By 4 December 2026, Ukrainian entrepreneurs must prepare to comply with new operating requirements during the yellow level of air threat alerts. Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 1092 stipulates that businesses must provide adequate protection for employees and visitors. This does not necessarily mean constructing their own underground shelters: where permitted by law, businesses may establish a safe space within a building or use another suitable protective facility.
The purpose of the new requirements is clear: people must be protected during aerial threats. But how can an entrepreneur comply if they rent small premises, cannot make structural alterations, and lack the funds for expensive construction work, particularly when there are no protective facilities nearby that local authorities have built during the five years of war?
In this article, we will explore how the new rules could affect Ukrainian businesses, who should be responsible for people's safety, and how to avoid placing additional pressure on entrepreneurs.
In my opinion, the new requirements could have a particularly negative impact on small businesses: cafés, hair salons, small shops, workshops, dental practices, and other establishments operating from rented premises.
Consider a small beauty salon on the ground floor of a residential building. The entrepreneur rents 50 square metres, employs several people, and pays rent, salaries, taxes, and utility bills. The building's basement may not meet shelter requirements, while creating a safe space within the salon itself may be technically impossible. Furthermore, there are no nearby facilities that could qualify as shelters. What should the business owner do in this situation? Look for alternative premises or determine what solution would allow the business to comply with the law? Each option takes time, while relocation or renovation also involves additional expenses. For a business operating on narrow profit margins, even several tens of thousands of hryvnias could be a critical expense. Not to mention the potential loss of part of its customer base during a temporary closure or relocation.
Meanwhile, prolonged air raid alerts already deprive businesses of valuable operating hours and, consequently, revenue, even without the new requirements. Yet rent, salaries, and utility bills still have to be paid. As a result, some entrepreneurs may face a difficult choice: invest in adapting their premises, relocate, or close their businesses altogether.
Large shopping centres, on the other hand, generally have greater technical capacity to establish safe spaces. They can hire engineers, incorporate appropriate solutions into building designs, or invest in modifying their own premises. But another question arises: who will compensate them for these expenses, at least partially?
Some large businesses already have their own shelters built for employees. They allocated funds for these facilities without waiting for government requirements. But do small and medium-sized businesses have the financial resources and opportunities to build shelters?
Before imposing requirements on businesses, realistic implementation solutions must be developed that are suitable for both large and small enterprises. It is equally important to provide advisory support, clear technical guidance, and mechanisms for financial compensation or access to loan programmes for businesses that lack the resources to meet these requirements independently.
A sensible starting point would be to assess how many businesses have no access to protective facilities that qualify as shelters. It is also necessary to identify which types of premises are the most difficult to adapt and estimate the costs involved. If business premises can be adapted, entrepreneurs should receive clear recommendations on how to do so. If adaptation is technically impossible, the authorities should explain which alternatives are permitted under the law.
On the one hand, employers are indeed responsible for ensuring safe working conditions. They must assess risks, organise staff procedures during emergencies, and comply with civil protection requirements. However, responsibility for workplace safety does not mean that entrepreneurs should have to solve every civil protection problem arising from the war on their own. The primary responsibility for organising and developing a network of shelters should rest with the state and local authorities. Therefore, a shortage of accessible protective facilities is certainly not a problem that individual entrepreneurs should be expected to resolve alone.
The issue of shelter construction could be addressed through co-financing programmes, preferential financing for the necessary work, or assistance in establishing shared shelters for several small or medium-sized businesses, rather than shifting the entire responsibility for people's safety onto businesses. After all, new regulations should be assessed not only by how strict they are, but also by whether they can realistically be implemented.
In my opinion, the responsibility for protecting people, which the state is attempting to transfer to businesses, should not prevent entrepreneurs from fulfilling their primary role: continuing to support the country's economy. I hope that efforts to address shelter construction will be accompanied by financial and advisory support for businesses that are willing to contribute to public safety but lack sufficient resources to tackle challenges of this scale independently.
If an entrepreneur does not understand exactly what standards a safe space must meet or which documents need to be prepared, they become dependent on how an individual inspector interprets the requirements. If different companies assess identical premises differently, businesses are left facing uncertainty. And when the ability to continue operating is at stake, such uncertainty can, of course, create opportunities for officials to demand improper payments.
To prevent this, clear inspection criteria, written assessments, and an effective appeals procedure are essential. Entrepreneurs must understand exactly which requirements their premises fail to meet and how to remedy any violations. If premises do not comply with the established criteria, the decision must include a specific justification rather than simply being communicated as a verbal refusal.
Transparent and consistent rules for comparable facilities would reduce opportunities for abuse and help make regulatory oversight genuinely effective.
Therefore, before introducing new requirements, there must be a clear understanding of how they can be implemented: specific standards for different types of premises, clear rules for modifying or establishing such facilities, financing programmes, and expert advisory support on these matters. Only then can we expect the creation of genuinely safe spaces where people can take shelter during threats, rather than another opportunity for certain individuals to enrich themselves or for businesses to comply with regulations merely as a box-ticking exercise.
Translation into English was created with the help of artificial intelligence.
