Pwc unisdr-report

Working together to
reduce disaster risk
“The more governments,
UN agencies,
organizations,
businesses and civil
society understand risk
and vulnerability, the
better equipped they will
be to mitigate disasters
when they strike and
save more lives”
Ban Ki-moon, United
Nations Secretary-
General
UNISDR and PwC
www.pwc.com
Working together to
UNISDR and PwC
www.pwc.com/resilience
Working together to
UNISDR and PwC

PwC and UNISDR wish to thank the companies that agreed to participate in our workshops
and for their contribution to this initiative.
UNISDR is the focal point within the
UN system for coordinating disaster
risk reduction, and is responsible for
implementing the international
blueprint for disaster risk reduction –
the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005
– 2015: Building the Resilience of
Nations and Communities to Disasters.
UNISDR has extensive experience in
liaising with public institutions and
governments, and in providing support
to countries establishing and
developing national platforms for
disaster risk reduction. UNISDR also
develops improved methods for
predictive multi-risk assessments.
PwC has extensive experience working
with the private sector, investors and
government policymakers. Our global
network of firms draws on expertise in
enterprise risk management, actuarial
modelling, climate risk, business
operations improvement and supply
chain optimisation.
PwC helps organisations develop and
implement tools and methods to
mitigate disaster risk. This includes
helping companies map and quantify
global asset and supply-chain risks,
develop continuity plans and improve
resilience strategies associated with
virtualisation and globalisation.
Cover page image: Copyright ©2013 iStockphoto LP. iStockphoto®, iStock®, iStockaudio®, iStockvideo®,
iStockalypse™, Vetta® and CopySpace® are trademarks of iStockphoto LP. All other marks are the property
of their respective owners.
"PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) is the author of this publication. The studies and conclusions reported in
this publication were supported by the United Nations. UNISDR has reviewed and approved this
publication, its content and its release in this form and appearance. The private companies who participated
in this initiative have granted their explicit consent to this publication and its release.
This publication does not contain any binding advice or independent verification of facts and conclusions.
Any intellectual property rights remain with their owners and are not transferred by the release of this
publication."

UNISDR and PwC – Working together to reduce disaster risk 3
Executive summary
The economic value at risk from natural hazards
continues to rise. Examples of major disasters over
the past decade have been distressing, yet important
reminders of the direct connections between natural
and human systems that underpin our economic and
societal welfare. As global interdependencies
continue to grow, these warnings prompt us to
consider the need for radical change in the
preparation and response of both the public and
private sectors to disaster risk.
The private sector has been witness to an alarming
number of occasions where a disaster that takes place
in a region has resulted in considerable impacts in
another. The dramatic consequences are clear for all
to see: business and network interruptions, supply
chains coming to a grinding halt, commodity price
fluctuations, asset damages, profit warnings, impacts
on economic output and constrained GDP growth. In
the case of super disasters, disruption and damage
have even led to relocation and cascading
unemployment, post-disaster. Our modern and
interdependent economy might be more productive,
but growing exposures, wealth and interconnectivity
also make it much more vulnerable to natural
hazards. Our ability to build resilience has not kept
pace with our ability to grow.
The silver lining of the tragic events experienced
during the past decade is that global multinationals
and their value-chain partners now have much
greater awareness of how their operations could be
affected by natural hazards. Our research shows that
many private sector players have been able to draw
on this experience to incorporate improved business
practices across their global footprint, and take a
holistic approach towards managing risks.
Each organisation has a unique capability and
approach when it comes to managing disaster risk.
The challenge now is to share and coordinate these
capabilities at scale, within sectors, through supply
chains, to smaller and more local organisations, and
to work with public and government bodies to build
more comprehensive risk resilience across economies
and societies.
The public sector generally views the private sector as
an innovation leader on disaster risk management.
Governments and public institutions often ask how
they can work together more effectively with the
private sector to transition from improved business
resilience to systemic resilience. The private sector
asks how it can better engage with governments, what
the future holds in terms of regulatory reform, how
investment planning might impact its risk horizon,
and where it can get better risk information.
There needs to be a clearly identified and commonly
understood enabling environment for the private
sector to do more than ‘business as usual’. Any
initiatives taken in this context need to be broken
down into real deliverables. They have to be
operationalised across industry sectors, national and
local governments, large and small enterprises, and in
the developing and developed world.
This raises some fundamental questions. What
legislation and policies does the public sector have to
come up with to create the right incentives for the
private sector to share and implement its disaster risk
management know-how? What is the best approach
to creating such large-scale transformation
initiatives? How can these efforts be sustained over a
long period of time across the many different
stakeholders within the private and public sectors
that are involved? This report sets out to answer these
questions and more.
The UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR)
has spent the last ten years raising awareness around
the issue of natural hazards and risk resilience. Part
of its focus of the next ten years will be on creating
and leveraging private sector disaster management
solutions on a global scale. This will be done in
collaboration with PwC and other participating
organisations.
PwC and UNISDR are working together to develop a
collaborative framework and methodology for private
sector action on building resilience. The goal is to
create the foundation from which to build a global
private – public collaborative platform for disaster
resilience.

Contents
Executive summary 3
Introduction 5
Summary of findings 10
The Disaster Risk Management Framework 12
Detailed findings 16
Conclusion 28
Glossary 29
Acknowledgements 30
Further reading 31
Increased severity, growing
frequency. Photo by Martin Howard,
UNISDR

Introduction
CONTEXT
Natural hazards: a
growing concern for
the private sector
Natural hazards pose a growing
risk – not just physical, but
economic and social as well.
Because of the way corporate
strategies and structures have
evolved, organisations are far
more exposed to external risks
than they ever used to be.
Mounting losses from
catastrophic events are an
increasing burden for large
multinationals, and the
international dependencies
inherent in global markets and
supply chains mean that
businesses of all sizes, from local
to global, are having to deal with
systemic and correlated risks
more frequently.
It is also widely expected that
climate change will lead to
significant shifts in the
frequency, intensity and
geographical distribution of
extreme weather events. Not only
will businesses become
increasingly more exposed to
weather-related hazards, but if
their risk assessment tools and
strategies are based on historical
experience only, they will become
increasingly more unprepared
and unresilient.
Despite this, opportunities for the
private and public sectors to
collaborate on risk reduction and
building systemic resilience are
still largely untapped. Over the
past 10 – 15 years many large
corporations have launched risk
management initiatives. But most
of these have been introspective
and many not joined up across
their enterprise. Equally, the
lessons learned from positive
initiatives and experiences
remain largely unshared and
undervalued.
By the same token, governments
and, international and non-
governmental organisations have
promoted plenty of disaster risk
reduction initiatives at country
and local level, but this has often
been done without meaningful
private sector involvement.
Working in isolation does not
represent an effective approach
to meet the challenge of building
systemic resilience. A better way
forward could seek to maximise
the benefits of private – public
collaboration.
The economic cost of
disasters is steadily
increasing
Natural hazards have a greater
impact on economic sectors that
depend directly on fixed assets
and the climate. Physical risks
from geological hazards, such as
earthquakes, materialise largely
in the form of asset and
infrastructure losses and their
consequent impact on human life
(See Figure 1). Weather-related
hazards primarily affect sectors
such as water, agriculture, food
and retail, forestry, energy,
health and tourism.
The cost of damage is increasing
by the decade. The total year-by-
year damage estimated to result
from reported natural hazards
(see Figure 2, next page) shows a
dramatic increase from below
USD10 billion in 1975 to an all-
time peak of close to USD400
billion in 2011.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 201 0 201 1
22,424
16,666
39,496
21,342
93,076
29,893
242,191244,880
113,513
32,816
308,152
15,957
Source: UNISDR
1.1
million
killed
Key
disaster
events
2.7
billion
affected
199 million
162 million
261 million
221 million211 million
126 million
160 million161 million
255 million
659 million
108 million
174 million
363billion
190billion
74 billion
214 billion
136 billion
69 billion
52 billion
27 billion
46 billion 131billion
46 billion34 billion
South Asia
July 2002
Europe
Aug 2002
China
Aug 2002
Bam (Iran)
Dec 2003
Indian Ocean
Dec 2004
Kashmir
Oct 2005
Katrina
Aug 2005
Sidr
Nov 2007
Sichuan
May 2008
Nargis
May 2008
Haiti
Dec 2010
Japan
March 2011
1.3
trillion
damage
$
Pakistan
July 2010
Figure 1: The Economic and Human Impact of Disasters* (see glossary) in the
last 12 years

The European heatwave of 2003, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the Wenchuan earthquake
in 2008, the eruption of Iceland’s Eyjafjallajökull volcano in April 2010, the Great East
Japan earthquake and Thai floods of 2011, and the US drought and Hurricane Sandy in
2012, are notable recent examples of super disasters.
The flurry of profit warnings
following the tragic and
disruptive events in Japan and
then Thailand in 2011 show that
although natural hazards have a
clear impact on sectors directly
dependent on fixed assets (for
example infrastructure and
property) and the climate
(agriculture and water), sectors
with supply chain exposures can
also suffer through loss of
revenue, materials or markets.
The toll from ‘super
disasters’ can be
astronomical, and
the frequency of
these events is
increasing
Combine the increase in the
overall number of natural
disasters with the larger footprint
of human population and their
infrastructure, and what were
once rare, isolated ‘super
disasters’ become commonplace.
More than 50% (USD220 billion)
of the total estimated financial
damage for 2011 originated from
a single super disaster: the Great
East Japan earthquake. The
implications are clear: with
increasingly interdependent
systems, systemic shocks pose a
fundamental risk to ‘business as
usual’.
Risk exposure
beyond the business
External factors can present as
much or even greater risk than
direct or ‘owned’ impacts. The
risks posed by natural disasters
(and ‘super disasters’ in
particular) go well beyond the
boundaries of a company’s
operations, and can extend along
the entire value chain –
potentially resulting in supply
disruption, network failure,
workforce dislocation, or the
interruption or collapse of
distribution systems. These
indirect impacts amplify losses.
Companies can lose oversight
and control over the risks they
are exposed to, how they
manifest and how to manage
them.
Subsequent damage from
disasters can be devastating for
whole industries, especially
where manufacturers and
suppliers in one sector are highly
concentrated in a single
geographic location. This was
demonstrated during the 2011
Thai floods, where several global
electronics’ companies found the
supply of hard-disk drives and
components disrupted.
Worldwide disruptions of this
type highlight the extent to which
globalised companies are
potentially exposed. They are a
reminder of the necessity to
collaborate broadly, for example
with supply-chain partners, local
governments and disaster
response agencies, to minimise
impacts.
Countless large businesses have
launched and matured enterprise
risk management (ERM)
initiatives, and some have
amassed extensive know-how in
dealing with recognised risks.
However, large businesses now
have such a huge footprint that
their value chain is increasingly
exposed to natural hazards that
go beyond the internal and
external boundaries of their ERM
sphere.
0
0
5 0
1 00
1 5 0
2 00
2 5 0
3 00
3 5 0
4 00
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
1975
2011
2010
2009
Estimateddamage(USDbillion)
Source: EM-DAT, OFDA/CRED International DisasterDatabase
Year
Kobe earthquake
Honshu tsunami
Wenchuan earthquake
Hurricane Katrina
Figure 2: Estimated damage (USDbn) caused by reported natural disasters,
1975 – 2011

Company Country Industry
ABB Switzerland Automation and powertechnologies
ARUP UK Design and consultant engineers
BG Group UK Energy resources
Citigroup USA Financial products and services
General Electric USA Energy, health and home, transportation and finance
HCC Group India Engineering and construction
HIRCO Group India Real estate
Hitachi Group Japan Social infrastructure and systems
InterContinental Hotels Group UK Hotelier
Nestlé Switzerland Nutrition, health and wellness
NTT East Corporation Japan Telecommunications
Roche Switzerland Healthcare
Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd (SPCL) India Construction
Walmart USA Retail
THE UNISDR –
PwC INITIATIVE
Against this backdrop, UNISDR
and PwC have jointly recognised
the need to create a private –
public disaster risk management
(DRM) platform. The aim of the
UNISDR-PwC initiative is to foster
a sustainable collaborative
platform both within and beyond
the private sector. The ultimate
goal is to create risk-resilient
societies.
By establishing a platform for the
private and public sectors to
collaborate on DRM, the initiative
sets out to create active societies
that work on disaster resilience
issues relevant to their industry
sector and locality. The private
sector will play a critical role in
driving innovative thinking and
defining how risk exposure can be
managed collaboratively and
communicated to public sector
bodies. The platform will be
tailored to the needs of companies
facing disaster risks. The focus will
be on actionable tools, practical
insights and links to competent
partners in the public sector.
This report provides insights on
DRM approaches and experiences
gathered from leading global
businesses. It identifies challenges
that are constraining efforts to
build collaborative resilience, and
proven practices that have been
used to tackle these challenges.
APPROACH
Our report synthesizes the results
of the initial phase of the UNISDR-
PwC joint initiative (figure 3),
which was structured in three
steps.
Phase I
First step
In the first step, PwC worked with
UNISDR to create a DRM
Framework (DRM-F) to serve as
the basis for the initiative. The
DRM-F was developed with the
aim of testing it with large
multinationals to find out whether
such a framework could help
create a common understanding of
DRM across industries and
sectors, and formalise the way
knowledge is captured and
structured.
The DRM-F, which is covered in
detail in this report, was matured
and amended through comments
and insights given by leading
companies on how they prepare
for, and respond to, disaster risks
on an ongoing basis.
In addition to the DRM-F, we have
developed a DRM maturity
assessment tool to help companies
evaluate their level of
preparedness in five key areas:
strategy, structure, process, people
and technology.
PwC developed a questionnaire
that follows the structure of the
DRM-F to guide discussions
during the workshops.
Second step
Together with UNISDR, PwC
selected 14 global companies (table
below). These companies, which
were chosen for a range of reasons,
together form a disaster risk
‘community’ representing a
diversity of industries (e.g. retail
and consumer goods, energy, and
industrial products). The majority
of companies selected are leaders
in their industry. They have a
global footprint, are widely
Phase I
Create the DRM –
framework and a
questionnaire to
reach out to the
private sector
1
Conduct
workshops with
selected companies
to gather insights
on DRM practice
3
Select leading
companies
spanning different
industries and with
a global footprint
2
Phase II
Create a long-term platform to initiate and sustain private – public
collaboration on DRM4
Source: PwC
Figure 3: Approach

exposed to natural hazards, and
have developed leading
approaches to planning for, and
responding to, disaster risks.
Third step
PwC worked with UNISDR to
conduct workshops with the
selected companies. Participation
was limited to senior executives
such as chief risk officers, chief
supply chain officers and business
continuity planning leaders with
access to their company’s board.
We focused on the companies’
experience and knowledge of
disaster risks, paying close
attention to investigating tangible
actions that had been planned and
actually implemented. To further
develop the foundation for a
comprehensive disaster risk
management framework (DRM-F),
we explored the gaps identified by
the companies as well as the
broader trends.
Phase II
During Phase II of this initiative,
currently under way, our common
objective is to consolidate our
findings and propose a structure to
foster future collaboration and
joint actions, as well as to share
good practice and insights. Disaster risk is increasing globally.
Photo by Toshiharu Kato / Japanese
Red Cross Society,
UNISDR

What makes this
approach unique?
The joint initiative between UNISDR and
PwC is an essential step for private – public
collaboration.
This initiative harnesses expertise from both
the private and public sectors, and creates a
tangible link between the sectors. It also
provides concrete actions and practical
guidelines driven by the private sector.

Summary of findings
Finding 1: ‘The private sector’s
unique disaster risk reduction
capabilities’ – Industry-leading
companies have made disaster
risk reduction one of their core
focus and each of them has
developed a unique capability
During the last 10 – 15 years
private sector players have focused
their efforts to manage disaster
risks within the boundaries of
their assets and supply chain. The
majority of companies in our
sample share a common objective:
to further reduce disaster risks in
the future.
Triggers such as the 9/11 terrorist
attacks in 2001, the Indian Ocean
earthquake and tsunami in 2004,
and Hurricane Katrina in 2005
have created awareness by
elevating the issue of DRM to the
board agenda. Several companies
in our sample have developed and
matured a unique DRM capability
which is leveraged to deal with
natural hazards and any other
potential threats.
Unfortunately, as good as these
capabilities are, we observed in
our discussions that they are still
not shared sufficiently, either
internally or externally.
Finding 2: ‘A largely untapped
opportunity’ – Companies
recognise the value of
collaboration, display a desire to
share know-how, and have the
chance to collaborate with peers
and the public sector to increase
risk resilience rather than acting
alone
Companies recognise that if
combined and shared, these
unique capabilities could help
strengthen the private and public
sector’s preparedness in an
environment of mounting risks.
They declare their willingness to
share the knowledge and expertise
they have acquired. UNISDR fully
recognises that the private sector
has a critical role to play in driving
thinking and defining how risk
exposure can be managed
collaboratively.
“The realisation of this outcome
will require the full commitment
and involvement of all actors
concerned, including
governments, regional and
international organisations,
civil society including
volunteers, the private sector
and the scientific community.”
(UNISDR – Hyogo Framework
for Action1, January 2005)
While we observed several
examples of collaborative
approaches to addressing disaster
risks, we also saw that existing
mid- and long-term collaboration
initiatives, both within the private
sector and the public sector, are
isolated, insufficient and only at
early stages of development.
The private sector’s skills and
know-how are not sufficiently
familiar to, or harnessed by, the
public sector, and initiatives from
both sectors are not well-aligned.
Collaboration between the private
and public sectors on DRM is still
a largely untapped opportunity.
This initiative gives the private
sector a direct voice in how DRM
should be approached jointly with
the public sector.
1 Hyogo Framework for action 2005-2015
(HFA): the HFA is a ten-year plan to make
the world safer from natural hazards, and
was endorsed by the UN General Assembly
following the 2005 World Disaster
Reduction Conference.
1 2 3 4
Finding 4:
‘A common
vision’
Collaborative
DRM requires a
common vision
and the long-
term cultivation
of broad-based
relationships
Finding 3:
‘Addressing the
challenges’
Public and
private sectors
must play an
active role in
addressing the
challenges
hindering
collaboration,
and jointly
manage the
enabling
environment
Finding 2:
‘A largely
untapped
opportunity’
Companies
recognise the
value of
collaboration,
display a desire
to share know-
how, and have
the chance to
collaborate with
peers and the
public sector to
increase risk
resilience rather
than acting
alone
Finding 1:
‘The private
sector’s unique
disaster risk
reduction
capabilities’
Industry-leading
companies have
made disaster
risk reduction
one of their core
focus and each of
them has
developed a
unique
capability
Source: PwC

Finding 3: ‘Addressing the
challenges’ – Public and private
sectors must play an active role in
addressing the challenges
hindering collaboration, and
jointly manage the enabling
environment
Large businesses rely on public
sector leadership and
coordination. Managing a long-
term collaborative disaster risk
resilience initiative is a challenging
task. Our sample companies
indicated a need for a mediator to
address challenges and potential
conflicts of interest both pre- and
post-disaster.
Our research reveals a number of
major challenges hindering private
– public collaboration. These
include the absence of a formal
structure to tap into the DRM
know-how embedded in private
sector firms. Our sample
companies also point out that
while existing platforms are a good
way to network, they lack a clear
focus on concrete action and
practical guidelines. They also
agreed that there is no common
understanding of DRM, and no
formal standards. These issues,
and many others besides, will have
to be actively addressed by both
sectors if we are to move forward
in terms of DRM.
Finding 4: ‘A common vision’ –
Collaborative DRM requires a
common vision and the long-term
cultivation of broad-based
relationships
The groundwork for developing an
effective collaborative platform
has to be laid along two axes: a
clear value proposition and a focus
on tangible actions. PwC has
observed that for a private – public
collaborative platform to work, the
return on investment for both
parties has to be emphasised.
A clear value proposition will help
establish a common
understanding of the issues at
hand and define disaster risk
standards to ensure consistency in
the way relevant issues are treated.
The potential benefits of
collaboration include access to
good practice and access to public
sector bodies.
Defining and agreeing on a core
set of tangible actions will help
demonstrate the positive effects of
a collaborative approach; and
developing clear processes will
facilitate the sharing of knowledge
and insights.
Several companies mentioned the
crucial importance of knowing, in
advance, individuals within the
public organisations they will be
collaborating with in the event of a
natural hazard or other threat.
The PwC – UNISDR initiative will
place emphasis on the long-term
cultivation of broad-based
relationships, rather than point-to-
point relationships.
“The last thing you want to do is
to call somebody you don’t know
when a disaster occurs.”

The Disaster Risk Management
Framework
The Disaster Risk Management
Framework (DRM-F, see Figure
4), which constitutes the basis of
this initiative and future
collaborative activities, was
initially created to guide our
discussions during the workshops
and test validity across industries.
It has subsequently been refined
with input from our sample of
companies.
The DRM-F is driven by the
standard risk management process
(identification, assessment,
response and mitigation,
monitoring and reporting) and is
structured in three sections:
1. Understand
2. Respond
3. Enabling environment
Understand
The purpose of the ‘understand’
section is to define a company’s
exposure by identifying potential
threats and assessing their
potential impact.
Exposure can be defined as the
degree to which the company’s
assets and operations are present
in hazard zones that thereby are
subject to potential losses (human,
environmental, financial and
operational or reputational). A
company can be directly exposed
(e.g. one of its production facilities
is exposed to the risk of being
damaged by a flood) or indirectly
exposed (e.g. one of its key
suppliers would be unable to
provide it with critical components
if affected by a natural hazard).
Exposure is a function of location
(i.e. the location of the asset and
the natural hazards at that
location) and vulnerability (i.e. the
construction and occupancy of the
asset and local surroundings).
Potential threats include natural
hazards. We have observed that
although natural hazards are
considered as a risk, they are
viewed as only one of the many
potential threats that are likely to
impact a global business. The
majority of our respondents
address risks holistically. Natural
hazards may slip down the risk
register because the probability
they will occur may be perceived
as lower than for other risks, even
though the magnitude can be
much greater.
There are two main types of
natural hazards: geological and
hydro-meteorological.
 Geological hazards include
internal earth processes such as
earthquakes, volcanic activity
and emissions, and related
geophysical processes such as
mass movements, landslides,
rockslides, surface collapses,
and debris or mud flows.
 Hydrometeorological hazards
are a process or phenomenon
of atmospheric, hydrological or
oceanographic systems such as
tropical cyclones (also known
as typhoons and hurricanes),
thunderstorms, hailstorms,
tornados, blizzards, heavy
snowfall, avalanches, storm
surges, inland flooding
including flash floods, drought,
heatwaves and cold spells (see
Figure 5, next page).
Technology
People
Process
Structure
Strategy
Reputational
Financial
Human
Environmental
Operational
Asset
damage
Activity
disruption
Collateral
damage
Corporate
Supply
chain Public
Hazard type
Impact
dimensions
DRM
strategies
DRM drivers
UnderstandRespond
Geological Hydrometeorological
Avoidance Reduction Sharing Acceptance
Short-term or long-term responseResponse type
• Good practice
• Maturity assess-
ment
• Methods and tech-
niques
• DRM commu-
nity
Source: PwC
Figure 4: DRM-F

Avoiding
Companies avoid disaster
risks:
 Systematically steering
clear of regions that are
known to be exposed to
natural hazards
 Pulling operations out
of exposed regions
 Refusing to work with
suppliers that are not
considered to be risk
resilient
Reducing
Companies attempt to
reduce the likelihood or
impacts of disaster risks:
 Cautious expansion
 Selecting suppliers
carefully
 Upgrading existing
sites’ safety
infrastructure
 Increasing supply
chain flexibility
 Developing emergency
planning actions
Sharing
Companies try to reduce
disaster risk by
transferring it to third
parties:
 Insuring assets
 Hedging risks
 Sharing risks through
contractual agreements
with suppliers, buyers,
peers and public
institutions
Accepting
Companies accept residual
disaster risks.
Once other strategies have
been leveraged and
implemented, there is a
common agreement that
‘zero risk’ can never be
achieved. Companies must
determine an acceptable
level of residual risk based
on their risk appetite.
While potential threats vary, the
impact dimensions – human,
operational, and reputational –
remain the same for all companies.
Furthermore, disaster risks can be
divided into three categories:
corporate asset damage (e.g.
facility deterioration or damage to
corporate transport vehicles);
activity disruption (e.g. supply
disruption, production bottlenecks
or distribution failure); and
collateral damage (e.g. oil spills or
the destruction of a bridge).
This is why companies tend to
approach DRM from an impact
rather than a threat perspective.
Respond
Participants in our discussions
agreed that once companies
understand their risk exposure,
they can choose between four
distinct strategies to manage this
exposure. Companies define their
response on the basis of their risk
appetite. The focus of this
response can be short-term or
long-term.
These four strategies are not
mutually exclusive. For example,
the three categories specified as
disaster risk categories in the
‘understand’ section also appear as
DRM options in the ‘respond’
section: corporate, supply-chain
and public. For each option chosen
by a company to respond to
disaster risks, there are five DRM
drivers that can be leveraged:
strategy, structure, process, people
and technology.
470
Droughts
2689
Storms
3455
Floods
Source: UNISDR
395
Extreme
Temps
200
150
100
50
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Figure 5: Number of Climate-related Disaster Around the World (1980-2011)
Strategy A strategy that considers risk management as an integral
part of business
Structure A clear structure that supports the overall strategy and the
implementation of DRM
Process The consistency and adequacy of processes to effectively
manage DRM
People The skill set and competencies of people in terms of applying
the processes involved in DRM
Technology The right tools and technology to enable implementation of
the other four drivers

Enabling environment
The enabling environment
constitutes the third element of the
DRM-F.
The external (to the business)
enabling environment represents
the regulatory, policy and
investment environment context
as it relates to the management of
the required DRM change. This
element, in particular, is one
where private – public
engagement and collaboration is
vital.
The internal (to the business)
enabling environment concerns
elements such as workforce
capacity and skills, risk
governance, risk processes and
risk information.
Later in this report we describe a
DRM maturity assessment tool
that provides a measure of their
internal enabling environment.
This tool provides companies with
a practical example of how to
evaluate their maturity, identify
gaps in their current organisation
and define a roadmap to improve
their DRM and reduce disaster
risks.

Super disasters do not
discriminate by location,
UNISDR

Based on the DRM-F we have observed (see Figure 6) a number of good practices that
private sector entities have used to understand their asset exposure and prepare a short-
term response. This is an area where the public sector and peers can benefit greatly.
Given the complexity and massive scale of the supply chains of some of these companies,
understanding exposure and defining consistent short-term responses are areas where
there are significant opportunities to improve for the private sector.
Building a long-term response to disaster risk is an area where companies have been
performing well over the past decades. Even so, collaboration with the public sector and
among peers in the same industry or region could substantially enhance the overall
outcome.
Detailed findings
Finding 1: ‘The private sector’s
unique disaster risk reduction
capabilities’ – Industry-leading
companies have made disaster risk
reduction one of their core focus
and each of them has developed a
unique capability
The majority of industry-leading
companies in our sample view
reducing risks to their assets and
supply chain as a key priority. We
note that for all companies the
impact dimensions – human,
operational, and reputational – are
a priority when developing their
DRM unique capabilities.
Understanding corporate
asset exposure
We observed several examples of
activity that illustrate our sample
companies’ efforts to understand
asset exposure. Some of these are
consistently implemented across
industries.
What these initiatives and tools
have in common is that they
enable companies to see more
clearly the risks their assets are
currently exposed to, and provide
a basis for them to identify gaps in
their infrastructure and systems,
and prioritise actions and
resources to tackle the problem.
Seeking professional advice: The majority of companies in our sample seek
external professional advice (e.g. from insurance companies and risk advisory firms) to
understand their exposures and identify the risks present in a region or country (e.g.
hazard maps and risk models) and the potential impact on their assets.
Working with internal local operations: Many companies in our sample rely on
people in their local operations to identify potential risks and threats to their assets.
This information is then relayed to headquarters, who subsequently decide how to
prioritise actions to cope with the top risks identified across the business. Real-time
information systems and traceability tools to track and monitor risks down to the
remotest part of the supply chain are seen as both innovative and necessary.
Country risk ‘one-pagers’: One company in our sample draws up ‘one-pagers’ on
potential risks and threats that could arise in countries where it operates. Each local site
is accountable for identifying potential risk exposures and determining their impact to
update the one-pager. Headquarters are regularly updated on potential threats they face
and their degree of preparedness.
Global ‘heat map’ of sites: One of the companies interviewed has created an
application, accessible via iPad, which displays a heat map of each of its several
hundred sites across the globe with the aim of charting their compliance status in
relation to the company’s own internal risk standards.
A rigorous process makes this powerful tool a success:
 Company data on sites is overlaid on hazard and risk maps provided by an insurance
company.
 Global risk standards have been formulated together with the insurance company.
 A positive and negative incentive process has been created to make sure that local
departments put in the required level of effort to comply.
 Independent audits are conducted on a yearly basis to determine each site’s level of
compliance.
This tool gives unique visual support enabling headquarters to quickly understand the
top 20 threats they are currently running and identify the most exposed assets globally.
Respond long term
Respond short term
Understand
Supply
Chain
Corporate
asset
Source: PwC
High # of practice observed Medium # of practice observed Low # of practice observed
Figure 6

Responding in the short-
term to corporate asset
exposure
Several examples of good practice
illustrate how our sample
companies cope with the
immediate impacts of a disaster on
their assets. In addition, three
success factors were consistently
mentioned when it comes to
ensuring efficient crisis
management:
 Quick decision-making
 Reassessing priorities regularly
 Managing information
efficiently
Responding in the long-
term to corporate asset
exposure
We have observed two examples
that illustrate long-term response
to corporate asset exposure.
Understanding supply-
chain exposure
In addition to understanding risks
to corporate assets, the majority of
companies in our sample are also
striving to increase their visibility
of the extent to which their supply
chains are exposed to disaster
risks. This is proving to be a
difficult exercise for companies
with a global footprint, as this
sometimes means understanding
the exposure of first-tier, second-
tier and more removed suppliers
(up to several thousands in some
industries).
Remote access to work: Some companies in our sample have invested resources to
develop processes and implement technology to enable remote access to work. This
proved to be extremely useful for one company that booked hotel rooms for its staff
outside the potential strike zone of Hurricane Sandy (November 2012), as parts of cities
such as New York were inaccessible. Several companies have also activated a home
office policy.
Transferring work to other sites: Given the nature of their industry, a few
companies in our sample have the option of transferring work. They have developed
processes that allow the efficient and effective transfer of work to other sites, in addition
to remote access to work, depending on the severity of the disaster. One of the
companies on the panel impacted by Hurricane Sandy also put other sites on alert, and
transferred part of the critical work so that business could continue as normal.
Setting up a 24/7 ‘control tower’: One company set up a ‘control tower’ that
operates 24/7 to serve as a central relay of information between all company assets and
headquarters. The control tower has direct access to various sources of live information.
It has already proven useful in the case of the plane crash in the Hudson River in New
York (2009). Within minutes of the crash, the company’s headquarters were aware that
none of their employees was present on the flight.
Leveraging staff with public sector experience: Several companies in our
sample – particularly in the US – have started hiring staff with a public sector crisis
management background (e.g. a former member of a crisis management institution or
an ex-military crisis expert) to fill key positions in their crisis management or
emergency response teams. According to these companies, this initiative has great
potential, with many positive effects in terms of the way a crisis can be managed
collaboratively with the public sector.
Scenario planning in exposed zones: One of the companies in our sample was
recently impacted by a super disaster and has since started to use scenario planning
analyses to adapt its short- and long-term responses. These scenarios allow the
company to simulate the impacts of potential threats on its corporate assets.
Creating own asset risk standards: Most companies have developed and apply
their own safety standards and guidelines on top of country-specific standards, which
are often considered to be too lax.
Supplier risk management strategy: The majority of companies adopt a
formalised approach consisting of covering financial and risk aspects when developing
their supply-chain design. Each organisation has a different level of maturity but a
consistent and formalised methodology. With respect to analysing supply-chain risks,
this is a great enabler to define a mitigation strategy.
Leveraging technology and analytics to understand risks: Leading
organisations use many different data sets (e.g. risk models, population density reports)
in an effort to have increased visibility and corresponding robustness within supply-
chain systems. This is then typically updated periodically.

Responding in the short-
term to supply chain
exposure
A number of companies in our
sample have undertaken actions in
collaboration with third parties
(e.g. peers in the same industry or
region, or suppliers).
Responding in the long-
term to supply chain
exposure
Companies in our sample
consistently choose from among
three options when it comes to
creating a long-term response to
supply-chain exposure. The choice
depends on the resources
available, how critical the supplier
is, and the level of dependency and
visibility the company is willing to
accept.
Mutual agreement with peers: One company in our sample has reached a mutual
agreement with a direct competitor, which has a critical site just next to the company’s
own facility. The impact of a fire is considered to be a major threat to both sites. Both
companies have their own fire brigades, which under the mutual agreement will
collaborate to respond as quickly and efficiently as possible in the event of a fire.
Using the same fleet to transport relief supplies: One company in our sample
collaborated directly with competitors to use the same trucks to transport relief supplies in
a region in the Middle East, hit by a crisis. The company said that this practice was not
uncommon, but usually happened on an ad hoc basis with no standards or predefined
agreements.
Supplier security assessment: Some companies request information on their
suppliers’ business continuity plans and reach agreements with suppliers to ensure a
minimum level of supply in the event of disaster. A few companies in our sample go
beyond merely requesting information and actually perform regular audits on critical
suppliers’ operations. This directly increases the visibility of the supplier’s operations and
puts additional pressure on them to ensure a minimum level of compliance.
Collaboration with suppliers: Some sample companies mentioned collaboration with
suppliers, but we did not hear of any practical examples of such a practice. This is an area
where we think there could be opportunities that would benefit both parties.
Integration of critical suppliers: Some of the companies in our sample which have
substantial resources are in the process of integrating critical suppliers for highly exposed
activities. This is one of the most efficient ways for companies to increase their visibility on
operations, identify and address the gaps in their supply chain, and increase the level of
risk management maturity of their acquisitions when necessary. It also allows companies
to decrease their dependence on third parties.
Early warning saves lives,
Photo by Amir Jina,
UNISDR

Finding 2: ‘A largely untapped
opportunity’ – Companies
recognise the value of
collaboration, display a desire to
share know-how, and have the
chance to collaborate with peers
and the public sector to increase
risk resilience rather than acting
alone
Even though industry-leading
companies are willing to address
disaster risk reduction
collaboratively, and some have
already started collaboration
initiatives, efforts remain isolated
and limited in scope. We have
observed that private – public
collaboration is often initiated
during a catastrophe, whether this
is triggered by a natural hazard or
another potential threat, and
generally lasts for the duration of
the crisis or until business as usual
is back on track − but rarely
beyond.
A direct result of this is that when
collaboration efforts are initiated,
it is often already too late because
of slow response times,
coordination challenges, the
absence of an agreed coordinator
or mediator, and no clear
standards or guidelines. This has a
negative impact on the efficacy
and efficiency of relief efforts.
Inefficient relief efforts are
particularly common in developing
countries, but can also be observed
in countries with more resources.
Hurricane Katrina in 2005
uncovered key flaws in crisis
management processes in the US,
a country that is known to have
large relief resources. The 2011
tsunami in Japan was important in
showing the rest of the world that
even in a country which is
considered to be one of the most
risk-prepared; the impacts of the
unanticipated – i.e. those impacts
that are often the hallmark of a
super disaster - can still be
devastating.
considered to be one of the most risk-prepared; the impacts of the
unanticipated – i.e. those impacts that are often the hallmark of a super
disaster – can still be devastating.
Respond long term
Respond short term
Understand
Public
High # of practice observed Medium # of practice observed Low # of practice observed
Source: PwC
Figure 7
Using the DRM-F to guide our discussions, companies made it clear that collaboration
with the public sector is an area where they can benefit greatly. Involving public
institutions at an early stage (see Figure 7) will allow companies to understand the
complexity of the environment they operate in and plan appropriate responses and
mitigation to local risks and threats.
We note that in terms of short-term response, many efforts are made from both public
and private sector sides in order to increase coordination of efforts, but that the key lies
in preparation, simulation and scenario planning initiatives that will allow both
sectors to mature their DRM approaches.

Understanding risk
exposure collaboratively
We have observed very few
examples of collaboration with the
public sector to understand risk
exposure collaboratively. If
collaboration does occur, the result
is often only used to identify and
reduce the company’s exposure,
and rarely reduces the impact
beyond its own operations.
Short-term collaborative
response
Efficient collaboration with the
public sector, post-disaster,
requires preparation. The first
initiative described was
undertaken by a company in our
sample in an attempt to increase
the efficiency of collaboration
immediately after a disaster
occurred. The second example
describes actions taken by several
companies in our sample to
improve responsiveness to
disasters.
Long-term collaborative
response: building risk
resilience
We did not observe any initiatives
to build long-term risk resilience
with the public sector in a
collaborative manner. We believe
this to be a promising opportunity
for collaboration, and explore this
point in more detail later in this
report.
Working with local authorities: A few companies in our sample work with local
authorities in developing countries to determine specific risks in a region, but the level and
quality of information provided is generally considered inadequate, and external advice is
deemed necessary.
Working with UNISDR: A limited number of companies on our panel work directly
with UNISDR, and use some of its numerous open-source hazard maps and risk models to
assess the probability of natural hazard occurrence and the potential impact. Following our
workshops, many participants expressed an interest in accessing data produced by
UNISDR.
Collaborating with the government to increase the efficiency of short-term
responses: One of the most promising initiatives we have observed was triggered as a
direct result of the Honshu tsunami in 2011. One company in our sample made a conscious
decision and commitment to begin long-term collaboration with its government. The
purpose of this collaboration was to be properly prepared for future disasters and focus on
identifying current gaps in collaborative crisis management, both in the company’s and the
public sector’s structure. Both the government and the company are regularly running
scenario-based simulations to define the processes and standards that will determine
minimum levels of service (e.g. telecommunications, energy supply and other lifeline
services), which are crucial during a crisis.
Maintaining relationships with local authorities: Some of our sample companies
have realised that building and maintaining strong relationships with the public sector
(e.g. connections with emergency response organisations) is a requirement for effective
DRM.
Concentrated growth, increased risk.
Photo by Brigitte Leoni,
UNISDR

Finding 3: ‘Addressing the
challenges’ – Public and private
sectors must play an active role in
addressing the challenges
hindering collaboration, and
jointly manage the enabling
environment
‘Understand’ and ‘respond’
challenges
There are a number of challenges
hindering private – public
collaboration. The following table
outlines the top three challenges
that our analysis identified within
the first two sections of the DRM-
F: ‘understand’ and ‘respond’
(short-term and long-term).
Top three challenges in each section of the DRM-F
Understand Dealing with multiple sources of information
Having to deal with multiple sources of information is a tricky challenge.
Risk management teams have to select which information to trust and
which information they consider inaccurate. The volatility of information
introduces the risk of creating inconsistencies in identifying risks and
assessing exposure.
No clear return on investment as an incentive to make the effort
to understand entire value-chain exposure
While companies have taken various measures to identify risks and assess
their potential impact on assets and the supply-chain, we note that
increasing the visibility of their entire value-chain including the supply
chain outside their own four walls, is not a priority. This is partly due to the
lack of clarity on the potential return on investment and the lack of
available resources for doing so.
Lack of internal collaboration has a negative impact on
external collaboration
We have observed several cases where the company’s risk management and
supply-chain teams are not communicating. When it comes to DRM, the
reality (apart from some leading companies) is that departments still tend
to work in silos. A direct result is that a company that does not have a
uniform approach internally will have difficulties collaborating externally.
Respond
short-term
Overreliance on governments and public infrastructure
Companies rely heavily on public institutions and local governments when
it comes to preventing the disruption of lifeline infrastructure (e.g. roads,
electricity, gas and public transport), or even setting up early warning
systems. The current environment shows that even in countries with
substantial relief resources, the public sector cannot face super disasters
and is not able to pay the bill on its own.
Point-to-point rather than consistent collaboration
Many of the companies we have had discussions with stressed the
importance of maintaining relationships with public institutions such as
emergency response organisations. We have observed excellent examples of
collaboration with the public sector – based on our workshops this occurs
notably in the US. However, we note that most of these relationships are
point-to-point. In other words, if the company’s employee or their public
sector counterpart leaves, there is no clear process in place to ensure the
relationship is maintained.
Absence of global or local standards and agreements in the
event of a disaster
We note the absence of global or local standards and agreements between
the private and public sectors, except in Japan. Either these agreements are
reached only once disasters strike or the information is not publicly
available. But companies said that this could help when it comes to
coordinating efforts during a disaster.
Respond
long-term
Need for an independent party to mediate response efforts
Several companies mentioned the presence of potential conflicts of interest
between parties, and said there was a need for an independent party to
mediate efforts between peers within the private sector and with the public
sector. The same is true in the case of short-term response.
Managing external risks
Although we observed that several companies would like to be more
involved in the community they operate in, the challenge of managing
external risks such as risks of damage to critical infrastructure (e.g. roads,
bridges, water supply, power, etc.) necessitates a collaborative approach.
The private sector needs to take an active step forward to be involved in
building resilient infrastructure for the long-term.
Lack of a common understanding of disaster risk
DRM approaches differ between industries, sectors, countries and cultures,
and natural hazard threats also vary around the globe. What is consistent,
however, is the desire to reduce disaster risks and create risk-resilient
communities. At the moment, the lack of a common understanding of
disaster risk is making it difficult to formulate a common response.

‘Enabling environment’
challenges
The third section of the DRM-F
describes the ‘enabling
environment’ (see Table, page 24-
25), outlining how the private and
public sectors can act to manage
the change. Managing the enabling
environment is critical to
increasing the private sector’s
involvement in collaborative DRM.
While a large share of change
management is down to the
companies themselves, the public
sector must also play an active role
by raising awareness, prioritising
actions and enabling collaboration
through legislation and incentives.
We have identified several
challenges in the enabling
environment which need to be
managed carefully. We propose a
maturity assessment tool with
sample examples of tangible
actions that enable private sector
companies to assess the maturity
of their DRM efforts on an ongoing
basis in terms of how well the five
drivers − strategy, structure,
people, process and technology –
are enabled.
The need for a trigger for top
management buy-in: Several
companies in our sample
mentioned that top management
buy-in for DRM initiatives was
often only triggered post-disaster,
and when the company itself felt
the impacts first-hand. The public
sector should actively raise the
private sector’s awareness of the
reality of the potential threat.
Having the right people locally
but balancing top-down and
bottom-up efforts: Our sample
companies say that the ‘best calls
are made on site’, adding that risk
is always best understood locally.
“Local folks are in the best place
to determine what to do.”
Local management has to connect
with senior management on a
regular basis, and their concerns
have to roll up quickly. The
importance of local management
cannot be underestimated.
However, this should not lead to
an over-reliance by senior
management on local operations.
The company as a whole should
define a clear governance structure
and guidelines to cope with short-
term and long-term impacts.
Companies also noted that
‘maturity grows with experience’
and that DRM is a learning
process. While this is true, we
observed several examples where
there were no formalised processes
to find out how a disaster was
managed, understand the
challenges faced and identify
opportunities for improvement. As
a result, valuable knowledge and
experience was not captured or
shared internally and leveraged to
prepare the response for the next
potential disaster.
Incentivising efforts: Creating a
risk preparedness culture requires
incentives. Several companies
have formulated global risk
management compliance
standards, which are monitored by
an independent body on an annual
basis. These companies reinforced
the need for incentives that will
enhance motivation to consider
potential threats with a low
probability of occurrence and
reinforce company-wide
awareness. This is why
implementing sustainable
incentives should help enhance
motivation for such initiatives and
reinforce company-wide
awareness.
Reputation: Although trust and
reputation were not specifically
mentioned by the companies in
our sample, it nevertheless
remains a challenge to be
addressed.
Continuous monitoring of efforts:
The success of a company’s DRM
initiative can only be tested when a
disaster actually occurs.
Nevertheless, our sample
companies emphasised that ‘what
gets done should get measured’. It
is crucial for risk managers and
business continuity planning
teams to define key performance
indicators (KPIs) to measure
whether the efforts undertaken are
consistently implemented and
regularly updated. Independent
audits also have to be conducted to
determine each site’s rating,
otherwise employees will only
consider DRM as another box-
ticking exercise.

Working together, overcoming challenges.
Photo by Permanent Mission of Japan,
UNISDR

3. Process Strong Average Below
average
Scale description
(S=Strong, A=Average, B=Below average)
3.1 Strategic KPIs and risk review
S: Risk review is performed and risks are mapped to KPIs
A: Risk review is performed but risks are not mapped to KPIs
B: Risk review is not performed
3.2 BCP and scenario planning
S: Scenario planning for assets and operations
A: Scenario planning for assets and operations for assets only
B: No scenario planning
3.3 Risk management standards
S: Global risk management standards with local adaption on top
A: Global risk management standards
B: No risk management standards
3.4
Process in place allows understanding of
and response to risk exposures
S: Understand internal and external impact, define short-term and long-term
response
A: Understand internal impact with short-term response
B: No alignment between understanding internal risks and defining short-term
response
3.5
Continuous efforts to improve processes
and verify alignment of KPIs
S: Perform regular independent audits of internal processes
A: Perform audits internally
B: No audits in place
3.6
HSE (health, safety and environment)
officer and procedure
S: HSE officer present on each site with global guidelines and policies
A: HSE officer present on each site
B: Not every site has HSE officer
3.7 Capturing know-how
S: Consistent process to capture, save and share know-how across the organisation
A: Process to capture, save and share know-how is not consistent across the
organisation
B: No process in place to capture, save and share know-how
Maturity assessment tool
In today’s disaster risk landscape, companies need to be agile, flexible and innovative in the way they manage
disaster risks. To underpin our DRM-F we developed a DRM maturity assessment tool. This tool (sample of
actions included in the table below) can help private sector executives get an overview of where their company
stands, identify gaps in their current organisation, and provides good practice options that will enable them to
improve their holistic management of risk. Once a company’s DRM maturity is defined according to each
driver, each action is mapped into an overall roadmap of actions that are then prioritised according to the
potential impact they present and to the investment they require (illustrative example below).
Best in class
Indicative benchmark of a company’sassessment
1. Strategy Strong Average Below
average
Scale description
1.1 Risk is integrated in business model
S: Risk is integrated in 5 drivers (strategy, structure, process, people, technology)
A: Risk is integrated in up to 4 drivers
B: Risk is not integrated in drivers
1.2 Risk culture and measurement
S: Risk appetite is clearly defined and KPIs (key performance indicators) are aligned
A: Risk appetite is defined but KPIs are not aligned
B: Risk appetite is not defined
1.3
Strategic investment of time and
resources to reduce risk
S: Consistent investment in 5drivers
A: Consistent investment in up to 4 drivers
B: No consistent investment in drivers
1.4 Growth model considers risk
S: CRO (chief risk officer) is at board level
A: CRO has no access to top management
B: No CRO
1.5
Risk scope consideration and review
frequency
S: Top 5-10 risks identified are considered for each key strategic decision
A: Top 5-10 risks are considered on a yearly basis
B: Risks are not considered
2. Structure Strong Average Below
average
Scale description
2.1
Risk is managed collaboratively across the
entire value chain
S: RM (risk management) communicates with functions internally (e.g. Supply-
chain), third parties in the supply chain and public organisations
A: RM communicates with functions internally
B: RM works as a silo
2.2
CRO has company-wide authority and
oversight
S: CRO’s role is clearly defined and communicated
A: CRO’s role is clearly defined but not communicated
B: CRO’s role is not clearly defined
2.3 Reporting lines
S: Roles and approval processes are clearly defined
A: Roles are clearly defined but approval process is not
B: Roles are not defined
2.4 ERM programme scope
S: ERM covers known (high probability) and unknown (low probability) risks
A: ERM covers known risks only
B: No ERM programme
2.5
Governance structure allows to find what
risk data is captured, who has access to
risk data and where risk data is located
S: One global governance structure, consistently leveraged across the organisation
A: One global governance structure, but not consistently leveraged across the
organisation
B: Several governance structure across units

Overall roadmap of actions:
Each action identified in the maturity
assessment tool can be mapped in the overall
roadmap of actions. One roadmap of
actions can be created for each driver.
Based on our discussions and expertise,
companies have to consider investment of
time, as well as the change readiness of
their strategy, people, process, structure and
technology in order to progress in their DRM
maturity.
Wave of actions:
The impact (high, medium, low) of each action
will help companies prioritise their
transformation plan within each wave.
Project plan:
A project plan is created for each action in
order to adopt a formalised and phased
implementation approach.
High impact actionx
Medium impactactionx
Low impact actionx
1.1
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.x
HighMediumLow
Low Medium High
Investment of time
Changereadiness
1. Strategy – Overall roadmap
1.x
1.x
1.x
1.2
2. Structure – Overall roadmap
3. Process – Overall roadmap
4. People– Overall roadmap
5. Technology– Overall roadmap
Overall roadmap of actions
5. Technology Strong Average Below
average
Scale description
5.1 Technologyis anenabler
S:Technologyis leveragedto support the4 drivers (strategy, structure, people, process)
A:Up to 3 drivers
B:None
5.2 Technologysupports BCP
S:Remote accessto work and continuouscommunicationispossible
A:Remote access to work is possible
B:Remote accessto work is notpossible
5.3 Risk modelling
S:Risk modelling is performed using risk models frominsurancecompanies and
other public organisationrisk (e.g. UNISDR, governments)
A:Risk modelling isperformedusinginsurancecompaniesrisk models
B:Risk modelling is notperformed
5.4
Scenario simulationanduse of data
sources
S:Scenario simulationplugs intodynamicsources ofdata
A:Scenario simulationusesstatic data
B:Scenario simulationisnot performed
4. People Strong Average Below
average
Scale description
4.1 Risk-basedthinking and behaviour
S:Incentives are alignedwithrisk organisation KPIs
A:Incentives are notaligned with organisationKPIs
B:No incentives
4.2 DRM skills
S:Hire people withpublic disasterresponse skills
A:Collaborate with publicdisasterresponse entities
B:Manage disasterrisks internally andwithoutpublic disasterresponseskills
4.3 Training
S:Site-specific training ontop of group risk training
A:Group risk training
B:No risk training
Wave of actions for each driver
5. Technology – Wave of actions
4. People – Wave of actions
3. Process – Wave of actions
2. Structure – Wave of actions
3rd wave of actions
2nd wave of actions
1.5
1.3
Risk scope consideration and review frequency
Strategic investment of time and resources to reduce risk
1st wave of actions
1. Strategy – Wave of actions
Launch
Kick-off
Phase 1
Deliverable 1
Deliverable
Workshop
Weeks
Launch Phase x
Activity 1
Activity 2
Deliverable 2 Deliverable 3 Deliverable 4
Projectactivities
Project plan – Action - Risk scope consideration and review frequency1.5

Finding 4: ‘A common vision’ – Collaborative DRM requires a common vision and the long-term cultivation
of broad-based relationships
The executives we interviewed understand that to be accepted by the communities in which they work, they
need to do more than just conduct business; they also need to create local partnerships with governments and
cities. In addition, they must demonstrate that their business is having a holistic and positive impact on the
entire society, and they need to do so more proactively.
Our discussions suggest that collaboration is viewed as the next promising opportunity, with the potential to
solve many of the challenges identified in current DRM approaches. Based on our analysis, the success of a
collaborative approach will depend on the development of several critical elements. We have identified two axes
of development, several founding principles and DRM good practice, which will ensure the sustainability of this
initiative.
Two axes of development
A clear value proposition
A clear value proposition to demonstrate the
potential return on investment and ensure the
buy-in of the private sector.
Focus on tangible actions
A focus on tangible actions is necessary for
both private and public sector to commit time
and resources.
Practice makes perfect.
Photo by Dian Lestariningsih / AusAID,
UNISDR

Founding principles
The adoption of a DRM
framework (DRM-F)
The DRM–F constitutes the basis of the initiative, and will
help create a common understanding of DRM, develop a
consistent level of perception of the strategies and
processes involved, and formalise the process for collecting
know-how, tools and information within the public and
private sectors. It will also be possible to elaborate the
DRM-F to define maturity levels and enable the private and
public sectors to improve their approaches collaboratively
on an ongoing basis.
The adoption of a common DRM
language
We need a common language to reflect our common understanding
of DRM. UNISDR has developed an extensive glossary of terms
related to DRM, which can be further enhanced and adapted to take
account of private sector terminology as well. A common DRM
language will also enable knowledge to be shared more efficiently.
A dedicated platform for
collaboration
The global nature of natural hazards and the interdependencies
involved necessitate the elimination of national barriers. This means
a dedicated global platform for collaboration has to be created to
focus international efforts. The platform will provide:
 A single, common source of information on DRM (sharing
knowledge, know-how and proven experience, tools, risk maps,
etc.).
 A single forum for dialogue on DRM.
 Common and consistent global standards and practical guidelines.
DRM Good practice
Good practice in each DRM-F focus area
Understanding Corporate asset exposure
 Seeking professional advice
 Working with local operations
 Country risk ‘one-pagers’
 Global ‘heat map’ of sites
Supply chain exposure
 Supplier risk management strategy
 Leveraging technology and analytics to
understand risks
Responding short-term  Remote access to work
 Transferring work to other sites
 Setting up 24/7 ‘control tower’
 Leveraging staff with public sector
experience
 Mutual agreement with peers
 Using the same fleet to transport relief
supplies
Responding long-term  ‘Scenario planning’ in exposed zones
 Creating own asset risk standards
 Supplier security assessment
 Collaboration with suppliers
 Integrating critical suppliers

Conclusion
Global issues call for global collaboration.
Industry leaders from the private sector recognise
natural hazards and DRM as a challenge facing
today’s interconnected world. The focus of this report
is to define and provide real examples of leading DRM
good practices being implemented within companies
that have first-hand experience in managing natural
hazards.
There is already a healthy awareness on the
importance of reducing disaster risk and the impact
from such incidents. The private sector has a wealth
of experience, which can be codified and leveraged by
many stakeholders, whether they are other
organisations, governments, city planners or other
disaster response institutions.
The success of creating and embedding such practices
will depend to a crucial extent on the long-term
commitment of entities within the private and public
sector. For the dialogue to drive real action, it is
critical that the value drivers of each stakeholder is
well understood and aligned to this overall objective,
whether it be to drive operational resilience and
shareholder value, secure the GDP of a nation, or to
protect the livelihood of the society.
To this extent, UNISDR and PwC's role is to establish
a platform to facilitate the involvement of private and
public actors who are ready and willing to make a step
forward and take leadership on disaster risk
reduction.
This is a unique opportunity for the private sector to
have a voice; directly engaging governments and
policy-makers with input and expertise to create
future DRM policies, define best practices and drive
regulatory legislation and standards.
To launch this process and secure the commitments,
we will be designating ‘champions’ who can share and
educate others on their unique capabilities. The
platform will enable participants to become global
leaders on specific issues, and will create a foundation
to make good practices scalable.
In order to build sustainable resilience, the
private sector must become the source of
change.
In parallel, the public sector’s role is to create the
right incentives and environment for private entities
to share and implement their expertise. Public entities
play a critical role in identifying regional and local
deficiencies in disaster management strategy, which
could potentially be enhanced by leveraging private
sector expertise. Having a holistic view of this
exposure can provide a clear roadmap of initiatives
that can easily be translated into concrete actions,
allowing societies to build sustainable resiliency
against natural hazards.
Accordingly, during the next two years (phase II of
our initiative), the public and private sectors will
define the method of collaborative resilience;
exchanging views, defining best practices, discussing
policies and ultimately putting in place
implementation roadmaps – globally, regionally and
locally.
The next wave of activities will commence with a
variety of several high-standard events, starting with
the presentation of our findings during the Global
Assessment Report on Disaster Risk
Reduction (GAR) in May 2013, in Geneva. This
initiative is also an important milestone in setting the
scene for the Hyogo Framework for Action,
which will be renewed in 2015 and formalise the role
of the private sector.

Glossary
Disaster
A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human, material,
economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or
society to cope using its own resources.
*Disaster (see Figure 1, page 5): Disaster refers to Natural Disasters as categorised in EM-DAT, Data
source EM-DAT, the OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database (Data version, 10 January 2012)
Disaster risk The potential disaster losses, in terms of lives, health status, livelihoods, assets and services, which could
occur to a particular community or a society over some specified future time period.
Disaster risk
management
The systematic process of using administrative directives, organisations, and operational skills and
capacities to implement strategies, policies and improved coping capacities to lessen the adverse impacts
of hazards and the possibility of disaster.
Disaster risk reduction The concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts to analyse and manage the
causal factors of disasters including through reduced exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people
and property, wise management of land and the environment, and improved preparedness for adverse
events.
Early warning system The set of capacities needed to generate and disseminate timely and meaningful warning information to
enable individuals, communities and organisations threatened by a hazard to prepare and to act
appropriately and in sufficient time to reduce the possibility of harm or loss.
Global Assessment
Report on Disaster Risk
Reduction (GAR)
The GAR is a biennial global assessment of disaster risk reduction and comprehensive review and analysis
of the natural hazards that are affecting humanity. The GAR contributes to achieving the Hyogo
Framework of Action (HFA) through monitoring risk patterns and trends, and progress in disaster risk
reduction while providing strategic policy guidance to countries and the international community.
Geological hazard Geological process or phenomenon that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property
damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage.
Hazard A dangerous phenomenon, substance, activity or condition that may cause loss of life, injury or other
health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or
environmental damage.
Hydrometeorological
hazard
Process or phenomenon of atmospheric, hydrological or oceanographic nature that may cause loss of life,
injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic
disruption, or environmental damage.
Hyogo Framework for
Action (HFA)
The HFA is the first plan to explain, describe and detail the work that is required from all different sectors
and actors to reduce disaster losses. It was developed and agreed on with the many partners needed to
reduce disaster risk – governments, international agencies, disaster experts and many others – bringing
them into a common system of coordination. Its goal is to substantially reduce disaster losses by 2015 by
building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters. This means reducing loss of lives and
social, economic and environmental assets when hazards strike.
Mitigation The lessening or limitation of the adverse impacts of hazards and related disasters.
Natural hazard Natural process or phenomenon that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property
damage, loss of livelihood and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage.
(UNISDR)
Preparedness The knowledge and capacities developed by governments, professional response and recovery
organisations, communities and individuals to effectively anticipate, respond to and recover from the
impacts of likely, imminent or current hazard events or conditions.
Resilience The ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to, and
recover from, the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner including through the preservation
and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions.
Response The provision of emergency services and public assistance during or immediately after a disaster in order
to save lives, reduce health impacts, ensure public safety and meet the basic subsistence needs of the
people affected.
Risk management The systematic approach and practice of managing uncertainty to minimise potential harm and loss.
Vulnerability The characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to the
damaging effects of a hazard.

Acknowledgements
PwC Switzerland – Core Team
Oz Ozturk – PwC partner, Global initiative leader
Alexandre Cherix
Aurélien Feix
Patrick Dahmen
UNISDR
Margareta Wahlström
Andrew Maskrey
Bina Desai
Kiki Rebecca Lawal
PwC UK PwC Japan PwC US
Celine Herweijer
Alpesh Shah
Daniel Dowling
Madiha Bakir
Kazu Miyamura
Scott Williams
Dennis Chesley
Juan Pujadas
Jan Sturesson
Joseph Rizzo
Carlos Castillo

Further reading
Next
chains:
Efficient, fast and
tailored
Winning with
governance, risk and
compliance
Resilience:
Winning with risk
Prospering in an era of
uncertainty:
The case for resilience
Protecting human health
and safety during severe
and extreme heat events:
A national framework
UNISDR’s GAR 2011:
Revealing Risk,
Development
UNISDR and PwC – Working together to reduce disaster risk
Further reading
Global supply chain
trends:
Achieving operational
flexibility in a volatile
world
Next-generation supply
chains:
Efficient, fast and
tailored
Prospering in an era of
uncertainty:
The case for resilience
Risk in review:
Rethinking risk management
for new market realities
UNISDR’s GAR 201
Global Assessment Report
On Risk Reduction
Revealing Risk, Redefining
Development
Working together to reduce disaster risk 31
Global supply chain
Achieving operational
flexibility in a volatile
Risk in review:
Rethinking risk management
for new market realities
Global Assessment Report
On Risk Reduction

Copyright notice
PwC helps organisations and individuals create the value they’re looking for. We’re a network of firms in 158
countries with more than 180,000 people who are committed to delivering quality in assurance, tax and
advisory services. Tell us what matters to you and find out more by visiting us at www.pwc.com
This publication has been prepared for general guidance on matters of interest only, and does not constitute
professional advice. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining
specific professsional advice. No representation or warranty (express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or
completeness of the information contained in this publication, and, to the extent permitted by law, PwC does
not accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or anyone else
acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this publication or for any decision
based on it.
© 2013 PwC. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the PwC network and/or one or more of its member firms, each
of which is a separate legal entity.
Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details.

Pwc unisdr-report

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Pwc unisdr-report (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Pwc unisdr-report