Patterns of resilience in the industrial ecosystem of the nuclear sector

Industrial Economic Systems in Resilient Conditions
Authors:
Abstract:

Technological independence requirements for critical information infrastructure determine which areas of digital transformation within the industrial ecosystem of the nuclear industry the orchestrator may open to external participants and which must remain closed. Platform openness research frames openness as the sponsor’s choice between fostering innovation and retaining control; resilience research does not explicitly address openness; technological sovereignty research considers closure at state or corporate level. None of the reviewed approaches explains how external constraints partition ecosystems into layers with differing permissible openness. The study identifies patterns linking regulatory requirements to permissible layer openness and their implications for resilience and digital strategy. The literature was compared across four dimensions; Russian Presidential Decree No. 166 and Government Resolution No. 1912, including annexes, were analysed using six codes. Requirements apply to significant infrastructure facilities rather than organisations and impose thresholds with deadlines: a ban on foreign software use from 1 January 2025 and a 100% share of trusted hardware-software systems by 31 December 2029. Embedded approval and exemption procedures make the boundary permeable, while core compliance assumes sufficient supplies of trusted products from outer layers. Threshold-based measures capture the core’s state, not the ecosystem’s reconfiguration capabilities. Digital strategy should therefore specify capability indicators for layers outside the regulatory perimeter rather than extend the core’s threshold logic to them. The practical contribution lies in distinguishing the orchestrator’s roles as a regulatory administrator and an ecosystem organiser. Conclusions are limited to publicly available legal texts; sectoral transition plans classified as restricted-distribution documents were not examined.

  • References

    1. Bondarenko A.V., Mushovets K.V., Porshnev S.V., Rogova O.K. (2023) Analysis of current regulations in the field of cybersecurity of critical information infrastructure of the Russian Federation. IT Security (Russia), 30 (3), 126–148. DOI: 10.26583/bit.2023.3.09

    2. Ismagilov I.I., Seliverstova N.S. (2025) Institutional environment development of the Russian electronics industry. Economic security, 8 (12), 3761–3780. DOI: 10.18334/ecsec.8.12.124364

    3. Natalichev R.V., Gorbatov V.S., Gavdan G.P., Durakovskiy A.P. (2021) Evolution and paradoxes of the regulatory framework for ensuring the security of critical information infrastructure facilities. IT Security (Russia), 28 (3), 6–27. DOI: 10.26583/bit.2021.3.01

    4. Rudenko M.N., Sunyaeva D.A. (2026) Rezil'entnost' promyshlennoi ekosistemy atomnoi otrasli [Resilience of the nuclear industry’s industrial ecosystem] (in print). Fundamental Research, 10, 68–76.

    5. Gawer A. (2014) Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Research Policy, 43 (7), 1239–1249. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.03.006

    6. Boudreau K. (2010) Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control. Management Science, 56 (10), 1849–1872. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1100.1215

    7. Parker G., Van Alstyne M. (2018) Innovation, Openness, and Platform Control. Management Science, 64 (7), 3015–3032. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2017.2757

    8. Kretschmer T., Leiponen A., Schilling M., Vasudeva G. (2022) Platform ecosystems as meta-organizations: Implications for platform strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 43 (3), 405–424. DOI: 10.1002/smj.3250

    9. Jacobides M.G., Cennamo C., Gawer A. (2018) Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39 (8), 2255–2276. DOI: 10.1002/smj.2904

    10. Holling C.S. (1996) Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. In: Engineering within ecological constraints (ed. P.C. Schulze). Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 31–44. DOI: 10.17226/4919

    11. Walker B., Holling C.S., Carpenter S.R., Kinzig A. (2004) Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9 (2), art. no. 5. DOI: 10.5751/ES-00650-090205

    12. Folke C., Carpenter S.R., Walker B., Scheffer M., Chapin T., Rockström J. (2010) Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability. Ecology and Society, 15 (4), art. no. 20. DOI: 10.5751/ES-03610-150420

    13. Sheffi Y., Rice J.B. Jr. (2005) A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47 (1), 41–48.

    14. Ivanov D., Dolgui A. (2020) Viability of intertwined supply networks: extending the supply chain resilience angles towards survivability. A position paper motivated by COVID-19 outbreak. International Journal of Production Research, 58 (10), 2904–2915. DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1750727

    15. Babkin A.V., Merzlikina G.S. (2025) Sustainable development of economic systems: Essential content and evaluation criteria. Economics and Management, 31 (7), 834–853. DOI: 10.35854/1998-1627-2025-7-834-853

    16. Kleiner G.B. (2015) System resource of economic strategic stability. St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University Journal. Economics, 4 (223), 10–24. DOI: 10.5862/JE.223.1

    17. Edler J., Blind K., Kroll H., Schubert T. (2023) Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy. Defining rationales, ends and means. Research Policy, 52 (6), art. no. 104765. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2023.104765

    18. Smorodinskaya N.V., Katukov D.D. (2024) Moving towards technological sovereignty: a new global trend and the Russian specifics. Baltic Region, 16 (3), 108–135. DOI: 10.5922/2079-8555-2024-3-6

    19. Bezrukov A.O., Baydarov D.Yu., Faikov D.Yu. (2024) State Technological Leadership: Conceptual Understanding and Formation Mechanisms. Economic Revival of Russia, 1 (79), 75–89. DOI: 10.37930/1990-9780-2024-1-79-75-89

    20. Baydarov D.Y., Faykov D.Y. (2023) Developing mechanisms to ensure technological sovereignty of state corporations. Economic security, 6 (4), 1335–1358. DOI: 10.18334/ecsec.6.4.119296

    21. Krivoshein B.N., Pokrovsky I.A. (2023) Concepts and criteria for assessing the technological independence and security of critical information infrastructure facilities. IT Security (Russia), 30 (4), 39–60. DOI: 10.26583/bit.2023.4.02

    22. Kobzev V.V., Babkin A.V., Skorobogatov A.S. (2022) Digital transformation of industrial enterprises in the new reality. π-Economy, 15 (5), 7–27. DOI: 10.18721/JE.15501

    23. Rudenko M.N. (2022) The Phenomenon of Risk in the Conditions of Digital Transformation of Socio-Economic Ecosystems. Russian Journal of Management, 10 (3), 6–10. DOI: 10.29039/2409-6024-2022-10-3-6-10

    24. Rudenko M.N. (2020) Diagnostics of socio-economic regional security. Economic security, 3 (3), 323–334. DOI: 10.18334/ecsec.3.3.110744

    25. Dolganova Y.A., Rudenko M.N. (2021) Improving the methods of assessing and forecasting the economic security of the region. Moscow: Pervoe ekonomicheskoe izdatel'stvo. DOI: 10.18334/9785912924101

    26. Williamson O.E. (1991) Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (2), 269–296. DOI: 10.2307/2393356

    27. Kucherenko A.I. (2025) Conceptual aspects of evaluating the effectiveness of national projects in the context of achieving technological leadership. Upravlencheskii uchet [Management accounting], 2, 109–118. DOI: 10.25806/uu-5051

    28. Babkin A.V., Mikhailov P.A., Shkarupeta E.V., Chen Leifei (2025) A toolkit for assessing the digital maturity of an intelligent industrial ecosystem based on coevolution and ecosystem synergy. π-Economy, 18 (4), 32–53. DOI: 10.18721/JE.18402

    29. Gareev T.R. (2023) Technological sovereignty: From conceptual contradiction to practical implementation. Terra Economicus, 21 (4), 38–54. DOI: 10.18522/2073-6606-2023-21-4-38-54

    30. Vial G. (2019) Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28 (2), 118–144. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Previous articleNext article