2025 2(49) 23

Evolution of the categorical apparatus of investment attractiveness under modern economic challenges and post-war recovery

Pozhuiev D.,
student,
ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0763-8808
National University “Zaporizhzhya Polytechnic”, Zaporizhzhia

Citation Format
Pozhuiev, D. (2025). Evolution of the categorical apparatus of investment attractiveness under modern economic challenges and post-war recovery. Vіsnyk ekonomіchnoі nauky Ukraіny, 2(49), 205-211. https://doi.org/10.37405/1729-7206.2025.2(49).205-211
 Ukrainian

Resume
The research analyzes the transformation of scientific-theoretical approaches to the category “investment attractiveness of an enterprise” under the influence of modern economic challenges, including geopolitical instability, decarbonization trends, digital transformation, and the necessity of post-war recovery of Ukraine’s economy. The evolution of the concept from classical finance-centered approaches of John Maynard Keynes and Michael Porter to integrated ESG-oriented models is analyzed. The methodological basis includes comparative analysis of scientific sources, systematization of approaches of different economic schools, analysis of statistical data from the National Bank of Ukraine and the World Bank, and study of EU regulatory documents on decarbonization and carbon reporting. Three key periods of category evolution are identified: classical (1936-1985), neoclassical (1990-2000s), and contemporary (2010s-present), each characterized by a specific set of investment attractiveness determinants. Empirical analysis demonstrates dramatic fluctuations in foreign direct investment to Ukraine: a 97% collapse in 2022 due to full-scale war followed by a 1900% recovery in 2023. It is established that 58% of corporate studies confirm a positive relationship between ESG factors and financial performance, while 88% of institutional investors consider ESG criteria more important than traditional financial metrics when assessing long-term enterprise attractiveness. The impact of EU regulatory changes, particularly the implementation of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and IFRS S2 standards on climate disclosures, on forming a new paradigm of metallurgical enterprise investment attractiveness is analyzed. A critical gap is identified between Ukraine’s high IT sector digital maturity and the metallurgy industry’s outdated material-technical base. An updated definition of investment attractiveness is proposed as a dynamic integral characteristic of an enterprise’s ability to generate long-term value through synergy of five dimensions: financial-economic, adaptive-risk, technological-innovative, ESG-oriented, and institutional-reputational. The practical significance lies in forming a conceptual framework for assessing enterprise investment attractiveness under wartime economy and post-war recovery conditions with reconstruction needs of $524 billion USD.

Keywords
investment attractiveness; evolution of categorical apparatus; ESG factors; decarbonization; CBAM; digital transformation; post-war recovery; metallurgical industry; enterprise adaptability.

Referensces

  1. Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest and money. Macmillan Cambridge University Press.
  2. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. Free Press.
  3. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press.
  4. McConnell, C. R., Brue, S. L., & Flynn, S. M. (2018). Economics (21st ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  5. Husieva, N., & Niemets, O. (2023). Investment attractiveness of Ukraine during the war. Human Geography Journal, 35, 7–19. https://doi.org/10.26565/2076-1333-2023-35-01 [in Ukrainian].
  6. Antonenko, V., Liashok, Ya., Popova, O., Katrandzhii, L., & Liashok, N. (2024). Investment attractiveness in post-war recovery. Financial and Credit Activity, 4(57), 363–379 [in Ukrainian].
  7. Nikolchuk, Y. M., & Lopatovska, O. O. (2023). Investment attractiveness: trends and problems. Innovation and Sustainability, 1, 164–175. https://doi.org/10.31649/ins.2023.1.164-175 [in Ukrainian].
  8. Whelan, T., Atz, U., Van Holt, T., & Clark, C. (2021). ESG and financial performance: Uncovering the relationship by aggregating evidence from 1,000 plus studies published between 2015-2020. NYU Stern Center for Sustainable Business.
  9. MSCI. (2024). ESG ratings performance review: 17 years of evidence. MSCI Inc.
  10. Precedence Research. (2024). ESG investing market size, share, and trends 2024 to 2034. Precedence Research.
  11. US SIF Foundation. (2024). US sustainable investing trends 2024-2025. US SIF.
  12. Federated Hermes. (2021). Responsible capitalism survey 2021. Federated Hermes Limited.
  13. European Commission. (2023). Regulation (EU) 2023/956 establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism. Official Journal of the European Union, L 130, 54–130.
  14. IFRS Foundation. (2023). IFRS S2 climate-related disclosures. IFRS Foundation.
  15. GHG Protocol. (2011). Product life cycle accounting and reporting standard. WRI/WBCSD.
  16. ResponsibleSteel. (2024). ResponsibleSteel standard version 2.1.1. ResponsibleSteel.
  17. World Bank, Government of Ukraine, European Union, & United Nations. (2025). Ukraine: Fourth rapid damage and needs assessment (RDNA4). World Bank.
  18. World Bank. (2025). Updated Ukraine recovery and reconstruction needs assessment released (Press Release). https://doi.org/10.1596/41029
  19. National Bank of Ukraine. (2024). External sector statistics. NBU.
  20. International Finance Corporation. (2023). Private sector opportunities for green and resilient reconstruction in Ukraine. International Finance Corporation.
  21. McKinsey. (2020). Industry 4.0: Reimagining manufacturing operations after COVID-19. McKinsey.
  22. Branca, T. A., Fornai, B., Colla, V., Murri, M. M., Streppa, E., & Schrоder, A. J. (2020). The challenge of digitalization in the steel sector. Metals, 10(2), 288. https://doi.org/10.3390/met10020288
  23. IT Ukraine Association. (2023). The power of Ukrainian IT: Digital Tiger 2023. IT Ukraine.
  24. World Steel Association. (2024). Sustainability indicators 2024 report. worldsteel.
  25. World Steel Association. (2022). Sustainability indicators 2022 report. worldsteel.
  26. Wang, P., Ryberg, M., Yang, Y., Feng, K., Kara, S., Hauschild, M., & Chen, W.-Q. (2021). Efficiency stagnation in global steel production urges joint supply- and demand-side mitigation efforts. Nature Communications, 12, 2066. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22245-6
  27. Global Efficiency Intelligence. (2022). Steel climate impact: An international benchmarking of energy and CO2 intensities. GEI.
  28. World Economic Forum. (2024). Why green steel should play a vital role in Ukraine’s post-war recovery. WEF.
  29. McKinsey.(2023). Survival through purpose: How Ukrainian businesses endured amid extreme uncertainty. McKinsey.
  30. Tkachenko, A., Levchenko, N., Pozhuieva, T., Sevastyanov, R., & Levchenko, S. (2023). Modified assess­ment methodology ESG competitiveness of enterprises to a new generation of investors. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1254, 012126. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1254/1/012126 [in Ukrainian].

Full Text (.pdf)

Received: 20.10.2025
Accepted: 21.11.2025
Published: 29.12.2025