REPUTATION DURING WARTIME AND POST-WAR RECOVERY AS A MARKETING AND SOCIETAL RESOURCE FOR TERRITORIAL INNOVATION-DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT

Abstract

This article examines territorial reputation during wartime and the recovery period as both a marketing and a societal resource for innovation-driven development. The point of departure is the proposition that reputation consolidates stakeholder assessments of the predictability of rules, the fulfilment of obligations, and the capacity of institutions to govern risks; accordingly, it reduces uncertainty in interactions and sustains willingness to make long-term investment and partnership commitments. The purpose of the article is to provide a theoretical substantiation of territorial reputation as an intangible institutional asset that supports innovation development in the context of the risk society and martial law. The theoretical and conceptual framework draws on Simon Anholt’s approach to place reputation and Ulrich Beck’s concept of the risk society. The study employs logical–analytical reasoning and theoretical integration. The empirical component is based on an analysis of Global Innovation Index country profiles for Ukraine for 2021–2025 and the European Innovation Scoreboard 2025. A mapping method is applied: reputation channels (tourism, exports, government policy, the investment and business environment, culture, and people) are aligned with GII components, with due regard to the limits of such correspondence. The analysis demonstrates a decline in Ukraine’s overall GII position from 49th in 2021 to 66th in 2025, alongside a deterioration in the Institutions pillar from 91st to 108th, against relatively stronger positions in Knowledge and Technology Outputs and a volatile trajectory in Creative Outputs. An asymmetry between innovation “inputs” and “outputs” is identified (stronger outputs alongside weaker inputs), which, under wartime conditions, is interpreted as inertia of accumulated competences, networks, and technological practices in tandem with a contraction of the resource base due to infrastructure destruction, migration-related losses of human capital, and constrained access to finance. The article concludes that analytically juxtaposing reputation channels with innovation indicators enables a more precise substantiation of recovery priorities through strengthened institutional predictability, open data practices, support for human capital, and mechanisms for converting existing results into scalable products, and may serve as a mechanism for building trust among stakeholders. The practical contribution lies in substantiating the need for consistent institutional change, procedural transparency, and evidence-based management of territorial communications, including transparent accounting of marketing expenditure as an infrastructure of reputational signals within recovery policy.