In a rapidly-evolving risk environment, many are asking whether their infrastructure assets are safe enough and resilient enough. The public’s awareness and interest have never been so high. Recent events suggest that they might have good reason to worry. Many of the wildfires that ravaged California were thought to have been contributed to by poorly maintained power lines and worsened by climate change; local distribution companies were forced to shut down services to communities when the wind blew too hard.
Recent events suggest that they might have good reason to worry. Many of the wildfires that ravaged California were thought to have been contributed to by poorly maintained power lines and worsened by climate change; local distribution companies were forced to shut down services to communities when the wind blew too hard.
Other infrastructure failures have also shaken confidence; the Genoa bridge collapse in Italy, the failure of the Brumadinho tailings dam in Brazil, the two fatal passenger aircraft crashes due to technology malfunctions, an unknown number of data breaches and cyber-attacks, countless rail and road accidents — it’s not surprising that people are feeling less confident about the safety and resilience of their infrastructure.
As a result, we are seeing governments and asset owners begin to put a much larger emphasis on safety, maintenance and resilience, right across the asset lifecycle. These factors are also finding their way into investment decision-making.
From new asset management standards at the local level to global initiatives such as the Coalition for Climate
Resilient Investment announced at the most recent UN Climate Action Summit, asset owners are feeling pressure from the public for improved resilience. Resilience, at its core, is the ability to reduce the likelihood and impact of ‘extreme’ events. These events represent ‘disruptive risk’, which is a risk so severe that it threatens the long-term survivability of the asset or business. Typically, events that turn into disruptive risks are initially identified as high-consequence risks, but the expected low probability of the risk occurring does not usually precipitate the necessary business planning required for deploying appropriate mitigations. However, as forces drive the probability of these events higher (i.e., climate change, aging assets, increased urbanization), a business lacking planning for the extreme event is potentially exposed to the full consequence of the risk. Thus, this results in disruptive risk for the business and the need for resilience planning. Because disruptive risks are often ambiguous, complex, and difficult to identify, assessing and responding to them requires enhancing certain capabilities within an organization.
Becoming resilient starts by aligning the business planning preparations needed with a wider vision that encompasses the business’s strategy, mission, vision and values while addressing vulnerabilities. These preparations can be put in place by developing formal structures such as reporting lines and committees specifically charged with implementing resilience strategies. Leading organizations utilize data to identify and evaluate risks and propose solutions. And ultimately, a resilient business must make risk-informed investment planning decisions that prioritize capital deployments to mitigate disruptive risk in an efficient and timely manner.
Pressure is also being applied by investors, who are becoming increasingly concerned about the growing range of risks they face. And that, in turn, is forcing asset owners to think much more seriously about how they are identifying, measuring and managing their risks.
© 2020 R.G. Manabat & Co., a Philippine partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”) is a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm.