| Social continuity – consequential impacts and terrorism
How does the effect of disaster on businesses affect the continuity of our society as a whole? Are governments responsible for an overarching social continuity plan and are they doing anything about this? Does a disaster that impacts one business have a knock-on effect to other, seemingly unrelated, organisations? In treating global terrorism issues, are we creating an environment for western terrorism? Just a few questions that I’m sure we would all like to know the answers to. Unfortunately I don’t have these answers but can provide some insight and commentary on these very critical issues. I’m sure it will promote some discussion, be it positive or negative. In a capitalist, democratic, western world all business is linked through world stock markets, inter-governmental relationships and international trade. The impact of a major crisis on one organisation can have consequential effects on other businesses, government and national economies as a whole. Consequential impact can be felt even if there is no defined relationship between organisations, by virtue of the underlying link to national and global economies affected through stock markets, public perception and so on. For example, a vulnerability exploited in the banking cycle may target one bank and impact that bank’s continuity of business. However, public perception and perhaps a belief that other banks are vulnerable to the same event may impact directly on other banks operating in the same market. In this way an isolated event at one organisation can send out ripples that cause an impact on other organisations. While current business continuity efforts focus on dealing with the initial event, few organisations are prepared for scenarios such as this type of secondary impact from a non-direct event. A ‘run’ on one bank, for example, is likely to cause a consequential, though perhaps less prevalent, ‘run’ on other local banks. The impact to economies as a whole can be significant if the organisation directly impacted does not manage their crisis adequately. In this way, poor business continuity management on the part of one organisation can in fact constitute a continuity impacting event in itself, for others. This is essentially the driver behind industry based business continuity standards and regulation; prudential regulatory authorities are a good example. Civil contingencies, critical infrastructure initiatives, government terrorism reinsurance pools and so on are all examples of society in general reacting to the increased levels of threat that we all live with today. The problem of course, given that we operate in a ‘free market’, is that some things are outside of anyone’s control, particularly where impacts cross borders of sovereignty. This type of situation is often used as an argument for world government, not that I necessarily agree. The same issues are faced when dealing with international policing or taxation. The reliance is on conventions agreed between some countries. The nature of agreements will vary depending on the countries concerned and many do not subscribe to any convention, nor can they be made to. No-one could have devised an adequate strategy for dealing with the general decline of the US stock market, and other markets, when they re-opened after September 11, 2001. In this case an event that was, in a global sense, isolated, had far reaching consequential impact on a wide range of mostly unrelated businesses, markets, governments and people. While most people do not consider market movements critical to their day to day lives, market performance is of course directly related to our wealth, prosperity, and ability to service our basic human needs. If our companies are not profitable then we lose our jobs, eventually falling back on social welfare safety nets, theoretically. However, if a wide range of companies are impacted, then this impacts overall tax collections, over time, and social welfare may no longer be financially feasible. Social benefit, including health, education and so on, is generally accepted as the demarcation line between the first world and the third. In looking at the root causes of terrorism, the effects of which are driving many business continuity behaviours at this time, most experts conclude that terrorism is the result of a real or perceived state of oppression; a result of inequality between the west and a mix of third world imbalance and suffering under totalitarian regimes. These are the conditions under which terrorist groups have been borne and have flourished. No individual comes into this world and thinks, ‘when I grow up I want to be a terrorist.’ Terrorist nature is socially conditioned and can be thought of, largely, as a result of environment. Oppression, combined with disillusionment with the perceived riches of the western world, which is largely an unfounded perception, lead in some to a feeling of being second class global citizens. Add to this a spiritual belief set that contradicts this second class status before God, and you have a potential terrorist in the making. Unfortunately, the response of the west is focused on treating the effects rather than the root cause. Clearly, effects need to be addressed but it could be said that this is only a tactical solution to the problem. The strategic solution must be to treat the root cause, and it is only world governments that are able to do this. In many cases the battle against terror is leading to our own societies becoming more restrictive. To implement generalised measures, impacting civil liberties, to defend against terror means that we all are seen as potential terrorists in the eyes of authorities. This ultimately leads to a more totalitarian or draconian west, which I expect upsets most people. Add to this a degree of normalisation of western and third world order, which is slowly happening due to globalisation, immigration and so on, and we have created a potential terrorist environment in our efforts to stop terrorism. This is clearly a conundrum, but it can be prevented by focussing efforts on the root cause of the problem, in addition to the proactive and reactive capabilities currently being addressed by us all through business continuity management. In the west a different type of social conditioning is evidenced, and can be seen in patterned behaviour, which can be more or less evident depending on cultural background. I’ve witnessed people standing at pedestrian crossings in the dead of night waiting for the instruction to ‘walk’. This is an example of a patterned behaviour. Because we are all so well trained in western rules, rebellious behaviour is often limited in extent and frequency. Drivers for antisocial behaviour are more financially rather than politically motivated, but there is sometimes a link. Fraud, for example, is rapidly on the increase and may be directly attributed to increases in social systems of control. Most people think of fraud as an executive taking off with millions and heading for Barbados, but most fraud is small time credit card fraud and the like. This type of fraud is mostly undertaken by regular people with regular lives. So fraud, in a way, can perhaps be thought of as the first sign of general rebellion in the west. The tighter the system of social controls we implement the more fraud, serious crime, and eventually terrorism, will prevail upon us. Increased controls remove flexibility in social systems, leading to overly proscriptive rules and laws. Unfortunately life is not black and white and control systems cannot be designed that take into account every possible scenario. Proscriptive control can have the effect of backing otherwise reasonable people into a corner, and in this situation human nature will dictate an unmeasured response. Last month’s issue of National Geographic magazine features a report on the efforts of scientists around the globe, to discover a new Earth. This is perhaps one of the only, if not the most ambitious, internationally collaborative business continuity initiatives currently underway. While this would indeed be an interesting project, I hope that we can implement some initiatives at a slightly lower level that deliver real benefit both in the prevention of terror and other controllable events, the protection of society at large, and recovery from the unavoidable. Andrew McCrackan is the author of a Practical Guide to Business Continuity Assurance, Artech House, Boston, 2004. As in all Continuity Central articles the views of the author do not necessarily represent the views of Continuity Central.
•Date:
18th January 2005•Region: World •Type:
Article •Topic: BC
general |
