A changing business climate has led many organizations to embrace environmental sustainability and social responsibility; however, organizational roles and responsibilities in sustainability initiatives have not been clearly defined. This paper specifically examines the role of environmental managers in advancing environmental sustainability and social responsibility. It is part of a broader study to identify the extent to which various departments or functional units within an organization are prepared to play a role in these initiatives based on a survey of various professionals in relation to activities and action items derived from the ISO 26000 standard on social responsibility. As expected, the findings indicate that environmental managers are positioned to play a critical role in advancing environmental sustainability and social responsibility in their organizations. However, there appears to be disparity between the role that environmental managers indicated they are prepared to play and the perceptions of their role held by others in the organization. While environmental managers indicated that they would support or play a major role in 18 of the 35 action items on which they were surveyed, professionals from other functional units indicated that environmental managers would be involved in only a few key areas focused on traditional environmental issues associated with pollution prevention and waste management. This suggests that environmental managers are prepared to play a much broader role in the organization’s sustainability and social responsibility efforts but may not be fully utilized in this capacity.

Communities and businesses continue to experience the effects of climate change as global temperatures rise and extreme weather events become more frequent. In the United States (US), the public sector has traditionally been responsible for mitigating these risks; however, engaging the private sector is crucial, given industrial impacts on and vulnerability to climate change. Private-sector mitigation and adaptation efforts are critical in the Great Lakes Region due to aging infrastructure as well as its economic, environmental, and political importance in the US and Canada. This study explores private-sector resilience efforts in three Great Lakes cities to identify opportunities and trends that could inform climate resilience strategies in the region. Climate-related commitments and actions of nine major firms in Toronto, Chicago, and Cleveland are evaluated in relation to seven climate resilience criteria on a five-level maturity scale from January to May 2022. The results indicate a moderate level of maturity, with efforts mainly at facility and community levels of engagement. Overall, this study suggests that major firms participate in climate resilience efforts, but to a limited extent, and may have varying priorities that affect the initiatives they pursue. This study could contribute to advancing climate resilience efforts in the public and private sectors from regional to global levels.

Disruption is an inevitable factor in business and society, while inability to mitigate and manage risk can cause irreparable damage to business, the economy, and our ways of life. The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened interest in standards-based strategies for risk management and crisis preparedness to enhance organizational and societal resilience. University curricula that integrate national and international standards offer students a rich skill-set for effective performance in their careers. Moving forward, we must cultivate capable professionals who understand the challenges and risks facing society, and who grasp standards and systems for strategic planning, response, and recovery to promote organizational resilience and sustainable development. This paper focuses on the effectiveness of integrating risk management and continuity standards into university curricula, based on implementation at a large private university and regional community college in the Northeastern United States. We propose and evaluate a modular approach to introduce students to specific national and international standards, and teach them to identify and apply relevant standards based on the locally driven, whole community nature of disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. Education using standards-based curriculum and the competencies that result will be key to readiness for tomorrow’s graduates.

The world and its operations are becoming increasingly risky and brittle, with organizations and communities facing escalating threats from both internal and external sources. Risk management and business systems exist to help navigate both acute shocks and chronic stressors, but the decisive factor is how entities plan and respond. This article explores the strategic application of systematic resilience planning across risk types and presents an integrated application for implementation grounded in risk management and business continuity systems standards. The article also explores how these standards can support the identification and treatment of organizational risks and vulnerabilities to provide a clear path to resilience. No risk environment is static. Applied as a dynamic framework that is responsive to evolving risk contexts, a systematic approach offers a powerful path forward in an era of compounding disruption.

Many cities across the United States (U.S.) face threats from natural hazards, and as climate change continues to worsen, cities will face increased risks. Emergency management helps cities to mitigate these risks and adapt to shifting threats. Based on the Rockefeller City Resilience Framework and City Resilience Index Driver 3, Indicator 3.4, the scope of this research was to develop an emergency management maturity model and explore emergency management capacity for future disasters based on an assessment of five cities across the U.S. With the resulting data, a city’s score would serve as an evaluation of the emergency response indicator (Indicator 3.4) in order to eventually enter the City Resilience Index. The cities selected were Buffalo, New York; Honolulu, Hawaii; Memphis, Tennessee; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Saint Paul, Minnesota, based on their hazard/risk factors. It should be noted that these scores were intended to compare resilience in a city over time and identify unique areas in which the cities could improve emergency management and were not meant to rank the cities against each other. An interesting find was the overlap between the counties and cities regarding policy data, creating a new avenue for research in local level emergency management.