KPMG study finds shortcomings in many industries in terms of emergency plans, training and responsibilities
Despite awareness of security-related crisis situations, many companies in Germany are inadequately prepared for them. According to the study ‘Navigating Geopolitics’ by the auditing firm KPMG, only 62 per cent of companies consider the issue of national defence to be relevant to their business.
350 executives surveyed
According to the report, there are also significant strategic and organisational gaps: only 27 per cent have clearly defined geopolitical crisis scenarios, and 36 per cent have no designated contact person or responsible unit, write the study’s authors in their report, for which around 350 German executives from twelve industries were surveyed.
‘Companies today play a central role in national defence. Awareness of security-related developments is growing, but in many places there is still a lack of clear routines and robust structures to enable action to be taken in an emergency,’ emphasises Carsten Schiewe, partner at KPMG in Germany.
Early organisation is important
According to the expert, the focus on prevention is not enough. ‘Those who organise security, processes and responsibilities at an early stage increase their own resilience and at the same time open up new market opportunities,’ says Schiewe. Although 88 per cent of companies have formal crisis or emergency management systems in place, in practice these are often reviewed too infrequently.
Forty-two per cent update their concepts only once a year or even less frequently. Operational resilience measures remain limited, according to the report. Thirty-nine per cent of companies have established robust emergency plans, physical protection measures (36 per cent) or cyber security concepts (36 per cent). Only 33 per cent would raise awareness and train their workforce.
According to the report, utilities, telecoms and digital infrastructure providers are more likely to have defined responsibilities and emergency structures in place. Mechanical engineering, healthcare and the manufacturing industry are more cautious. Here, robust scenarios, regular reviews and clearly defined responsibilities are often lacking.
