» News » Blogs

Much of the news of a practical nature to emergency management professionals emerging last week centred not on emergency management itself, but on business continuity and crisis management. These activities have traditionally been considered peripheral to the role of emergency managers, especially those managers in the public sector. In recent times, however, distinctions have been blurred and duties extended. It is becoming clear that these disciplines are increasingly connected.

Traditionally, emergency planning/management and business continuity have been two distinctly different topics, two discrete sectors, practised by different people with different skill sets. I use the word ‘traditionally’ in spite of the fact that emergency management is a relatively modern discipline which grew out of the much older civil defence, and business continuity is an even more modern concept.

It was regularly said that emergency planning and management looked outwards, to the community and its welfare after an emergency, whereas business continuity looked inwards, to the ability to continue trading and the swift recovery of the company after a disaster.

Nowadays, it is accepted that it is hard to separate the business considerations from the human ones, especially when a business has many employees and/or customers. To add to the complexity, the issues surrounding crisis management increase the responsibilities of those in charge of the emergency response and the continuity of the business.

Business can be affected in widely different ways, as can be seen from the following two scenarios.

Last week, UK law firm DWF cited the example of the outbreak of bird flu at the premises of poultry firm Bernard Matthews as highlighting the need for contingency planning. They stated that an estimated one in five employers still has no proper business continuity plan in place.

However DWF warns such businesses are not only putting their survival at stake, but could also be breaching their duty of care under health and safety rules. According to DWF, a continuity plan is not just about protecting the business but also about safeguarding employees.

Under health and safety rules, they say, companies and individuals within them can be held responsible for their inability to cope with, or recover from, a disaster. They point out that all organisations have a duty of care and not having a plan potentially violates that.

On the other side of the Atlantic, in Salt Lake City, a teenager went on a shooting spree in a shopping mall, killing five people. The response to the emergency has not been called into question, but concerns have been raised by businesses at the mall who are asking whether the reputation of the shopping centre will be so tarnished that trade will drop off, or would force businesses to close completely as has happened in other locations where such incidents have occurred. The range of stakeholders (customers, employees, business owners, the general public, investors, the media) means that it is hard to ensure that all are reassured at the right time and in the right way.

The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 placed a statutory requirement on local authorities as Category 1 Responders to do two things: firstly, to put in place Business Continuity Management arrangements in respect of the Council’s services, and, secondly, to provide advice and assistance to businesses and voluntary organisations in their area about business continuity management. It can be seen that this new legislation represents a challenge to local authorities if they are to provide the service required.