Two sides of the same coin: business resilience and community resilience
Adekola, Josephine; Clelland, David
Published in:
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management
DOI:
10.1111/1468-5973.12275
Publication date:
2020
Document Version
Author accepted manuscript
Link to publication in ResearchOnline
Citation for published version (Harvard):
Adekola, J & Clelland, D 2020, 'Two sides of the same coin: business resilience and community resilience',
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 50-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-
5973.12275
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please view our takedown policy at https://edshare.gcu.ac.uk/id/eprint/5179 for details
of how to contact us.
Download date: 10. Aug. 2022
1
Two sides of the same coin: Business resilience and
community Resilience
Adekola, J. and Clelland, D. (2019) Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management, (doi:10.1111/1468-5973.12275)
Abstract
The resilience of small businesses and how that relates to community resilience especially in
rural communities has remained an under-researched aspect of community resilience. This
exploratory study aims to understand the relationship between business resilience and
community resilience in rural communities. Firstly, the research seeks to understand the role
that small businesses play in contributing to community resilience activities. The paper then
sheds light on enabling and challenging factors that shape how small businesses prepare for
and respond to weather related emergencies through the lens of flooding. Data were collected
through in-depth semi-structured interviews and surveys with rural small businesses in
Scotland. The analysis of the data suggest that businesses play advisory and advocacy roles,
make financial and material contributions to local community resilience activities and
contribute to quick community recovery through various dimensions of corporate social
responsibility activities. However, small businesses face formidable barriers and challenges
in preparing for and responding to weather-related emergencies that undermines their own
resilience to natural hazards. The paper concludes by suggesting ways in which small
businesses can enhance their resilience to natural hazards, while at the same time contributing
to community resilience.
Key words: Business resilience, community resilience, natural hazards
2
1. Introduction
The ability for businesses to plan for and respond to the impact of natural hazards within
local communities can be fundamental in shaping their responses to those hazards. This is
especially important in the United Kingdom (UK) and in particular Scotland, for example,
where there is a strong policy focus on empowering local businesses to become ‘resilient’ to
severe weather events (Cabinet Office, 2011; Preparing Scotland Report, 2013). Severe
weather events may include heavy rain, heavy snow and extreme heat. A policy focus on
empowering local businesses is mainly driven by the belief that the resilience of businesses
will have impact for decreasing risk and promoting resilient behaviour in other areas
(Preparing Scotland Report, 2013), which ultimately contributes to broader community
resilience.
Paton and Johnston (2017) for instance, argue that businesses that have the capacity to
recover quickly can continue to provide employment and services in affected areas. Likewise,
members of a community that is prepared for emergencies have the tendency to recover
faster, and thus, are more likely to be able to support businesses and economic recovery
(either as employees or customers) (Paton & Johnston, 2017). Thus, there is the suggestion
that the resilience of businesses and those of local communities are closely linked. However,
until now, there is relatively little empirical evidence that sheds light on the relationship
between business resilience and community resilience. Existing research has either focused
too thinly on the different ways in which the resilience of communities can be understood and
measured, or, in business and management studies, on the business resilience and continuity.
The main aim of this study is to understand the relationship between business resilience and
community resilience especially in rural communities. In 2016, rural businesses accounted
for 30% of businesses in Scotland, thus contributing significantly to the Scottish local
economy (Keane, 2017). Thus, their resilience can help communities become resilient to
natural hazards. However, Rosenburg (2017) suggests that the recovery of small businesses
from the impact of natural or other hazards can take several years. In fact, according to US
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 40% of small businesses never reopen
following a disaster, largely because they are not prepared for such emergencies (Morris,
2017) and due to other reasons such as downtime costs, damaged reputation and, critically,
lost customers (Willis, 2016).
3
The paper begins by critically examining existing research on business resilience and
community resilience. This is important if new research is to contribute to filling potential
gaps in existing scientific literature. By means of a primary research, the paper illustrates
how small businesses in rural communities contribute to the resilience of local communities
to weather related emergencies. The paper further examines the experiences of local business
as it relates to their preparation and response to a previous flood event. The study concludes
by shedding light on the relationship between business and community resilience and sets out
potential areas for further research.
2. Existing literature on business resilience and community
resilience
The increasing use of resilience across a number of different contexts has itself been subject
to critique in the academic literature. At the conceptual level, it has been described as
fragmented and under-theorised (Pike, Dawley, & Tomaney, 2010) and as a ‘fashionable
concept’ that should be carefully scrutinised to assess its value in being applied to different
fields (Hassink, 2010). The transmission of resilience as a concept from the natural to the
social sciences can also be seen as problematic, with tension between a somewhat
conservative notion of the ability to ‘bounce back’ following some external shock and a more
dynamic understanding based around adaptive capacity and more profound change (Brown,
2014; MacKinnon & Derickson, 2013; Steiner & Atterton, 2014). However, for the purpose
of this study, we subscribe to the UK government framing of community resilience as the
ability of communities to “use local resources and knowledge to help themselves during an
emergency in a way that complements the local emergency services” (UK cabinet office,
2014).
While the literature shows a variety of approaches that seek to explore the concept of
resilience in relation to business, the majority of work around community resilience with
regard to natural hazards has tended to focus on the preparation and response undertaken by
government and public sector agencies or community groups, with little attention paid to the
role of firms (McKnight & Linnenluecke, 2016) despite their strategic importance within
communities (Hallett, 2013). Where research has addressed the private sector in this context
(often based on examples from the USA) this has largely been concerned with the
4
contribution of large firms to disaster response and recovery either in the form of corporate
philanthropy, perhaps driven by notions of corporate social responsibility, see for example
(Besser & Jarnagin, 2010; Tilcsik & Marquis, 2013), or in commercial activities where
revenue is generated from the provision of disaster-related goods and services. McKnight and
Linnenluecke (2016) seek to distinguish here between firm- and community-centric
‘postures’ on the part of business, where the former implies a set of responses prioritising
business needs, while the latter takes into account the broader advantages of engagement with
community stakeholders, whether based on instrumental aims such as reputational benefits or
some sense of moral or compassionate duty. The role of private sector firms as owners and
operators of critical infrastructure is also a growing area of interest (see for example (Stewart,
Kolluru, & Smith, 2009).
Literature on community resilience as it relates to the role of small businesses can be broadly
separated into two themes. Firstly, researchers in entrepreneurship and management have
examined the resilience of small businesses themselves in the face of natural hazards or other
crises, see for example (Doern, 2016; Wedawatta & Ingirige, 2012), often through the lens of
business continuity. This work has focused on the experiences and responses of owners and
managers to crises and has sought to identify factors that influence the ability of businesses to
survive and to maintain revenue streams and employment. In common with communities,
preparedness or readiness is seen as one of the key determinants of resilience (Orhan, 2016)
for businesses. Most existing research does however tend to focus on larger organisations
rather than SMEs (Herbane, 2010; Sullivan-Taylor & Branicki, 2011).
Orhan (2016), in an extensive review of the research into business preparedness, notes a
range of influencing variables – including business size, sector and age, financial situation,
occupancy tenure, market range and previous disaster experience (see also Atkinson, 2013;
Hallett, 2013). Furthermore, there is evidence that firms are only likely to engage in
preparedness activities when they find these easy and when they do not require substantial
investment (Tierney & Webb, 2001). Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in particular,
are more likely to be vulnerable (UNDP, 2013), be under-insured and less likely to have
contingency plans. In addition to the ‘internal’ characteristics of businesses and their owners,
the capacities and responses of the wider community, including the state, are identified as
contributory factors (Doern, 2016).
