Part 2

The first part of this publication covered the general context and examples of resilience in Ukrainian clusters. The second part summarizes global experience, offering a concrete checklist of resilience tools, along with commentary from the Executive Directorate of UCA on the state of Ukrainian clusters.

---

Studying Cluster Resilience – Nature and Key Factors

To understand the nature of cluster resilience and identify the most important factors, in September 2025 UCA conducted a series of expert consultations, discussions, as well as a survey of Ukrainian clusters.

First of all, we cross-checked with selected findings of international experts.

The study by Christian Ketels of Harvard Institute, “Acting now while preparing for tomorrow: Competitiveness upgrading under the shadow of COVID-19”, is more of a framework (for the entire economy, not specifically for clusters). It emphasizes the need to “act now while preparing for tomorrow.” The key idea: without micro-policies (supply chains, safe operations, working capital, demand), even the lifting of restrictions and macro-stimuli will not yield a sustainable effect.

The authors stress that economic resilience requires a combination of government action, macro-stabilization, and a microeconomic “toolbox” for restarting production and services (new safety procedures, restoring supply chains, access to working capital financing, targeted demand stimuli). Solutions must be sector-differentiated (“de-averaged”): government ↔ business must maintain continuous dialogue, with cluster organizations and development agencies serving as key intermediaries.

Trust, clear rules, and testing/tracing are prerequisites for safe reopening; international coordination in trade, logistics, and finance reduces vulnerability. Accordingly, the quality of institutions and the “rules of the game” (predictability, ability to quickly adapt regulations to safe operations) is a critical factor.

Equally important are factor conditions: skills/talent pool, infrastructure, science and technology base; as well as the risk of human capital degradation due to prolonged unemployment. The author introduces the concept of “dynamic clusters and interaction networks that accelerate adaptation and restructuring for new markets.”

Technological trends (like accelerated digitalization) are both opportunities and risks of deepening inequality — they require lifelong learning and upskilling policies.

The study by Wilson, “Cluster policy resilience: new challenges for a mature policy” (2019), emphasizes the flexibility and adaptability of cluster policies, well-suited for crises, serving as an “umbrella” of instruments for fostering cooperation inside clusters. Thanks to this, such policy integrates well with other domains (innovation, exports, skills) and with smart specialization.

In the context of the Clusters4Regions project (developing cluster policies in 6 Ukrainian regions), the key takeaway is that cluster policy can be the “backbone” of regional competitiveness — easily interwoven and integrated with tools for innovation, internationalization, skills, and infrastructure, and supported by the logic of smart specialization. Effective policy can combine diverse configurations of tools, allowing adaptation to technological change and globalization while supporting related domains and cross-cluster connections.

The work of Alberto Pezzi (ACCIÓ, Catalonia), “Resilience as a new paradigm for competing in the XXI century: implications and opportunities for clusters” (2021), shows that resilience has become a central principle of EU policies and competitive strategies. It outlines practical tools to strengthen resilience at the cluster/industry level: strategic foresight, preparedness, operational adaptability, openness to change, leadership, and trust.

Implementing these tools is long-term work, closely tied to the green and digital transitions. Pezzi stresses that clusters are an instrument, not an end goal: they should be used as a strategic means of implementing industrial policy in a VUCA environment (business model flexibility, fast circulation of tacit knowledge, multi-stakeholder approaches), under conditions of governance open to change.

Key tools include:

• strategic foresight and preparedness at industry/cluster level;
• agility and “Darwinian” operational adaptability;
• openness to change, reinforced by vision, leadership, and dialogue/trust;
• use of clusters’ collective intelligence for more resilient value/supply chains, with cooperation from SME associations and employers’ unions;
• an active role of clusters in the labor market: reskilling/upskilling, participation in the Pact for Skills;
• shared value initiatives at community level to address social challenges;
• international cluster cooperation and a critical mass of SMEs/science for global market entry;
• cross-sectoral/interdisciplinary/transnational cooperation for new products/services and access to critical resources/technologies.

“Resilience is a process of constant change, with different measures at different times depending on context and capabilities.” (quote from the presentation)

---

Survey of Ukrainian Clusters – Top 5 Resilience Factors

The survey of Ukrainian clusters highlights the following top five resilience factors:

• Strong management team, support from the board and members (69% of respondents)
• Financial sustainability (multiple funding sources, stable inflows) (56%)
• Global solidarity, including European support – such as invitations to consortia, projects, etc. (56%)
• Consolidation and support within the wider cluster community (UCA, 52%)
• Own “drive” – belief in the cluster idea and future (also 52%)

Other factors, including government support, scored significantly lower — from 5% to 30%.

Group reflection discussions in September added little beyond these survey results. Two insights are worth noting:

• Collective intelligence also acts as both a crisis buffer and a driver of resilience, demonstrated by several advanced clusters;
• Clusters are not unique or the only entities demonstrating resilience — similar traits are seen in other business communities and parts of society. On the contrary, participants noted that the general atmosphere of resilience in the country, as exemplified by the Defense Forces and volunteer foundations, is highly motivating and inspiring for many of us.
  

Nevertheless, given that the cluster movement in Ukraine is still very young, it is crucial to take into account the above-mentioned factors identified in the survey and build our future resilience strategy upon them.

---

Managing Resilience – Practical Tools

If we understand the nature of resilience, its roots and drivers – then we can manage it. Especially if we do so more consciously and strategically. In other words, “resilient organizations are not born, they are made” – resilience can be cultivated in every organization.

An analysis of the Ukrainian context and international research on resilience allows us to design a certain checklist of resilience tools.

Below is a list of checkpoints (a checklist) across five categories with short comments from UCA on our current state – in fact, it incorporates all the analytical findings mentioned above.

A. Institutional Capacity and Governance

• A resilience strategy is in place (risks, scenarios, foresight, continuity plan, communication plan).
• Open governance: transparent procedures exist, members are engaged, and regular “government ↔ business ↔ science” dialogue takes place.
• The cluster organization serves as an intermediary and coordinator – an orchestrator of crisis-response actions in its sector of the economy.
• Partnerships are in place – both internal (UCA, other business associations) and external (European networks, TCI Network, ECCP platform, inter-cluster alliances); tools for joint projects are widely used.
• Cooperation is evaluated: networks/links, learning, and trust are monitored (not only “mechanistic” KPIs).
  

Status – progress and challenges (UCA):
At UCA, we indeed follow most of the above points, and progress has been achieved in each area over the past three years. The strongest progress is in networking and partnerships: as noted repeatedly in UCA’s annual reports, international partnerships have multiplied in recent years. Orchestration and coordination of crisis situations have been most visible where strong organizations and developed clusters exist – for example, in furniture or IT clusters.

At the same time, advancing cluster organizations to a professional level of management remains modest – only three organizations passed the bronze-level ESCA quality test last year. Most clusters critically lack the capacity for better governance within their organizations. Therefore, when it comes to orchestrating entire sectors and delivering fast, consolidated responses to new crises with significant large-scale impact, our clusters are still far behind. It is obvious that

the overall resilience strategy for clusters is challenge No. 1 in this field, since we do not yet have a formalized, clear, and consolidated one.

For analysts and experts, it is also worth examining what this strategy looks like at the state level. The State resilience concept adopted in 2021 appears solid overall, but there are many questions regarding how it is being implemented and what changes should have been introduced after three years of war.

B. Operations, Supply Chains, and Finance

Tools in this area are generally macroeconomic, but their development and successful implementation also depend on clusters’ activity and their influence on government policies.

• Protocols for safe operations and rapid restart for various subsectors/supply chains.
• Mapping critical suppliers/“red chains,” with duplication and replacement plans.
• Access for clusters and their members to working capital / risk insurance / guarantees, pools of financial instruments, and quick “support windows” for SMEs.
• Sectoral differentiation of policies (de-averaging): different measures for different demand × shock quadrants.
• Regular stress tests of critical-sector supply chains (transport, energy, logistics, workforce).

Status – progress and challenges (UCA):
The experience of Ukrainian clusters in this category is limited. Clearly, this concerns the very “micro-policies” referenced in Christian Ketels’ Harvard Institute study – which are entirely in the hands of the State.

While the government launched a number of financial and other support and stabilization instruments for SMEs in 2022–25, and some of the above tools came into effect, clusters played almost no significant role in this process. We explain this mainly by the youth of Ukraine’s cluster movement and the low level of institutionalization. These processes are only now gaining momentum.

At the same time, some of the most capable and active organizations (UAM, U-food, Kharkiv IT Cluster, APPAU, etc.) demonstrate that cluster reserves and potential are very high – but largely untapped. For example, APPAU has been offering systemic approaches to industrial digital transformation for 7+ years and has significant expertise, but the state stubbornly ignores these proposals.

Overall, the main barrier remains the almost total absence of state policies or development programs regarding clusters – largely due to officials’ lack of understanding of the advantages of clustering.

C. Human Capital, Trust, and Community

This category is highly relevant for UCA clusters at this stage of development. All the points below are relevant and are being actively worked on.

• Shared values and principles that consolidate and strengthen trust within communities – as a counterbalance to growing fragmentation.
• Reskilling/upskilling programs (including joining existing initiatives like Pact for Skills or sectoral programs), with quality monitoring of participation.
• Stable channels of communication and trust (expert communication, crisis briefings, behavior protocols).
• Shared value / CSR projects with communities (support for vulnerable groups, local resilience).
• Built-in educational trajectories for members (mentoring, internships, competence standards).

Status – progress and challenges (UCA):
Given current policies and growing risks of fragmentation (not only within UCA, but also across society and globally), UCA now pays special attention to developing common principles and values (point 1): openness, trust, broad network collaboration, professionalism, charity, and effectiveness.

We are increasingly systematizing and conceptualizing these elements, including in policies and educational methods, with the involvement of international partners. In the near future, clusters will be offered dedicated workshops explaining the importance of collaboration values for cluster resilience and development.

As practical recommendations, UCA proposes that clusters first take a survey to measure trust levels within UCA; later, they can replicate it within their organizations. Trust is the main currency in clusters.

UCA is also rolling out effective, pragmatic initiatives that cultivate and promote leadership, charity, and cooperation – including “Practice Leader”, “Be the First to Support”, and “WIN-WIN.”

D. Security and Defense (War Context)

At the beginning of the war, movement in this category was rather spontaneous – a reaction of SMEs and individual clusters to wartime challenges. Over time, however, it has acquired a more systemic character. Checkpoints include (but are not limited to):

• Participation of clusters/members in MilTech/defense-industrial programs supporting the Armed Forces, cooperation with government and other DefenseTech market actors.
• Continuity plans during wartime threats: at cluster level – relocation, dispersal, backup sites; at enterprise level – shelters, evacuation.
• Support for Critical Infrastructure: dependency matrix (energy, communications, transport), agreements for priority recovery.
• Civil-military cooperation with focus on dual-use sectors, joint R&D/certification.
• Psychological resilience and staff support (including veterans), policies for mobilization-related risks.

Status – progress and challenges (UCA):
UCA’s Clusters4Defense program is the main response to challenges in this area. It is managed by UCA’s Dual-Use Technology Resource Center, which includes 10 clusters.

The essence of the program is to develop cooperation with clusters and associations of the Euro-Atlantic bloc, prioritizing integration into industrial and innovation ecosystems.

The program proposes to develop five key mechanisms:

1. better integration of Ukrainian clusters into existing relevant EU programs (EDF and Horizon),
2. integration into government programs of Ukraine’s partner countries,
3. creation of new bi-/multilateral programs,
4. stronger involvement in existing platforms (such as SPARK/ADS),
5. and the creation of analytical centers, with the first task being the development of strong product and ecosystem cases.

Details about Clusters4Defense are available via the program’s materials.

Our obvious growth areas in this domain are: financing of already developed project initiatives (over 40), strengthening cluster capacities, and consolidation.

E. Innovation, the Twin Transition, and Cross-Clustering

The items in this category are key for EU integration as well as for boosting the competitiveness of clusters and their members.

• A portfolio of collaborative projects (R&D, exports, skills) with diverse instrument models.
• Companies’ digital maturity (online channels, remote operations, data/analytics, automation).
• ESG targets and reporting, a “green” portfolio of products/projects, energy efficiency.
• Embedding the “green transition” into the cluster’s strategy (together with digital and resilience as a triad).
• Cross-cluster/transnational links to access technologies and markets.

Status – progress and challenges (UCA):
UCA clusters have made strong progress in this area in recent years — the number of Horizon Europe projects has already reached 10 (compared to zero before 2022), and projects are growing in other domains and categories as well. At the same time, increasing the innovativeness of SMEs and traditional clusters overall remains a major challenge. Market surveys clearly show that during the war, innovation is among the lowest priorities for Ukrainian SMEs.

F. EU Integration, International Markets, and Trade/Logistics Coordination

With the start of the full-scale war, eastward export routes were practically blocked, and a second wave of large-scale reorientation toward EU and other global markets began. The resilience checkpoints for clusters in this area look like this:

• Market reorientation plans, prioritizing the EU — export channels, cooperation with EU clusters, joint stands/missions.
• Channels for international coordination in trade/logistics (intergovernmental/cluster agreements).
• Capacity building for SMEs and preparation for EU integration — compliance with standards and norms, understanding the need to integrate into value chains.

Status – progress and challenges (UCA):
UCA clusters engaged in this work practically from the first weeks of the war. In addition to rapid integration into the European cluster community — with relevant instruments such as the ECCP, Clusters meet Regions, etc., which is largely thanks to the European Commission, the European Cluster Alliance, and a number of friendly cluster associations — we created our own mechanism, Professionals4Ukraine, which in 2023–2024 was recognized as the best mechanism for the internationalization of Ukrainian clusters. Its essence lies in mobilizing and coordinating the work of professionals and organizations already oriented toward helping Ukraine and our clusters. In other words, we sought to convert our partners’ one-off or periodic solidarity into an effective, practical, and sustainable instrument for joint development.

Conversely, cluster capacities (point 3 above) remain a major growth area for almost all UCA clusters. The shortage of trained managers, business developers, and project coordinators is pervasive.

H. Monitoring, Analytics, and Learning

This area is one of the least illuminated within the cluster community and, at the same time, the most important for optimizing resilience strategies.

• Scenario planning and foresight — “economic intelligence” by sectors/value chains, building scenarios and plans.
• Fast-status indicators: production/employment/exports by subsector; a “demand × shock” heat map.
• Continuous learning: crisis retrospectives, updates to protocols and risk maps.

Status – progress and challenges (UCA):
Systematic work in this area is only just beginning. The main challenge is the lack of a sufficient number of experts and expertise at the sectoral level (within the clusters themselves), as well as at the managerial/consulting level.

“Resilience – as the ability to recover quickly after a shock (crisis) and/or to withstand a shock” and “Resilience – as a process of constant change… including anticipation and preparation for better response to possible crises” are different definitions, understandings, and approaches.

Ukraine, our society, and business communities demonstrate excellent examples of resilience in the first scenario. However, it is clear that this option is more of an ad hoc response, which has significant limitations in a war of attrition with an enemy whose resources are many times greater. Therefore, we should consider tools that are more characteristic of the second approach – namely, risk management, scenario planning, and foresight.

---

This article is rather a first attempt to analyze, interpret, and systematize resilience practices within clusters. The provided checklist can be easily applied to produce a more complete, detailed assessment of our resilience. However, this would require a significantly larger scale of research efforts. Overall, the topic of community resilience requires more robust research and collective reflection — as the war continues, and many challenges still lie ahead for the cluster community.

Today, the main threat to resilience manifests less in military-political or economic difficulties than in internal (Ukrainian) and pan-European fragmentation. The lack of high-quality response strategies at the state level, as well as insufficient consolidation within communities, is significant and appears at various levels — and to a large extent is present within clusters.

Meanwhile, the war continues, and there is reason to believe it may spread onto EU territory. In its hybrid form, this has already begun. Therefore, we at UCA put aside the traditional narratives of Ukraine’s Reconstruction back in 2024, until better times. Resilience is the key trait needed for the joint victory of Ukraine and the EU over the totalitarian advance from the east. And clusters can play a significant — much greater than today — role in addressing economic, technological, social, and defense challenges.

The UCA Executive Directorate invites clusters, researchers, development agencies, and other Ukrainian and international partners to cooperate in resilience research and in improving policy tools.

How do the proposed methods and tools correlate with what the Government of Ukraine has already implemented and is currently implementing, and where are the growth areas, including those related to clusters? Which of the practices of the ECCP and the ECA, currently recommended by our colleagues, are the most practical? And what priorities for UCA follow from all of this — we will consider in the 3rd part of the publication.

Oleksandr Yurchak, CEO of UCA.