the state budget received 1.04 trillion UAH. Total cash expenditures from the general fund amounted to 1.35 trillion UAH, which is 13.8% more than during the same period in 2025. In April alone, General Fund revenues totaled 302.6 billion hryvnias, while expenditures amounted to 433.1 billion hryvnias.
Expenditures on security and defense over the four-month period reached 854.1 billion hryvnias, or 63.3% of all General Fund expenditures. In April, 283.1 billion hryvnias were allocated for these purposes. UAH 555.5 billion was spent on public sector wages and related benefits, UAH 235 billion on social security, UAH 205.4 billion on subsidies and transfers to enterprises, UAH 151.4 billion on goods and services, and UAH 103.2 billion on servicing the national debt.
International grants for January–April totaled 228.2 billion hryvnias, with 55.1 billion hryvnias received in April alone. In total, 1.43 trillion hryvnias flowed into the general and special funds of the state budget over the four-month period, while state budget cash expenditures amounted to 1.7 trillion hryvnias.
“The budget remains functional, but its structure is entirely dictated by the war. When nearly two-thirds of the general fund’s expenditures are directed toward defense and security, the capacity to finance long-term development remains limited. Under these conditions, it is particularly important that international aid cover the budget’s civilian needs, while domestic resources are directed as effectively as possible toward defense, energy, and industrial recovery,” Urakin noted.
The Global Economy
As of the end of April 2026, the global economy remained resilient, but the geopolitical and inflationary environment had deteriorated significantly. The war in the Middle East caused energy prices to rise, heightened inflationary expectations, and forced major central banks to postpone further monetary easing.
In its April World Economic Outlook, the International Monetary Fund projected global economic growth of 3.1% in 2026 and 3.2% in 2027, assuming the conflict would be limited in duration and scope. The IMF warned that a longer war, deepening geopolitical fragmentation, new trade disputes, and high public debt could significantly worsen the outlook.
The U.S. economy maintained positive momentum. According to the BEA’s revised estimate, real GDP in the first quarter of 2026 grew by 2.1% on an annualized basis compared with the previous quarter. Growth was driven by investment, exports, and government and consumer spending.
At the same time, inflation in the U.S. continued to accelerate. In April, the CPI rose by 3.8% year-over-year, following a 3.3% increase in March. Core inflation stood at 2.8%, while energy inflation reached 17.9%. In just one month, energy prices rose by 3.8%, and gasoline prices by 5.4%.
On April 29, the Federal Reserve kept the federal funds rate target range at 3.5–3.75%. The Fed cited elevated inflation, rising global energy prices, and high uncertainty surrounding events in the Middle East.
The eurozone showed significantly weaker economic momentum. According to a preliminary Eurostat estimate released on April 30, eurozone GDP in the first quarter grew by only 0.1% compared to the previous quarter and by 0.8% year-over-year. This indicated that the region’s economy was effectively stagnating.
Annual inflation in the eurozone accelerated to 3.0% in April, up from 2.6% in March. In the European Union, it rose to 3.2%. Services, energy, and food made the largest contributions to the rise in prices.
On April 30, the European Central Bank kept its deposit rate at 2.0%, its main refinancing rate at 2.15%, and its marginal lending rate at 2.40%. The ECB emphasized that risks of rising inflation and a slowdown in economic growth had intensified due to the energy shock.
In the United Kingdom, by contrast, inflation slowed to 2.8% year-over-year in April, down from 3.3% in March. Core CPI fell to 2.5%, and services inflation to 3.2%. At the same time, motor fuel prices rose significantly due to the external energy shock.
On April 30, the Bank of England kept its base rate at 3.75%. Eight members of the Monetary Policy Committee supported this decision, while one voted to raise the rate to 4%.
“April showed that the global cycle of rapid interest rate cuts has effectively been put on hold. The U.S. faced accelerating inflation to 3.8%, the eurozone to 3%, and central banks were once again forced to focus on energy risks. For Ukraine, this means more expensive global capital, more challenging conditions for exports, and additional pressure due to fuel prices,” Urakin noted.
China’s economy grew by 5.0% year-over-year in the first quarter of 2026. Nominal GDP reached 33.419 trillion yuan. Industrial production increased by 6.1%, the services sector by 5.2%, and foreign trade in goods by 15%. At the same time, real estate investment fell by 11.2%, indicating that structural problems persist. In April, China’s CPI rose by 1.2% year-over-year and by 0.3% month-over-month. Average inflation for January–April stood at 0.9%. Meanwhile, retail sales in April grew by only 0.2% year-over-year, indicating weakness in domestic consumer demand.
India maintained the highest growth rates among major economies. Following the transition to a new statistical base, the official estimate for real GDP growth in fiscal year 2025/26 was raised to 7.6%, and nominal GDP growth to 8.6%. The main drivers remained the services sector, domestic consumption, construction, and government investment.
Turkey again faced a sharp spike in inflation in April. Consumer prices rose by 4.18% month-over-month and by 32.37% year-over-year. Year-to-date inflation stood at 14.64%. The figure exceeded March’s level of 30.87%, indicating the instability of the disinflation process. At the same time, Turkey’s GDP grew by approximately 3.6% in 2025, confirming the economy’s ability to sustain business activity even amid high price pressures.
Brazil showed more balanced dynamics, although inflation also accelerated. The country’s GDP grew by 2.3% in 2025, reaching 12.7 trillion reais at current prices. In April 2026, the IPCA index rose by 0.67% month-over-month, and annual inflation reached 4.39%, up from 4.14% in March. The largest contributions came from food, medical goods, and services.
“China, India, Turkey, and Brazil demonstrate four distinct development models. China maintains high growth rates thanks to industry and exports, but still faces challenges with domestic demand and real estate. India relies on demographics, services, and investment. Turkey sustains growth at the cost of very high inflation. Brazil is moving more slowly but is trying to strike a balance between economic activity and price stability. “For Ukraine, the main conclusion is that long-term growth is impossible without its own manufacturing, technological, and export base,” Urakin believes.
Conclusions
As of the end of April 2026, Ukraine maintained macrofinancial stability, but key indicators pointed to increasing risks. Real GDP contracted by 0.6% year-over-year in the first quarter; inflation accelerated to 8.6% in April, with core inflation rising to 7.6%, while the policy rate remained at 15%.
International reserves fell to $48.2 billion, a decrease of 7.3% over the month. The trade deficit for January–April reached $18.3 billion. Revenues to the general fund of the state budget totaled 1.04 trillion UAH, while expenditures amounted to 1.35 trillion UAH. UAH 854.1 billion, or 63.3% of all general fund expenditures, was allocated to security and defense.
Positive factors included substantial reserves, a controlled exchange rate policy, international financing, steady consumer demand, business adaptability, and the development of defense production. The main risks were the continuation of the war, the destruction of energy infrastructure, rising fuel prices, labor shortages, weak exports, and the budget’s dependence on foreign aid.
The global economy also entered a more challenging period. The IMF projected global growth of 3.1% in 2026 but warned that downside risks predominated. Inflation in the U.S. accelerated to 3.8%, and in the eurozone to 3.0%, while the central banks of the U.S., the eurozone, and the United Kingdom kept interest rates unchanged. China grew by 5% in the first quarter, India maintained a growth rate of over 7%, while Turkey once again faced inflation exceeding 32%.
“April 2026 showed that Ukraine’s stabilization model remains viable, but its financial buffer is shrinking. The simultaneous acceleration of inflation, depletion of reserves, and widening of the trade deficit signal that external aid cannot be the sole foundation of economic stability. Ukraine needs to transition from financing its immediate survival to creating a new production model. This model should be based on energy self-sufficiency, the defense-industrial complex, agricultural processing, machine building, logistics, digital technologies, and exports of high-value-added products. “Only such a transition can transform macrofinancial stability from a temporary safety net into the foundation for long-term development,” concluded Maksym Urakin.
According to Experts.news, the Experts Club think tank analyzed the results of the international Expat Insider 2026 survey, conducted by the InterNations community. Panama, Mexico, and Thailand were named the best countries for expats to live in, while Norway, Germany, and Turkey ranked last.
The survey was conducted from February 1 to March 31, 2026. A total of 7,786 expats representing 162 nationalities participated. The final ranking included 31 countries, each of which received at least 50 completed questionnaires. Participants evaluated up to 53 aspects of life abroad, including work, personal finances, quality of life, living conditions, and ease of social adaptation.
Panama took first place for the third year in a row. About 87% of foreigners living in the country said they were satisfied with their life abroad, while the global average was 70%.
The country ranked first in working conditions and personal finances, second in ease of adaptation and access to essential services, and sixth in quality of life. About 90% of respondents believe their current income is sufficient for a comfortable life, and 76% are satisfied with their financial situation.
Panama also received the highest ratings for housing affordability. Nine out of ten expats reported that it is easy to find housing in the country. 82% of respondents described the visa application process as simple. Retirees make up a significant portion of the expat community—their share reached 37%, and 34% of respondents intend to stay in the country permanently.
Mexico took second place, once again becoming the global leader in ease of social adaptation. About 73% of foreigners said it was easy for them to make friends among locals, compared to a global average of 39%.
However, safety remains a weak point for Mexico. 68% of respondents rated their personal safety positively, compared to a global average of 81%. Despite this, 73% of expats are satisfied with their financial situation, and 38% plan to stay in the country permanently.
Thailand took third place and became the country with the most life-satisfied expats. 86% of respondents reported feeling content, and 42% expect to stay in the country permanently.
Expatriates particularly praised the cost of living, the affordability of rent, and the quality of healthcare. At the same time, Thailand received low ratings for its environmental conditions, digital administrative services, and the ease of opening bank accounts. Only 33% of respondents rated air quality positively, and 80% consider the Thai language difficult to learn.
The top ten in the ranking also included the UAE, Brazil, Spain, Singapore, Portugal, Malaysia, and Luxembourg. The top five countries in the personal finance index are Panama, Thailand, Mexico, Portugal, and Malaysia. In most of the top-ranked countries, expats also rate housing affordability and the attitude of the local population highly.
Norway came in last, at 31st place. Only 46% of foreigners living there are satisfied with their lives, and 72% find it difficult to make friends among the local population. Only 39% of respondents rated their financial situation positively.
At the same time, Norway remains one of the countries with the highest ratings for environmental conditions, air quality, job security, and economic stability. The main challenges for expats were the high cost of living, social isolation, the climate, and limited leisure opportunities.
Germany ranked 30th. About 61% of expats described dealing with the bureaucratic system as difficult. Only 19% rated housing affordability positively, and the same percentage found it easy to find housing.
Germany also ranked last on the index of basic conditions for expats. Survey participants criticized the lack of online access to government services, problems with home internet, and the limited availability of cashless payments. In addition, 57% of expats reported that they found it difficult to make friends among Germans.
Turkey ranked 29th, placing last in terms of working conditions, wages, and economic stability. About 61% of respondents gave a negative assessment of the state of the Turkish economy, and 34% reported an annual income of less than $12,000 before taxes.
Fifty-eight percent of expats are satisfied with life in Turkey, 14% intend to leave the country within the next year, and only 13% plan to stay permanently.
The bottom ten also included Switzerland, Austria, Italy, the Czech Republic, Sweden, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Eight of the ten countries at the bottom of the ranking are in Europe. However, Austria ranked fifth in quality of life, Switzerland eighth, the Czech Republic 13th, and Sweden 15th. This suggests that a low overall ranking is often linked not to infrastructure or safety, but to the high cost of living, bureaucracy, and difficulties with social integration.
According to Maxim Urakin, founder of the Experts Club think tank, the study’s results should not be viewed as a universal ranking of countries’ levels of development.
“The ranking does not show which country is objectively richer or better governed, but rather how easily a specific foreigner can integrate into local daily life. Developed infrastructure and high salaries can go hand in hand with expensive housing, complex bureaucracy, and social exclusivity.
At the same time, less affluent countries may score higher thanks to affordable living costs, simple paperwork, and a welcoming attitude toward newcomers,” Urakin noted.
He added that when choosing a country to move to, it is necessary to analyze immigration laws, the tax system, the labor market, healthcare, education, and real estate prices separately.
InterNations emphasizes that the ranking is based on the subjective satisfaction of respondents, rather than on a comparison of official statistics. It does not take into account a number of important factors, including international taxation and childcare services, and the safety rating reflects respondents’ personal perceptions rather than the actual crime rate.
According to Experts.news, Taiwan’s receipt lottery system remains one of the best-known examples of how the government can improve tax compliance not through repression, but by changing the incentives for buyers and sellers.
The idea was introduced in Taiwan in 1951. Instead of trying to inspect every store, café, or kiosk, the authorities turned a sales receipt into a potential lottery ticket. A number appeared on every standardized receipt, and buyers had a personal incentive to request an official receipt even for small purchases.
Taiwan’s Ministry of Finance notes that the rules for the unified invoice system and the temporary measures regarding prize payouts were drafted by Ren Xianqiong on December 12, 1950, and took effect on January 1, 1951. The ministry explains the logic behind the system as follows: the hope of winning a prize encouraged citizens to request receipts, which helped prevent tax evasion and increase budget revenues.
The mechanism was simple: if a seller does not issue a receipt, the sale may go unnoticed by the tax authorities. But if a receipt gives the buyer a chance to win a cash prize, the interests of both parties shift. The seller may be interested in an unreported cash transaction, while the buyer—on the contrary—may want official confirmation of the purchase. In this way, the government effectively turns millions of consumers into voluntary enforcers of cash register compliance.
Today, the system continues to operate. The Taiwan Ministry of Finance’s tax portal publishes winning numbers every two months. Under the current prize structure, the special prize is 10 million New Taiwan dollars, the grand prize is 2 million New Taiwan dollars, and smaller prizes start at 200 New Taiwan dollars.
According to the Experts Club think tank, the key lesson of this model lies not in the lottery itself, but in the proper redistribution of incentives. The government does not increase the number of inspectors indefinitely but creates a situation in which the buyer has a personal stake in ensuring the transaction is properly recorded.
“The Taiwanese example shows that tax compliance often depends not only on the severity of penalties but also on the structure of incentives. If a citizen derives a clear personal benefit from a transparent transaction, the government can achieve a greater effect than through mass audits,” notes Maksim Urakin, founder of the Experts Club analytical center.
Taiwan is not the only example. In Europe, similar tools have been implemented or discussed in Portugal, Greece, Slovakia, Italy, Poland, and Malta.
In Portugal, the fight against VAT evasion was viewed not only as a task for the tax service but also as a public project. Under the electronic invoicing system, companies were required to issue invoices for all transactions and submit the data to tax authorities monthly, while consumers could receive tax credits for invoices in certain service sectors.
In Greece, the tax lottery is primarily linked to electronic payments. Citizens can check the number and serial numbers of lottery tickets generated based on monthly electronic transactions, and the tax authority publishes the results of the drawings.
Slovakia launched the National Receipt Lottery in 2013 amid one of the largest VAT collection gaps in Europe. In just the first two weeks, citizens registered over 7 million receipts. By September 2014, the number of registered receipts had risen to nearly 87 million.
Italy has also introduced a system under which most VAT receipts must include a unique code to participate in a regular state cash prize draw. This step followed similar measures in other European countries.
Another unexpected example is South Korea, where the government incentivized not receipts per se, but electronically tracked payments. In 1999, Korean tax authorities introduced a tax incentive for payments made with credit and debit cards, as well as electronic cash receipts. This policy helped shift the economy toward cashless transactions and sharply increase the share of business revenue flowing into the tax system.
In Brazil, a similar approach was implemented through tax rebate programs and incentives for consumers to provide their information on receipts. The Nota Fiscal Paulista program in the state of São Paulo utilized electronic business reporting and citizen participation to increase the transparency of retail transactions.
These solutions seem unusual because they challenge the traditional philosophy of tax administration. Instead of a “tax authority versus business” model, the government creates a triangle involving the seller, the buyer, and the tax authority. If the buyer is interested in receiving a receipt, it becomes more difficult for the seller to conceal revenue. If the payment is electronic, the tax authority receives more data. If citizens benefit from transparent transactions, oversight becomes cheaper and more widespread.
However, such tools are not a one-size-fits-all solution. They require digital infrastructure, trust in the government, personal data protection, clear rules for businesses, and oversight to ensure the system does not become a mere formality. Slovakia’s experience shows that the initial enthusiasm may wane, and some participants begin to use the system not so much as a form of civic oversight but rather as a regular lottery.
For countries with a high proportion of cash transactions and shadow economy activity, such models remain promising. They make it possible to increase tax collection without directly raising tax rates. It is not the prize draws themselves that are particularly promising, but rather their combination with electronic receipts, online cash registers, digital tax offices, and tax bonuses for citizens.
Ukrainian companies increasingly need to move from one-time checks of counterparties to regular monitoring of their condition. In a period of high economic, military and logistical risks, a partner’s financial position can change rapidly, and a delay in updating information may lead to losses.
Dun & Bradstreet tools can be used not only for the initial assessment of a counterparty, but also for the subsequent tracking of changes in its business profile, payment discipline, corporate connections, risks and reputational factors. Such an approach is especially important for companies that work with deferred payments, large batches of goods or long-term contracts.
For Ukrainian businesses, regular monitoring can become part of an internal risk management system. It helps companies respond more quickly to a partner’s problems, revise contract terms, limit credit lines or require additional guarantees.
“In a crisis environment, a counterparty that was reliable yesterday does not necessarily remain so tomorrow. That is why business verification, primarily the verification of foreign businesses, should not be a one-time action, but a continuous process,” said Maksym Urakin, Director of Development and Marketing at Interfax-Ukraine, Head of the D&B-Interfax-Ukraine Business Unit, and PhD in Economics.
He added that the culture of counterparty monitoring should become as routine for Ukrainian companies as accounting or the legal review of a contract.
Dun & Bradstreet is an international company in the field of business data and analytics, founded in 1841. The company provides tools for business identification, counterparty verification, credit and commercial risk assessment, compliance and supply chain analysis. One of D&B’s key tools is the D-U-N-S Number, a unique nine-digit company identifier used in international business practice. In Ukraine, D&B is represented by the Interfax-Ukraine agency. The partnership is aimed at expanding Ukrainian companies’ access to international business data, supporting exports, attracting financing and integrating into global supply chains. Interfax-Ukraine is an independent Ukrainian news agency that has been operating since 1992.
According to Experts.news, Ukraine’s construction industry has shown mixed trends based on preliminary results for the first half of 2026: following growth in 2023–2025, the sector has faced a slowdown in the volume of work, rising construction costs, a labor shortage, and a shift in demand toward housing and infrastructure reconstruction.
The State Statistics Service has not yet released final data for January–June, so a current assessment can be made based on statistics for the first four months, data on housing completions in the first quarter, the “eOselya” and “eVidnovlennia” programs, as well as construction companies’ expectations for the second quarter.
According to the State Statistics Service, the volume of construction work completed in Ukraine in January–April 2026 decreased by 2% compared to the same period in 2025 and amounted to 59.3 billion UAH. At the same time, in April compared to April 2025, construction had already shown a 2.8% increase; specifically, residential construction rose by 5.8%, civil engineering structures by 9.7%, while non-residential construction declined by 7.4%. New construction accounted for 47.8% of the total in April, repairs for 29%, and reconstruction and other work for 23.2%.
By comparison, in 2025, the volume of construction work completed in Ukraine rose by 11.3% to 258.2 billion UAH, but the growth rate was already slowing down at that time, following 17.8% growth in 2024 and 31.8% in 2023. In 2025, residential construction grew by 13.5%, nonresidential construction by 25.4%, and civil engineering by only 3.1%.
“In the first half of 2026, the construction sector effectively transitioned from a phase of rapid post-shock recovery to a phase of selective growth. Housing, renovations, engineering infrastructure, and reconstruction-related projects remain the most resilient. At the same time, commercial non-residential construction remains weaker due to war risks, more expensive financing, and uncertainty for investors,” noted Maksym Urakin, founder of the Experts Club analytical center and candidate of economic sciences.
The residential segment appears more stable than the overall industry trend. In the first quarter of 2026, housing completions in Ukraine decreased by only 0.1% year-over-year, to 2.289 million square meters. During this period, 29,600 apartments were completed, which is 4.3% more than in the first quarter of 2025. The largest volumes of housing completions were recorded in the Lviv, Odesa, Ivano-Frankivsk, Zakarpattia, and Ternopil regions, while in Kyiv, 289,000 square meters of housing—or 4,900 apartments—were completed.
Government programs remain one of the key sources of demand for housing. According to the Ministry of Economy, as of June 22, 2026, 4,104 Ukrainian families had taken advantage of the “eOselya” program since the beginning of the year, receiving preferential mortgage loans totaling nearly 7.7 billion UAH. In just one week in June, 157 loans totaling 313 million UAH were issued, with the majority of new loans going toward first-time home purchases.
The “eVidnovlennia” program plays an even more important role for the construction market. As of June 2026, 206,447 Ukrainian families had received assistance for repairing or purchasing new housing, totaling 103.9 billion UAH. More than 138,000 families received payments to repair damaged homes, nearly 65,000 families received housing certificates for destroyed property, and a separate program for rebuilding on private land is already being funded through tranches.
At the same time, the industry is facing significant price pressure. According to the summary table of price indices for construction and installation work, in April 2026, the construction price index stood at 103.1% compared to March, following 109.4% in March, 101.8% in February, and 101.1% in January. The cumulative figure for the first four months of 2026 was 116.1%, indicating a significant increase in the cost of labor and materials.
Business expectations among construction companies remain cautious. According to a State Statistics Service survey for the second quarter of 2026, the business confidence indicator in construction improved by 1.9 percentage points compared to the first quarter but remained deeply negative at minus 25.7%. The current order volume was estimated at minus 41.5%, and expectations regarding the number of employees stood at minus 9.9%. Companies cited labor shortages, financial constraints, and other factors as the main limiting factors, while their order backlog was estimated to cover an average of six months of work.
At the macro level, the country’s recovery remains the industry’s main long-term driver. According to estimates by the World Bank, the Ukrainian government, the European Commission, and the UN, Ukraine’s needs for recovery and reconstruction over the next ten years are already estimated at nearly $588 billion. Direct losses reached $195 billion, with the housing, transportation, and energy sectors hardest hit. Damages to the housing sector alone are estimated at approximately $61 billion, and about 14% of the housing stock has been damaged or destroyed.
According to Experts Club’s assessment, in the second half of 2026, Ukraine’s construction industry will remain dependent on three key factors: the security situation, access to financing, and the stability of government recovery programs. Residential projects in hinterland regions, the reconstruction of damaged housing, engineering infrastructure, the energy resilience of communities, social housing, and critical infrastructure facilities will have the greatest potential.
“The Ukrainian construction sector cannot be assessed solely based on the current index of completed work. It is no longer just an economic sector, but one of the key tools for survival, the return of people, the recovery of communities, and the country’s future investment attractiveness. But the transition from repairs to large-scale modernization requires long-term financing, insurance against war risks, transparent project pipelines, and skilled personnel,” emphasized Maksym Urakin.
Thus, the first half of 2026 for Ukraine’s construction industry can be preliminarily assessed as a period of stabilization following the rapid growth of previous years. The market is not showing a uniform upturn, but it has significant structural demand related to housing, reconstruction, infrastructure, and future post-war reconstruction. For businesses, this means a shift toward more selective competition—companies with access to financing, qualified personnel, a transparent cost estimation framework, and the ability to work with government and international reconstruction programs will come out on top.
CONSTRUCTION, EXPERTS CLUB, HOUSING, INFRASTRUCTURE, RECONSTRUCTION, URAKIN
