ERM-BC-COOP: What are the risks To Britain's pull-out?

THE MAIN RISK TO BITIAN'S exit from Eurocom for North Americans doing business across the pond are three:

1. Adjusting to another set of business-related laws
2. Abandonment of the "glorious experiment" by other anchor nations such as Germany with its strong economy and France with its always underlying "France First" mentality.
   
3. Giving credence to all the doom sayers who predict the end of the world as we know it

THERE WILL BE CHANGES as Britain examines Eurocom regulations it finds onerous.

Unlike in the United States, Eurocom countries may peacefully opt out of the union. A number of states tried to opt out of the U.S.(and formed the Confederate States of America), but despite the U.S. Constitution, the Federal president went to war to prevent the dissolution of the union.

North American - Canada and U.S. - organizations will need to watch closely as Britain reviews and modifies the following "tip of the iceberg" issues:

• domestic employment
• domestic tax
• foreign employment
• health and welfare rules for Britons employed by foreign-owned organizations and for non-Britons employed in Britain
• import/export restrictions
• passport and visa requirements

Basically, North American organizations will be dealing with British uniqueness as they did before Britain joined Eurocom.

Imagine if Scotland had voted to separate from England and Wales. Same issues, so Britain's exit from Eurocom should have been discussed previously.

Britain's exit cannot in any way be considered a "black swan" by any practitioner who keeps abreast of current history. Certainly Europe's ancient and recent history should have prepared practitioners for what should have been seen as inevitable: the splitting off of countries from Eurocom to return to their fiefdoms.

It was a grand experiment, kludging together nations that have historically been at war with one another to form a common bond against non-European nations (in particular the U.S. and Canada, Japan, China, and increasingly, South Korea).

Britain's exit from Eurocom might signal the end for the community. Practitioners should consider now the potential of dealing with each country re-establishing its own, independent laws; the same issues as Britain's "independence" now presents to non-British organizations - even those "minor" issues such as spelling (e.g., organiZation vs. organiSation, tIre vs. tYre and weights and measures).

Britons have for some time been agitating to leave Eurocom; any organization caught unprepared should fire its risk management staff - assuming it HAS a risk management staff and assuming it actually LISTENS to the staff.

This never should be considered a "black swan." Those birds rarely exist anywhere but in the imagination of an unprepared practitioner.

ERM-BCP-COOP: A war risk Never considered

An article heded^cq WWII-Era Chemical Agents In Sea Drifting Close to Poland on my daily Global Security Newswire email from Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) presents a risk I never consciously considered.

According to the Oct. 28, 2013 article, Chemical-warfare materials dumped in the ocean after World War II have been discovered by scientists drifting closer to Polish territory than was previously known, United Press International reported on Monday.

A minimum of 15,000 metric tons of German chemical armaments were demilitarized by Russian and U.K. forces by being poured into the Gotland Deep -- an 800-foot-deep Baltic Sea basin positioned between the Baltic states and Sweden. The dumped chemical agents included mustard blister agent and tabun nerve agent.

Researchers believe the moldering chemical agent still represents a danger to the surrounding marine life as well as to nearby fishermen and beach-goers that might come across washed-up munitions.

Obviously, the Russian and U.K. forces that "poured (the chemicals into the Gotland Deep" either failed to consider the potential risks or simply didn't care; the waters into which the chemicals were dumped were near neither Britain nor Russia.

Remnants of war should have been considered, although I confess that such "souvenirs" never crossed this scrivener's mind. Land mines left over from wars past still claim lives; likewise unexploded shells are commonly found in Europe when holes are dug for new construction foundations.

The greatest "water" risks in my area are sharks and pollution. Both can incapacitate personnel and that can disrupt business as usual. Unexploded ordinance can be found in most countries that have gone to war or that have practiced going to war. At least we are alerted to migrating sharks and dangerously high pollution levels before venturing into the water.

Watching the news - history in the making - must be considered an integral part of "keeping current" for every risk management practitioner. It is an extension of group dynamics when the practitioner gathers everyone together to - with apologies to Intel - "imagine the possibilities."

No one person can think of everything, but practitioners can expand the risks lists by reading a variety of publications, both general and professional, by gathering client personnel for no-holds-barred sessions where no risk is too off the wall, and by communicating with other practitioners, but the latter must be a two way exchange.

What is DONE about individual risks is a matter of prioritization and management decision; but all risks, no matter how "off the wall" they may seem, deserve consideration.

 

If I wrote it, you may quote it.