Managing business continuity in the Arctic: Experiences from mining

Abstract

This article presents a model for business continuity capacity, which shows how organizations can analyze possible gaps in their business continuity capability and thereby increase their capacity to recover value‐adding critical activities. Using an example of a flooded mine on Svalbard, the study investigated how the mining company Store Norske Spitsbergen Coal Company (SNSK), with considerable experience with similar events and an excellent safety record, could fail to manage a well‐known event and reduce recovery times of its critical activities. The analysis explored how experience in safety and incident management does not necessarily mean that these abilities are transferable to a new but similar event. The study sought to answer the research question: To what extent does SNSK's systematic work with safety, and experience with flooding events, improve business continuity capacity?In the Arctic, emergency response can take hours or days to arrive after the event. A structured recovery system can support pre‐existing platforms aimed at safety, to include the critical activities needed to ensure an organization's overall survival. Systematic work can improve performance and make the organization engage in a virtuous cycle by implementing management structures, risk identification systems, competency development, and processes for the in situ evaluation of hazards. However, as seen here, the organization needs to pay attention to changes that could affect risk assessments and threat levels well‐known events. These insights can be utilized by other organizations seeking synergy when strengthening their safety and business continuity performance.

A framework for business continuity management in a multiactor context

“…BCM is increasingly used to nurture societal resilience. However, historically, BCM has not received extensive attention in research literature, despite a recent surge in interest, as evidenced by works like De Matteis et al (2023), Galaitsi et al (2023), Steen et al (2023), Taarup‐Esbensen, (2023), which provide valuable insights and applications of BCM. Instead, BCM has evolved primarily through practical applications in the business sector, aiming to create business processes that can withstand or quickly recover from internal or external disturbances (Azadegan et al, 2020; Gibb & Buchanan, 2006; Tammineedi, 2010).…”

Using business continuity methodology for improving national disaster risk management

“…BIA can be seen as the analytic part of BCM. Even though there is no universally accepted terminology for BCM (BS, 2006; SIS, 2014; Taarup‐Esbensen, 2020; Torabi et al, 2014), the basic terms related to BIA apply to most methods (Hassel & Cedergren, 2019). These are (a) the minimum acceptable performance level (MAPL) regarding deliveries of key products/services, (b) the maximum tolerable period of disruption (MTPD) for each product, service and activity, and (c) the recovery time objective for each resource.…”