Extreme Weather Events and the Critical Importance of Anticipatory Adaptation and Organizational Resilience in Responding to Impacts

Linnenluecke, Martina K.; Griffiths, Andrew; Winn, Monika I.

doi:10.1002/bse.708

Cited by 315 publications

(331 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

282

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite there is not a widely and accepted definition of organizational resilience, we agree with the authors that consider organizational resilience as an ability, capacity or capability to deal with disruptive events (Mallak, 1997;Hamel and Valikangas, 2003;Starr et al, 2003;Sheffi and Rice Jr., 2005;Jackson, 2007;Tillement et al, 2009;Hollnagel, 2010;LengnickHall et al, 2011;Manyena, 2006;Annarelli and Nonino, 2016;Linnenluecke et al, 2012).…”

Section: Organizational Resiliencesupporting

confidence: 76%

Aligning Organizational Pathologies and Organizational Resilience Indicators

Allende¹,

Ruiz-Martín²,

López-Paredes³

et al. 2017

Int. J. Prod. Manag. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developing resilient individuals, organizations and communities is a hot topic in the research agenda in Management, Ecology, Psychology or Engineering. Despite the number of works that focus on resilience is increasing, there is not completely agreed definition of resilience, neither an entirely formal and accepted framework. The cause may be the spread of research among different fields. In this paper, we focus on the study of organizational resilience with the aim of improving the level of resilience in organizations. We review the relation between viable and resilient organizations and their common properties. Based on these common properties, we defend the application of the Viable System Model (VSM) to design resilient organizations. We also identify the organizational pathologies defined applying the VSM through resilience indicators. We conclude that an organization with any organizational pathology is not likely to be resilient because it does not fulfill the requirements of viable organizations.

show abstract

Section: Organizational Resiliencesupporting

confidence: 76%

Aligning Organizational Pathologies and Organizational Resilience Indicators

Allende¹,

Ruiz-Martín²,

López-Paredes³

et al. 2017

Int. J. Prod. Manag. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Various studies have so far examined climate risks for firms, which are linked to potential climatic impacts on firms, on their supply chain network and on their political, economic and natural environment [1,2,4,5,8,[14][15][16]. Thus, it has been argued that climate change may influence businesses in various ways, for example by affecting the reliability of transportation or of water and energy supply, by affecting work productivity, or by inducing changes in political and economic framework conditions [1].…”

Section: The Relevance Of Strategic Adaptations For Manufacturing Firmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, it has been argued that climate change can induce various risks for firms, which arise from potential climatic impacts on the firm, on its supply chain network and on its political, economic and natural environment [1][2][3][4][5]. However, data from initial firm surveys on climate adaptation suggest that only a minority of managers is engaging their firms…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Difficulty of Climate Change Adaptation in Manufacturing Firms: Developing an Action-Theoretical Perspective on the Causality of Adaptive Inaction

Meinel

Schüle

2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change induces various risks for supply chains of manufacturing firms. However, surveys have suggested that only a minority of firms conducts strategic adaptations, which we define as anticipatory and target-oriented action with the purpose of increasing resilience to climate change. While several barrier-centered studies have investigated the causality of non-adaptation in industry, the examined barriers are often not problem-specific. Furthermore, it has been shown that even in cases when managers perceive no barriers to adaptation at all, strategic adaptations may still not be conducted. On this background, the present analysis focuses on the logic of adaptive inaction, which we conceive, in particular, as inaction with regard to strategic adaptations. Adopting an action-theoretical perspective, the study examines (a) which aspects may shape the rationality of adaptive inaction among managers, (b) which more condensed challenges of conducting strategic adaptations emerge for managers, and (c) how the theoretical propositions can be tested. For this purpose, the study employs an exploratory approach. Thus, hypotheses on such aspects are explored, which may shape the rationality of adaptive inaction among managers. Subsequently, predictions are inferred from the theoretical propositions, which allow testing their empirical relevance. Methodologically, the hypotheses are explored by reexamining existing explanatory approaches from literature based on a set of pretheoretical assumptions, which include notions of bounded rationality. As a result, the study proposes 13 aspects which may constrain managers in conducting adaptations in such a way, which serves the economic utility of the firm. By condensing these aspects, 4 major challenges for managers are suggested: the challenges of (a) conducting long-term adaptations, of (b) conducting adaptations at an early point in time, of (c) conducting adaptations despite uncertain effects of the measures, and of (d) conducting adaptations despite cross-tier dependencies in supply chains. Finally, the study shows how the propositions can be tested and outlines a research agenda based on the developed theoretical suggestions.

show abstract

“…Climate change adaptation strategies proposed by the literature on business management primarily result in postponing adaptation for a decade while waiting for new research findings, or reactively adapting organizational assets. Another proposed approach is not to directly undertake adaptation measures, but rather to cover damages through insurance and therefore transfer the risk to a third party, for example through catastrophe bonds (Linnenluecke et al 2012). None of these approaches are appropriate for providers of critical infrastructure, as the default costs would be much too high.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsibility for private sector adaptation to climate change

Schneider¹

2014

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) indicates that vulnerable industries should adapt to the increasing likelihood of extreme weather events along with slowly shifting mean annual temperatures and precipitation patterns, to prevent major damages or periods of inoperability in the future. Most articles in the literature on business management frame organizational adaptation to climate change as a private action. This makes adaptation the sole responsibility of a company, for its sole benefit, and overlooks the fact that some companies provide critical goods and services such a food, water, electricity, and medical care, that are so vital to society that even a short-term setback in operations could put public security at risk. This raises the following questions: (1) Who is responsible for climate change adaptation by private-sector suppliers of critical infrastructure? (2) How can those who are identified to be responsible, actually be held to assume their responsibility for adapting to climate change? These questions will be addressed through a comprehensive review of the literature on business management, complemented by a review of specialized literature on public management. This review leads to several conclusions. Even though tasks that formerly belonged to the state have been taken over by private companies, the state still holds ultimate responsibility in the event of failure of private-sector owned utilities, insofar as they are "critical infrastructure." Therefore, it remains the state's responsibility to foster adaptation to climate change with appropriate action. In theory, effective ways of assuming this responsibility, while enabling critical infrastructure providers the flexibility adapt to climate change, would be to delegate adaptation to an agency, or to conduct negotiations with stakeholders. In view of this theory, Germany will be used as a case study to demonstrate how private-sector critical infrastructure providers can plan and implement climate change adaptation in practice, through the regulatory modes of "negotiations" and "enforced self-regulation."

show abstract

Extreme Weather Events and the Critical Importance of Anticipatory Adaptation and Organizational Resilience in Responding to Impacts

Cited by 315 publications

References 85 publications

Aligning Organizational Pathologies and Organizational Resilience Indicators

Aligning Organizational Pathologies and Organizational Resilience Indicators

The Difficulty of Climate Change Adaptation in Manufacturing Firms: Developing an Action-Theoretical Perspective on the Causality of Adaptive Inaction

Responsibility for private sector adaptation to climate change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About