In risk management seminars and workshops, we often talk about risks that have occurred in the past, i.e. risks that have already been experienced (or at least the consequences of the risk). However, it is much more difficult to identify risks that have not yet materialised. Unknown risks.
This problem seems to occur not only in internal workshops with selected companies, but also with the mass of risk managers. If we look at the Allianz Risk Barometer 2020, we find no reference to a pandemic among the top 10 risks. For this survey, Allianz interviewed 2,700 risk management experts in 102 countries. The survey was conducted in October and November 2019, some time before the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. A look at the appendix of the study shows that 3% of respondents cited “health problems (e.g. outbreak of a pandemic)” as a risk. It was categorised as a risk in 17th place. So a pandemic was not seen as a major risk. However, we now know what happened a few months later.
This year’s Allianz Risk Barometer (https://commercial.allianz.com/news-and-insights/reports/allianz-risk-barometer.html) shows that both “macroeconomic developments” and “political risks and violence” are seen as less important than in 2024. Macroeconomic developments are seen as a major risk by 15% of experts (last year: 19%, down two places), political risks and violence are seen as a key risk by 15% of respondents (same figure as last year, down one place). The survey was conducted again in October and November of last year. More than 3,700 experts from 106 countries were surveyed.
Looking back at the start of Trump’s presidency, it is clear that there are serious macroeconomic developments and political risks. The question arises: If even 3,700 experts in 2024 and 2,700 experts in 2019 – with a few exceptions – were wrong, what can be done to recognise and predict the major risks more accurately, more effectively, simply better?
Anticipating the Future 😉
Being prepared is essential to face challenges and quickly gain situational awareness in times of crisis.
Black swans and grey rhinos…
We advocate for a pragmatic and holistic preparedness strategy—one that enables companies, organizations, and institutions to maintain the highest possible level of operational capability from the very first minute after an incident.
Whether it’s an active shooter situation, an accident, a natural disaster, hybrid warfare, or civil protection scenarios—preparedness ensures the ability to act when it matters most.
To achieve this, a combined solution is required:
– Integrated OSINT capabilities for real-time information gathering
– A robust command & control framework
– Staff management and decision-support software with predefined and adaptable operational processes
– Offline functionality, including fallback communication tools
– Comprehensive manuals, plans, and resources to support and protect response teams and key personnel
Being ready means being resilient—and operationally capable under any condition.
Oh yes, I agree. It’s definitely preparedness that creates resilience. And I agree that there are many aspects of preparedness that more or less contribute to many situations where resilience is needed.
That said, I think there may also be specifics where it’s important to have some potential risks on the radar to be even better prepared. And I have seen – at least in logistics and SCM – many companies and talked to many managers who admitted that they were not really prepared and therefore not resilient. Perhaps a better forecast would have helped?
For me, the results of the various Allianz Risk Barometers indicate that experts are (too) often looking in the rear-view mirror and trying to assess existing risks. And that leads them to incorrect assessments. Wouldn’t it have helped the companies if they had had better forecasts, i.e. if they hadn’t been better prepared themselves?