Ensuring security should be an inherent element of every management strategy. The prevalence of threats and their unprecedented intensification have become a hallmark of modern times. In the sphere of economic activity, natural threats (natural disasters, cataclysms) and, more recently, terrorism (as an example of deliberate actions aimed at causing disruption) are compounded by the effects of political and economic changes. In addition to the development of globalization processes, there is a trend towards intensifying competition in global markets, an explosion of IT and electronic technologies (e.g., RFID), the spread of the phenomenon of concentration, mergers and acquisitions (M&A transactions), and the implementation of new management concepts (including supply chain management). The associated threats (and risks) result from the direct actions of business creators and the decisions they make, both at the operational and strategic levels.
These decisions concern, among other things, the “security vs. freedom” dilemma. According to P. Sienkiewicz: “by choosing security, we give up a significant part of our freedom (sovereignty) and consciously agree to numerous limitations.” Consequently, the problem of responsibility arises, and the relationship between risk and responsibility seems evident. This aspect of risk considerations is rarely analyzed in areas other than philosophy, although it is of great importance in practice. Especially in the context of controlling actions that create the risk of causing harm to others, including during the implementation of supply chain development projects. This article draws attention to the use of “responsibility” when taking actions related to risk control (reducing the probability of risk – prevention or reduction of its negative effects). Risk in a technical aspect is defined as the product of the probability of an event occurring and its consequences, or as the product of vulnerability to external disturbances – threats and the probability of their occurrence.
In the case of supply chains (and beyond), vulnerability to disturbances (threats) is associated with the identification of so-called weak points. It concerns the economic and social consequences of disturbances. Reducing risk in supply chains may mean striving to lower the probability of disturbances, which involves, among other things, applying an appropriate level of security (maintaining resource reserves, using modern technologies that guarantee security, etc.).
From a purely economic point of view, the investment costs associated with the security measures applied should not exceed the costs resulting from potential disturbances. A measure of the purposefulness of the solutions applied can be the benefit that the parties derive from the actions taken, minus the sum of security costs and losses. It is assumed that the benefit defined in this way – “social good” will grow when the sum of security costs and losses (Kc) is minimal, which, assuming the following notations:
x – level of security (cost, investment in reducing the probability of disturbance), x ≥ 0
p (x) – probability of a disturbance occurring; 0< p(x)< 1; p'(x)< 0; p”(x)> 0
h – magnitude of losses in the event that a disturbance occurs can be expressed by the formula:
Kc = x + p(x)h → min (1)
The solution to this equation will be the level of security that maximizes benefits (social good) – x*(h).
Responsibility is a state of a certain duty. Duty, in turn, is conditioned by a goal: something is a duty because it constitutes a means to achieve a goal and is a condition for its realization.
Responsibility in the case of a tort and the application of safety regulations represent two different approaches to controlling actions that create the risk of causing harm (damage) to others. Liability for a tort has a private nature (contracts, agreements between companies); it does not act through social mandate; rather, it acts indirectly through the “deterrent” effect of actions taken in the event of damage. Norms, standards, prohibitions, and other forms of safety regulation, by contrast, are universal, official, and directly modify behavior through requirements that are imposed beforehand or independently of the actual occurrence of damage. Practice confirms the mutual relationship between regulations and responsibility, especially when taking into account the basic principle that compliance with norms (regulations, standards) does not necessarily release an entity from liability.
The article comes from the journal “Logistyka” 3/2009.