Purpose: The purpose of this study is to find determinants about risk resilience and develop a new risk resilience approach for (agricultural) enterprises. This approach creates the ability to respond resiliently to major environmental challenges and changes in the short term and adjust the management of the organization, and to learn and transform to adapt to the new environment in the long term while creating multiple value creation. Design/methodology: The authors present a new risk resilience approach for multiple value creation of (agricultural) enterprises, which consists of a main process starting with strategy design, followed by an environmental analysis, stakeholder collaboration, implement ESG goals, defining risk expose & response options, and report, learn & evaluate. In each step the organizational perspective, as well as the value chain/area perspective is considered and aligned. The authors have used focus groups and analysed literature from and outside the field of finance and accounting, to design this new approach. Findings: Researchers propose a new risk resilience approach for (agricultural) enterprises, based on a narrative about transforming to multiple value creation, founded determinants of risk resilience, competitive advantage and agricultural resilience. Originality and value: This study contributes by conceptualizing risk resilience for (agricultural) enterprises, by looking through a lens of multiple value creation in a dynamic context and based on insights from different fields, actual ESG knowledge, and determinants for risk resilience, competitive advantage and agricultural resilience.
DOCUMENT
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to find determinants about risk resilience and develop a new risk resilience approach for (agricultural) enterprises. This approach creates the ability to respond resiliently to major environmental challenges and changes in the short term and adjust the management of the organization, and to learn and transform to adapt to the new environment in the long term while creating multiple value creation. Design/methodology: The authors present a new risk resilience approach for multiple value creation of (agricultural) enterprises, which consists of a main process starting with strategy design, followed by an environmental analysis, stakeholder collaboration, implement ESG goals, defining risk expose & response options, and report, learn & evaluate. In each step the organizational perspective, as well as the value chain/area perspective is considered and aligned. The authors have used focus groups and analysed literature from and outside the field of finance and accounting, to design this new approach. Findings: Researchers propose a new risk resilience approach for (agricultural) enterprises, based on a narrative about transforming to multiple value creation, founded determinants of risk resilience, competitive advantage and agricultural resilience. Originality and value: This study contributes by conceptualizing risk resilience for (agricultural) enterprises, by looking through a lens of multiple value creation in a dynamic context and based on insights from different fields, actual ESG knowledge, and determinants for risk resilience, competitive advantage and agricultural resilience.
DOCUMENT
Purpose: The purpose of this research is to develop a “risk resilience model” for agricultural SMEs, that prepares farmers to the effects of major environmental challenges like climate change and weather shocks. Methodology: Action research is the methodology used. It was based on a template for qualitative research. Involved in the inquiry, action and reflection phase are: four Dutch SME farmers, strategic risk management experts, agricultural experts, and bachelor students. Findings: As an outcome of this study, a “risk resilience model” has been developed. It supports farmers/agribusiness firms to reach their orientation to a longer timeframe. Systemically seen, it provides a holistic view that enables farmers/entrepreneurs, and stakeholders to operationalize their ambitions from a responsible and sustainable business, including environmental, social, governance elements in interaction with the system they are part of. Originality and value: This study contributes by proposing a “risk resilience model” for SME farmers. Furthermore, the study conceptualizes risk resilience for farmers, by looking through a lens of multiple value creation in a dynamic context and based on insights from different fields, actual ESG knowledge, and determinants for risk resilience, competitive advantage and agricultural resilience.
DOCUMENT
Resilience is held as a promising concept to produce a paradigm shift from traditional flood control to an integration of flood risk management and spatial planning. Central ideas to the resilience narrative are that nothing is certain except uncertainty itself' and adaptability' is key to governing the unknown'. However, this terminology is far from clear, yet increasingly used, which raises the question how it is made sense of in practice. To answer this question, we examine two long-term flood risk management strategies in the London and Rotterdam region with a policy framing perspective (i.e. the English Thames Estuary 2100 Plan and the Dutch Delta Programme). In both strategies, uncertainties are a key concern, leading to adaptive strategic plans. Reconstructing the framing processes shows that the English adopted a scientific pragmatism' frame and the Dutch a joint fact-finding' frame. While this led to different governance approaches, there are also striking parallels. Both cases use established methods such as scenario planning and monitoring to manage' uncertainties. Similarly to previous turns in flood risk management, the resilience narrative seems to be accommodated in a technical-rational way, resulting in policy strategies that are maintaining the status quo rather than bringing about a paradigm shift.
DOCUMENT
The growing sophistication, frequency and severity of cyberattacks targeting all sectors highlight their inevitability and the impossibility of completely protecting the integrity of critical computer systems. In this context, cyber-resilience offers an attractive alternative to the existing cybersecurity paradigm. We define cyber-resilience as the capacity to withstand, recover from and adapt to the external shocks caused by cyber-risks. This article seeks to provide a broader organizational understanding of cyber-resilience and the tensions associated with its implementation. We apply Weick's (1995) sensemaking framework to examine four foundational tensions of cyber-resilience: a definitional tension, an environmental tension, an internal tension, and a regulatory tension. We then document how these tensions are embedded in cyber-resilience practices at the preparatory, response and adaptive stages. We rely on qualitative data from a sample of 58 cybersecurity professionals to uncover these tensions and how they reverberate across cyber-resilience practices.
DOCUMENT
Background: Persons with an intellectual disability are at increased risk of experiencing adversities. The current study aims at providing an overview of the research on how resilience in adults with intellectual disabilities, in the face of adversity, is supported by sources in their social network. Method: A literature review was conducted in the databases Psycinfo and Web of Science. To evaluate the quality of the included studies, the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used. Results: The themes: “positive emotions,” “network acceptance,” “sense of coherence” and “network support,” were identified as sources of resilience in the social network of the adults with intellectual disabilities. Conclusion: The current review showed that research addressing sources of resilience among persons with intellectual disabilities is scarce. In this first overview, four sources of resilience in the social network of people with intellectual disabilities were identified that interact and possibly strengthen each other.
DOCUMENT
Since the early work on defining and analyzing resilience in domains such as engineering, ecology and psychology, the concept has gained significant traction in many fields of research and practice. It has also become a very powerful justification for various policy goals in the water sector, evident in terms like flood resilience, river resilience, and water resilience. At the same time, a substantial body of literature has developed that questions the resilience concept's systems ontology, natural science roots and alleged conservatism, and criticizes resilience thinking for not addressing power issues. In this study, we review these critiques with the aim to develop a framework for power-sensitive resilience analysis. We build on the three faces of power to conceptualize the power to define resilience. We structure our discussion of the relevant literature into five questions that need to be reflected upon when applying the resilience concept to social–hydrological systems. These questions address: (a) resilience of what, (b) resilience at what scale, (c) resilience to what, (d) resilience for what purpose, and (e) resilience for whom; and the implications of the political choices involved in defining these parameters for resilience building or analysis. Explicitly considering these questions enables making political choices explicit in order to support negotiation or contestation on how resilience is defined and used.
DOCUMENT
Adaptive governance describes the purposeful collective actions to resist, adapt, or transform when faced with shocks. As governments are reluctant to intervene in informal settlements, community based organisations (CBOs) self-organize and take he lead. This study explores under what conditions CBOs in Mathare informal settlement, Nairobi initiate and sustain resilience activities during Covid-19. Study findings show that CBOs engage in multiple resilience activities, varying from maladaptive and unsustainable to adaptive, and transformative. Two conditions enable CBOs to initiate resilience activities: bonding within the community and coordination with other actors. To sustain these activities over 2.5 years of Covid-19, CBOs also require leadership, resources, organisational capacity, and network capacity. The same conditions appear to enable CBOs to engage in transformative activities. How-ever, CBOs cannot transform urban systems on their own. An additional condition, not met in Mathare, is that governments, NGOs, and donor agencies facilitate, support, and build community capacities. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Adaptive governance by community-based organisations: Community resilience initiatives during Covid‐19 in Mathare, Nairobi. which has been published in final form at doi/10.1002/sd.2682. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions
DOCUMENT
There is an urgency and need to develop an innovative strategic approach for organizations to develop a sustainable organization for the future, in which they are able to respond resiliently to major environmental challenges and changes in the short term and adjust the management of the organization. On the same time, in this strategic approach learning and transforming accordingly in the long term is involved as well. This approach will give organizations the opportunity to operationalize their boards’ and stakeholders’ ambitions to build a responsible business, with focus on governance elements, as well as interaction with social and environmental factors, risk, and strategy from a holistic view. In education, students could work with this approach in future projects for real companies.
DOCUMENT
Societal resilience is an emerging paradigm. It refers to responses and strategies at the level of individuals, groups, organizations, and societies that are dealing with complex societal problems. At the same time, these responses contribute to innovative solutions that make society more resilient to current and future challenges. Societal resilience is, however, conceptually relatively undefined. This ambiguity is generally seen as problematic for scholarly work. In this chapter, the authors show that societal resilience is an important social concept because of its openness. To study resilience requires research methodologies that engage many actual stakeholders. Collaborating with societal stakeholders allows not only for co-generating knowledge of local relevance, but also stimulating a comprehensive and critical research approach. Therefore, the current openness of societal resilience does not constitute an undesirable theory gap. It enables the possibility of having plural perspectives based on the complex realities on the ground.
DOCUMENT
