|
By Mike Bemis
In my position as the CEO of a company that provides services to ensure continued communication during emergencies or loss of primary communications capabilities, I continually ponder the vagaries of decision making related to capital expenditure for contingency initiatives.
In a recent issue of GSN Homeland Security Insider’s weekly ‘Insider Insights’, Jacob Goodwin reflected on the concerns of Daniel Prieto with regard to national security and corporate expenditure for security initiatives.
In the article Goodwin states that: “Left to their own devices, commercial businesses in a capitalist system will not automatically choose to invest big bucks in their own security.”
I am reminded of Adam Smith’s ‘Wealth of Nations’ in which he expounded his Invisible Hand theory:
“...every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”
It is as true today as when it was written. Corporations invest their capital in ways that produce immediate short term profits which maximize executive income and enhance investor return. There is little appeal to investing large amounts of precious capital in security initiatives devoted to outcomes which may never be realized.
On the surface of it, that argument sounds pretty good. However, remove corporate investment to ensure organizational security and business continuity from the system and who’s left to do the job? Well, the government of course!
As I remember, and it’s a long time ago that I went to school, federal governments were initially created to deal with the larger issues; diplomatic endeavors, promotion of international trade, economic stability and to raise a military to ensure our common security; in short, to do those things which we are individually unable to do for ourselves.
Is our own security and that of our corporations something that we are individually unable to accomplish on a reasonably broad scale? Is it really something that each of us should call upon our governments to address?
Let’s think about that for a moment. Take pandemic planning as an example; the Federal Government knows with great certainty that it cannot, and will not, be able to provide for the security and well being of every individual and organization in the US. The task is simply too great. It knows that it can only slow the spread of the virus through persistent monitoring and containment and it knows that each community must ‘experience the pandemic as a local event.’ [NSPI, Homeland Security Council, May 2006.]
These same considerations exist for the whole host of distressing situations which occur annually around the globe. Our societies have become so far flung and interrelations so complex that we are asking the government to perform an impossible task when we ask it to provide for safety and security on an individual and organizational basis.
Surely, then, revisiting the words of Adam Smith may provide some key insights for corporations regarding decisions to invest their precious time and capital in their own safety and security; in business continuity; in their own survival.
It’s called, enlightened self interest.
Mike Bemis, CBRM, CEO, Voice Continuity Services, Inc.
http://www.voiceserv.net
mike.bemis@voiceserv.net
I have to agree with both the premise and the conclusion. Mr Bemis said just about everything which needed to be said. We cannot abdicate our responsibilities and at some point we must take a position to defend and protect that which is important to our personal and commercial well-being.
John Greene
I agree with Mr. Bemis that the government cannot be expected to ‘provide for the security and well being of every individual and organization in the US.’ However, what the government could do, should do, and has only poorly done, is provide leadership and a rational national strategy. In the present case, we have Homeland Security policy that makes the country no safer, and a pandemic policy that suggests basic workplace preparedness but ignores (or keeps to itself) strategic pandemic planning aimed at reinforcing national infrastructure. The point of leadership is to provide attention by example to what is most important and what is most needed; not to manipulate the public for its own purposes.
Dan Dorman
MAKE A COMMENT
•Date: 18th August 2006 • Region: US • Type: Article •Topic: BC general
Rate this article or make a comment - click here
UPDATED 22ND AUGUST
|
