Cluster Summit Finland 2025 provided empirical confirmation that clusters and innovation ecosystems function as practical engines for cooperation and RDI impact. They link companies, especially SMEs, with universities and research organisations, open access to laboratories and expertise, pool scarce regional resources, and accelerate the path from ideas to projects, commercialisation, and internationalisation. The pre-event position paper already argued that Finland should use clusters more deliberately as a strategic tool for productivity and competitiveness and noted that current operating environments and support structures are fragmented and uneven across regions; the Summit evidence directly substantiates these points and turns them into a time-bound action agenda.

Finland is not starting from scratch: A diverse set of regional clusters, many of them already connected to European Cluster Collaboration Platform (ECCP), is in place across the country. These clusters provide a ready-made infrastructure that could be used far more systematically and predictably as implementation partners for business, industrial and RDI policy.

At the same time, structural gaps continue to suppress impact. The absence of a national cluster policy and coordination mandate fragments the field; short funding cycles disrupt continuity; administrative load is heavy; core staffing is thin; and the degree of business orientation varies. The net effect is a persistent opportunity cost: time is spent surviving funding cycles rather than compounding impact.

This paper therefore advances a three-part message on how Finland can make better use of its existing ECCP-linked regional clusters and related ecosystems:

1. Finland needs a national coordination mandate and multi-annual core funding for cluster and ecosystem orchestration;

2. a shared KPI and foresight capability that enables transparent, evidence-led steering of clusters and ecosystems;

3. and stronger incentives for research commercialisation and cross-regional scaling of ecosystems and clusters through the Smart Specialisation (S3) framework.

With these conditions in place, clusters and related ecosystems can systematically convert knowledge capital into competitiveness, resilience, and sustainable growth.

Purpose & Methods

This evidence-based position paper integrates the Summit workshop and panel into a single, decision-oriented narrative that updates the pre-event position paper. Where the earlier paper set out what Finland should do (treat clusters as a core policy tool, establish a national programme that aligns with regional strategies, and create structures for evaluation and funding), this update details who should do what, by when, and how success will be measured, so those recommendations become executable policy.

The evidence base consists of a structured workshop and panel discussion among regional, national and EU-level panelists. The workshop comprising ten facilitated groups with five to six participants in each, drawing from companies, cluster organisations, higher-education and research institutions, and regional development bodies. In every group, a facilitator captured observations and helped to prioritise findings. The guide steered participants to identify current strengths, bottlenecks, missing enablers, a practical action agenda with owners and timelines, and needs for metrics and foresight. Analysis proceeded as a thematic synthesis of facilitator notes, followed by an internal member-check to validate interpretations. External transferability is analytical rather than statistical, speaking to the Finnish cluster policy debate rather than to a randomised population.

To further gain insights and encourage dialogue, a panel of individuals representing an array of stakeholder types convened with a main facilitator to guide the discussion. Two representatives from regional authorities, one representative from a university of applied sciences, one representative from the national level cluster support organization, one representative from a regional authority in Germany, one representative from a high-level national Danish cluster entity, and one representative from the European Commission. The German and Danish representatives presented the cluster policy landscape and good practices which could assist Finland in designing a suitable option. Themes and questions were designed beforehand based on the expertise of the representatives and aims of the panel discussion.

Taken together, the pre-event work and the Summit have already produced a concrete and highly usable mapping of problems to be solved, measures required, and indicative implementation responsibilities. The missing piece is not diagnosis, but a national coordination model that can use this map as a starting point for joint priorisation and follow-through.

Key Findings of Cluster Summit Finland 2025

Governance and national coordination

Impact is constrained primarily by gaps in steering and continuity. Without a national mandate, activities fragment, overlaps proliferate, and roles and decision rights remain unclear. Short funding cycles erode trust, staff continuity, and strategic follow-through. Business orientation becomes uneven when owner–operator–partner relationships are not explicit, when communication does not consistently reach key audiences, or when the service logic is unclear to SMEs. The implication is straightforward: a national mandate should clarify decision tiers, support the formation of larger thematic domains, and guarantee multi-annual orchestration capacity.

Company-driven models and private co-funding

Where clusters have matured, services are systematic, stakeholder communication is continuous, cross-sector links strengthen, and specialisation improves RDI outcomes. For companies this translates into lower risk, faster routes to projects and commercialisation, and access to networks that would be difficult to build alone. To make firm-driven logic tangible, clusters need clear value propositions and service portfolios, supported by light-touch private co-funding models that reward commitment without adding administrative drag.

Metrics, data, and foresight

Participants prioritised a shared measurement framework and a practical foresight toolkit to enable transparent, future-oriented steering. A unified KPI dictionary, clear data sources and refresh cycles, defined data ownership, and sensible openness principles are central. Foresight should be embedded in cluster and regional routines so that strategies remain aligned with market and technology shifts.

Internationalisation, S3 partnerships, and region–nation scaling

Scaling impact depends on cross-regional clustering and national S3 alignment. Actors called for platforms and working groups where funding logic rewards collaboration rather than fragmenting themes into competing micro-projects. In this way Finland can support smart specialisation, concentrate capacity, and build international value-chain positions with coherence.

Recommendations for further actions

The action line is clear. Finland should establish a national coordination mandate that sets out roles and decision rights while stabilising cluster orchestration through multi-annual core funding.

– Cluster value propositions, goals, and governance should be documented using uniform templates that put SMEs at the centre and recognise the enabling role of larger firms.

– A common KPI framework and foresight process should be agreed early so that pilot reporting can begin within the first year and national rollout can be achieved by year two. The measurement system should support both operational steering and external accountability.

– Incentives for commercialisation in higher education and research need to be strengthened such that cluster and ecosystem collaboration becomes a default pathway from research to market.

– Cross-regional thematic domains, anchored in S3, offer the backbone for pilots and scaling; they should be supported by funding that favours consortia and prevents duplicative competition within the same theme.

These recommendations follow directly from the workshop’s prioritised agenda. Finland should build this model on existing landscape of ECCP-linked regional clusters, using them as long-term structural platforms for ecosystems, partnerships and policy implementation rather than treating each funding periods a new starting point.

Conclusion

Finnish clusters and innovation ecosystems already connect, coordinate, and catalyse RDI in ways that reduce SME risk and improve the use of regional assets. Yet without a national mandate, multi-annual core funding, a shared measurement and foresight system, robust commercialisation incentives, and S3-based alignment across regions and the national level, impact remains overly sensitive to funding cycles. The actions proposed here are time-bound and measurable. Implementing them will allow impact to compound year over year and convert Finland’s knowledge capital into competitiveness, resilience, and sustainable growth.

---

Writers:

Jade Hirvonen, RDI Specialist, Food System, Savonia UAS

Bailey Lähdesmäki, RDI Specialist, Water Safety, Savonia UAS

Jarmo Jalkanen, RDI Specialist, Sustainable Society, Savonia UAS

Jarno Ruusunen, R&D Manager, Energy Technology, Savonia UAS

Heikki Sirviö, Regional Development Manager, Regional Council of North Savo