Proceedings of the International scientific and practical conference ―Cambridge Education Forum‖ (June 1-3, 2026) / Publisher website: www.naukainfo.com. - Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2026. - 206 p.

34 implementation volumes of resource-saving (low-waste) technologies was conducted, clearly differentiating two stages [2]: • The first stage (up to 1991 inclusive). Marked by a general global increase in capital investments for environmental protection measures. In Ukraine, approximately 546 million karbovanets were allocated annually for these purposes, reaching its highest level in 1991 (733 million karbovanets), which ensured a 1.4-fold reduction in atmospheric pollutant emissions. • The second stage (from 1991 onwards). Characterized by a sharp decline in eco-innovation volumes (the drop until 2002 amounted to almost 80%). Slow regeneration of the process began only in 2003, yet against the background of a constant reduction in the number of enterprises implementing innovations at all [2]]. To verify the relationship between the volumes of pollutant emissions into the atmospheric air and other macroeconomic indicators, a correlation analysis was performed, yielding the following results [2]: 1) Between atmospheric emissions and the GDP of Ukraine: Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (r s ) is 0.952, error probability (p) is 0.01, and the critical value for this sample size is 0.76. 2) Between atmospheric emissions and industrial output volumes: Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (r s ) is 0.883, error probability (p) is 0.01, and the critical value for this sample size is 0.76. A significant correlation with an error probability of less than 1% proves that the reduction of pollution levels in Ukraine is a consequence of the decline in industrial production (economic downturn) rather than the result of effective eco-innovation management. Concurrently, an inverse proportional relationship between emissions and actual eco-innovation volumes was not detected due to the meagre scale of the latter in domestic practice [2]. The large-scale diffusion of eco-innovations is restrained by rigid institutional barriers: high risks of product perception by consumers, corruption within the economic system, a deficit of enterprises' own funds amidst the declarative funding of fundamental science, and the underdevelopment of innovation infrastructure [2; 7].