Strategic Autonomy: Building Resilience and Leveraging Sustainability to Cope with Uncertainty

Geopolitical tensions, climate hazards, resource constraints, and weaponized supply chains are forcing governments and companies to pursue resilience. Disruptions can quickly cross borders, revealing dependencies in energy, critical materials, technology, infrastructure, and essential services. 

As the Green Summit 2026 progressed, it became increasingly apparent that resilience is not only being able to cope with a crisis, but rather a matter of anticipating disruption, mapping out where vulnerabilities lie, and retaining the capacity to act independently when established systems come under pressure. This requires combining the ability to respond to immediate shocks with a longer-term perspective that anticipates structural changes and protects the capacity to operate, invest, and create value over time.

Strategic autonomy is now an important part of the resilience debate, particularly in Europe, where recent geopolitical and economic shocks have intensified efforts to rebuild domestic industrial capabilities. But the challenge is global. The objective is not necessarily to produce everything domestically or eliminate international dependencies, but to understand which dependencies matter the most, to reshuffle supply chain strategies, secure critical capabilities, and build partnerships that strengthen the ability to withstand disruption and blackmail. This requires a broad approach, integrating industrial strategy and investment with circularity, climate adaptation, energy security, and international cooperation.

Sustainability is central to this approach and was core to the Green Summit agenda – by reducing resource consumption, anticipating environmental risks, and developing more circular production models, governments, companies and organizations can strengthen their resilience while limiting exposure to external shocks. In doing so, sustainability is a derisking tool. It supports not only resilience and strategic autonomy, but also the long-term value creation that comes from more efficient resource use, more robust operations, and better-informed investment decisions.

The Covid-19 pandemic exposed weaknesses in the supply of certain essential goods, while Russia’s invasion of Ukraine brought energy security and defense preparedness into sharper focus. Trade tensions and export restrictions have also highlighted risks associated with concentrated production and processing of critical materials.

Governments are reconsidering the balance between competitiveness, openness, and security. Businesses, meanwhile, now weigh not only cost and reliability, but also geographic concentration, political risk, exposure to nature services, access to alternative suppliers and materials, and the consequences of a sudden interruption.

The panel Made in, Made with: When EU Protectionism Meets ESG, explored these questions through a European lens. The discussion showed how strategic autonomy is moving beyond political rhetoric to influence industrial policy, corporate planning, and investment decisions.

Dependencies span food, healthcare, defense, industry, energy, digital technology, supply chains, and finance. France’s authorities' efforts to prepare civilian industrial capacity for the outburst of a major war in European Union territory illustrate one response: developing dual-use manufacturing capabilities that can serve commercial markets while switching to military equipment production in an emergency.

This challenge is not confined to Europe. Any economy seeking to strengthen its resilience must decide which capabilities it needs and could maintain, when and where it can rely on international markets, and how to prepare for situations should access to those markets become uncertain.

But preparation comes at a cost, and businesses may be expected to maintain spare capacity, and the means to diversify suppliers or invest in alternative production, without knowing whether that investment will generate returns. Public policy, long-term contracts, and private finance can help bridge the gap between the commercial incentives of individual firms and the wider benefits of a more derisked economy.

Sustainability adds an important dimension to these decisions – policies can support strategic autonomy by reducing exposure to resource scarcity and volatile markets, while encouraging investment in capabilities that remain valuable over the long term.

Production of many products we rely on today depends on vast inter-dependent networks of raw materials, components, technologies, expertise, and manufacturing capabilities. Reproducing every stage of every value chain domestically would be incredibly costly and often highly impractical. Domestic production doesn’t guarantee value chain security: a factory may operate locally while relying on imported machinery, specialist components or processed materials. Relocating the final assembly does not necessarily remove the vulnerabilities that can develop further upstream.

European governments and companies are looking to strengthen local capabilities and closed loops, but they must also consider where international collaboration can offer greater value than independent production. This requires a clear understanding of trade-offs. Diversification may increase short-term costs, while local production could take years to establish. Some materials and technologies are difficult to substitute, and alternative suppliers may themselves depend on the same upstream sources. Resilience strategies must therefore consider the wider networks on which production depends as well as the various time horizons. Some European firms are net exporters; they could suffer retaliation measures and witness the shrinking of their overseas revenues, undermining their global competitiveness, influence, and innovation drive.

The goal is not to eliminate interdependence, but to make it less fragile and consented. Resilience comes from having meaningful options, not from pursuing domestic production as an end in itself. For “made in” initiatives to succeed, policies, including trade protection and anti-dumping provisions, must be deployed, paving the way for reciprocal social and environmental competition terms. This also requires considering how industrial and supply chain choices affect energy security and environmental sustainability. Reducing energy and material consumption, diversifying energy sources, and making better use of resources can strengthen resilience to supply constraints and price volatility, while also reducing net environmental impacts. Strategic autonomy and sustainability can be synergistic, i.e. reinforce one another when they help organizations secure access to essential resources, consume them efficiently, reduce critical dependencies.

Strategic autonomy is a policy objective, while the concept of resilience applies better at individual firms level. It must be built into the everyday decisions of individual organizations. The challenge is translating geopolitical and supply-chain risks into practical measures without undermining competitiveness or creating unsustainable costs. This starts with understanding dependencies. Mapping suppliers, monitoring relevant set of data and examining several tiers of the supply chain can reveal vulnerabilities that may be missed when companies focus only on their direct suppliers.

Alternatives need to be developed before they are needed. These may include diversifying suppliers, securing alternative sources, building strategic reserves, establishing longer-term partnerships, or adapting products or processes to reduce reliance on a particular input. This preparation must also account for physical climate risks, which can affect suppliers, transport routes, production facilities, and access to other essential resources.  Considering both supply-chain vulnerabilities and climate-related risks helps organizations to anticipate how disruptions may affect their operations and identify alternatives before they become critical.

Each measure involves trade-offs. Additional stock ties up capital, while qualifying alternative suppliers can take time and money. Moving production closer to home does not necessarily remove upstream dependencies, and are sometimes even not feasible from local capacity and standard perspectives. Smaller companies may lack the resources or bargaining power to change their supply chains independently. Resilience requires prioritization: not every risk can be eliminated, and not every dependency warrants the same response.

Government and corporate policies, practices, systematic assessments help companies anticipate these risks by bringing resource use, climate exposure, and supply chain dependencies into investment, procurement, and product design decisions. Environmental supply chain assessments can reveal vulnerabilities, which, in the short term, can help guide operational improvements, and over the medium and long term, can inform infrastructure investment, technology choices, and supplier relationships. 

Take critical metals as an example. Modern industries rely on complex networks that extend from mining and refining through component production, manufacturing, and transport. Materials such as gallium, germanium, graphite, and antimony, as well as those used in permanent magnets, can become critical bottlenecks when supply is concentrated or access is restricted. 

Mapping value chains and stress-testing disruption scenarios - such as extreme heat, flooding, water scarcity, but also geopolitical tensions, supply shortages, and export restrictions - can help companies assess the plurality of risks before they become operational problems. France’s Observatory for Mineral Resources for Industries (OFREMI), operated by BRGM, mission is one example of initiative intended to monitor markets and identify vulnerabilities. Such analysis can help companies estimate the potential cost of inaction. Paying more for a diversified source may be justified if it reduces the risk of much larger losses.

Reshoring alone is not a complete solution. Rebuilding specialized manufacturing requires machinery, technical knowledge, skilled workers, investment, and an industrial ecosystem. In some cases, international partnerships, vertical integration, and diversified sourcing may offer more credible protection than attempting to reproduce an entire value chain domestically.

Industrial alliances can take this cooperation further by bringing together companies, suppliers, researchers and public authorities to coordinate investment, share expertise and strengthen strategic capabilities. Governments can support these efforts by providing harmonized frameworks, supporting strategically important capacity, and creating incentives for investments whose benefits extend beyond a single company.

Diversifying supply is one way to reduce exposure. Another is to reduce demand for virgin materials and make better use of the resources already in circulation.

Alstom and Orange illustrated how circularity can support resilience in sectors with very different operating models and with fragmented supply chains. Rail equipment can remain in service for more than 30 years, creating maintenance requirements that prevail long after a train has been manufactured. Substituting one material for another where technically possible, recovering scrap and reusing materials can all help reduce exposure to supply constraints. But established technical standards can sometimes prevent the use of recycled materials, even where reuse may be technically feasible.

Orange identified 15 of the European Union’s 34 critical raw materials as relevant to its activities thanks to stress testing exercises. For such a telecommunications business, the greatest risk may not be the direct cost of a particular metal, but the possibility that a shortage prevents essential connectivity infrastructure from being deployed. Repairing and refurbishing equipment, and extending its useful life, can complement efforts to strengthen resilience.

Circularity depends on products being designed to last, be repaired, and refurbished. Recovering materials can also help, although recycling is not always straightforward. Some minor metals are difficult or uneconomic to recover using current processes, while technical standards and procurement practices may favor new materials over reused ones.

Making circularity work requires more than just recycling; it depends on changes across the wider system. Product design, regulation, procurement, and business models all need to make repair and recovery practical and commercially viable. When they do, circularity can reduce demand for constrained resources, and it helps companies limit exposure to volatile markets and create additional options when supply is disrupted.

Cooperation across industrial ecosystems can take these benefits further. Alliances between manufacturers, suppliers and recyclers can help make circular business models viable by coordinating investment, sharing capabilities, and creating markets for recovered materials. Beyond reducing environmental impacts, this collective approach can strengthen strategic autonomy, support industrial competitiveness, and create long-term value by making better use of resources across the value chain.

Resilience also means preparing for the physical impacts of climate change. Across sectors, rising temperatures, extreme weather and pressure on natural resources can disrupt infrastructure, logistics and essential services. Adapting to these changing condition is not only an environment objective, but a prerequisite for maintaining operational continuity and reducing vulnerabilities over time. 

Climate change can intensify pressures on water, land and food resources, contribute to displacement and instability, and increase demands on emergency services. The armed forces provide a clear example of these interconnected challenges. Militaries are increasingly called upon to support humanitarian responses to wildfires and floods, evacuate communities, and support reconstruction. At the same time, extreme heat and severe weather affect the performance of equipment and damage infrastructure designed for different conditions.

The French armed forces’ climate strategy, adopted in 2022, was presented through four pillars: anticipation, adaptation, mitigation, and cooperation. These principles are relevant beyond defense too. Organizations that depend on long-lived infrastructure, specialized equipment, or complex logistics must consider whether their assets and operating models will remain effective under future climate conditions.

Because infrastructure built today may need to operate for decades, investment and planning need to account for changing climate conditions, and the risks associated with them continue to change. Anticipating those conditions is generally more effective than waiting for damage or disruption to expose weaknesses. 

The panel also highlighted practical measures that can reduce both emissions and support operational resilience: a hybrid field-camp energy system combining diesel generators, solar panels and batteries was reported to reduce fuel consumption by around 40% compared with the previous 100% fuel-based system. Water-treatment infrastructure can similarly reduce dependence on bottled water and truck deliveries. 

These examples illustrate how greater efficiency can reduce logistical burdens and exposure to supply risks. In military operations, fewer fuel deliveries can mean fewer vulnerable convoys.  In other sectors, reducing energy and material requirements can similarly limit exposure to volatile markets, supply shortages, and disruptions to essential services.

Resilience depends not only on preparing for disruption, but also on adapting systems before conditions change. Sustainability policies can help organizations anticipate physical climate risks, improve resource efficiency, and guide investment towards infrastructure and equipment suited to future conditions. In the short term, adaptation can help maintain operations during extreme events; over the longer term, it can reduce vulnerabilities and avoid locking organizations into systems that may become increasingly exposed. 

Climate adaptation and strategic autonomy share a practical goal: keeping essential operations running as conditions change or become more adverse.

Strategic autonomy and industrial resilience depend on more than investment, technology and supply-chain management; they also require political and social conditions that allow long-term decisions to be implemented and sustained. The transition can be technically achievable and strategically desirable, yet still face resistance if people consider its costs unfair or feel excluded from the choices that affect them.

The discussions on public attitudes to climate action challenged the idea that a broad rejection of environmental policy is inevitable and highlighted the tension between support for the objectives of the transition and a willingness to bear the personal costs associated with achieving them.

Figures presented during the session illustrated the gap: 70% of citizens reportedly supported accelerating the transition when no personal cost was mentioned, while 70% opposed it when a direct cost was attached. The panel also highlighted financial pressures on French households, including difficulties paying energy bills and absorbing unexpected expenses, suggesting that public attitudes cannot be understood independently of economic security and purchasing power.

The same challenge extends beyond climate policy. New infrastructure, industrial projects, and efforts to strengthen domestic capabilities can all bring costs, create local disruption, or require changes in established ways of life. If people see only the immediate burden and the benefits appear distant or unevenly distributed, public support can weaken and directly impact the local acceptance and license to operate. Policies that change direction repeatedly can also undermine confidence among households and businesses, making long-term investment more difficult.

People need to understand what policies are setting out to achieve, who pays, who benefits, and how decisions are made. This means explaining not only the environmental objectives of a policy, but also its implications for employment, energy costs, local development, and economic security. It also means acknowledging genuine trade-offs rather than assuming that the public will automatically accept measures presented as necessary.

The session suggested that resistance is not adequately explained by a simple division between urban and rural populations. Income, financial vulnerability, and the extent to which people feel they can influence decisions may be equally important. Policies perceived as imposed from above can provoke opposition when communities have little opportunity to shape their implementation.

Public participation, like that through the work of the citizens’ initiative “Un commun accord”, which has brought together 150 people representative of French society to consider difficult questions and work towards compromises, can help address this. While participation will not remove disagreement, nor should it be expected to, the value lies in giving people the opportunity to weigh competing priorities and contribute to decisions. Local projects focused on concerns such as water, air quality, and infrastructure can also help connect broad policy goals to people’s everyday experience.

How transition is framed also matters. Energy sovereignty, for example, can connect decarbonization with concerns about security and independence. The panel noted increased support for nuclear energy and energy independence following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This illustrates how climate and energy policies can resonate more strongly when their relationship with other public priorities is made clear.

For strategic autonomy, public legitimacy and acceptance is critical. The social dimension is also essential to sustainable resilience. Trust is not built after decisions have already been made; it depends on how decisions are developed, explained, and put into practice. Policies that reduce emissions or strengthen domestic capabilities will be difficult to sustain if their costs fall disproportionately on households or local communities. Sustainability and strategic autonomy both require continuity of investment, which is easier to achieve when people fully understand the objectives and have meaningful opportunities to contribute. 

Across discussions around Strategic Autonomy, a recurring challenge that was highlighted was the gap between recognizing risk and acting on it. Diversifying supply chains, developing new production capacity, adapting infrastructure, and investing in circular systems can all require substantial upfront expenditure. But the benefits may only become apparent after the disruption occurs.

For businesses, however, it can be a difficult case to make. A company that pays more for backup capacity, alternative suppliers or adapted product offers may find itself at a disadvantage if competitors continue to focus on short-term costs. Smaller companies may also lack the financial resources or influence to change the structure of their supply chains independently. The challenge is to balance short-term competitiveness with the need to anticipate longer-term risks. Integrating non-financial factors, including climate exposure, resource constraints, and supply chain vulnerabilities, into investment and pricing decisions can help businesses assess the full cost of their choices and potential value of resilience over time. By making these risks and their consequences more visible in business decisions, companies can better weigh the immediate cost of resilience against the longer-term benefits. 

Circular business models and industrial alliances can also strengthen strategic autonomy over time. By bringing manufacturers, suppliers, recyclers, and other partners together, companies can develop more viable approaches to repair, reuse and material recovery, reducing reliance on virgin materials and external suppliers. These partnerships can also help share the costs, expertise, and infrastructure needed to make circular solutions commercially viable. In this way, circularity can support not only environmental objectives, but also industrial competitiveness and long-term resilience.

Public policy can help address the obstacles. Clear priorities, targeted support, predictable demand and procurement that considers resilience in addition to price can give businesses more confidence to invest, while long-term contracts and other incentives may be especially useful where a capability is strategically important but unlikely to be profitable in the near term.

Private finance also has a paramount role to play, as public budgets alone cannot fund every aspect of industrial transformation, resource security, and climate adaptation. Investors can help channel capital towards long-term transitions, although this requires an understanding of how strategic importance, technological change, and resilience affect a company’s prospects.

Cooperation must also extend beyond individual firms and national borders. Governments, businesses, investors, researchers, and infrastructure operators need to share information, identify common vulnerabilities, and coordinate responses. In some cases, this will mean developing domestic capacity. In others, it will mean pooling resources, establishing alternative supply relationships, or working with international partners.

No organization can build resilience in isolation. Its options depend, in part, on the strength and reliability of the wider system around it.

The summit’s discussions brought together subjects that are often treated separately: industrial strategy, critical materials, circularity, climate adaptation, and resilient business models. Yet they share a common challenge. Each concerns the ability to maintain essential capabilities when supply, environmental conditions, or geopolitical relationships alter. 

Strategic autonomy describes part of the answer, but it does not mean becoming self-sufficient. Sustainability provides a practical framework to strengthen strategic autonomy by helping companies anticipate risks, understand dependencies, and reduce vulnerabilities, consider realistic alternatives, and build partnerships that make those dependencies less vulnerable and build resilience. That means designing products and infrastructure for longer lifetimes, recovering resources where possible, diversifying and engaging with suppliers, and integrating climate & sustainability risk into long-term decisions. It also means creating the financial, regulatory, and political conditions that allow businesses to act. Resilience is not just about returning to normal after a shock. It is about building systems that can adapt when the “old normal” no longer holds.

The long-term success of sustainability policies and investments in strategic autonomy depends partly on public trust, but also on transparent decision making and demonstration of how costs and benefits are distributed across businesses and communities. Recognizing these distributive implications can help build support to sustain investment and policy commitments over time. 

In an interconnected world, the strongest form of autonomy may not be the ability to stand entirely alone, but the ability to cooperate without becoming dangerously dependent – and to retain meaningful choices when circumstances change, including staying the course of the ecological transition.