Repuation risk: Losing radioactive material

I like when others try to tell me that reputation risk should be managed. My standard response is good luck:  repuation risk is a second-order risk; if you manage your (primary) risks properly then you won’t generate repuation risk. Simple.

Hot off the presses is this gem. I mean, if you are going to lose radioactive rods, then why would I want you to ship my books, DVDs or smoked meat? At the time that I am blogging about this, this story is one hour old. You can bet when they find the rods under Earl’s dirty gym clothes in North Dakota, I won’t mention it. And the damage is done.

Anyone know where to find Jack Bauer?

FedEx searches for missing radioactive equipment

MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) — FedEx is searching for radioactive rods used for medical equipment that went missing during shipment between North Dakota and Tennessee.

Memphis-based FedEx spokeswoman Sandra Munoz said Friday the rods are used for quality control purposes for CT scans. She says the rods were likely misplaced and there’s no indication the material was stolen.

She says the shipment was from Fargo, N.D., to Knoxville, Tenn., this week and the rods are in a metal cylinder that is about 10 inches tall and weighs about 20 pounds.

Munoz says as long as no one tries to open the metal container, the rods do not pose a danger.

7 thoughts on “Repuation risk: Losing radioactive material

  1. Whilst I agree in some with your second-order risk part, I would like to add some additional thoughts to consider.

    It is very difficult to quantify reputation risk and it is therefore imperative that a company become
    more proactive and deal with risks and issues preferably whilst they are still small. If rep – risk cannot be quantified, then an ‘issue-based‘‘ approach to issues and incidents will aid in protecting the reputation.

    By examining and extrapolating and viewing issues and incidents through the lenses of a stakeholder, opportunities, shortcomings and mitigation approaches will be revealed.

    There is thus a need to educate management to factor stakeholder management and reputation management thinking into decision making processes. The lack of adequate stakeholder profiling and issues analysis spotted in many incidents serves as an example of this.

    Treatment of Rep – Risk could be problematic until a decision is taken at senior level to treat Rep – Risk as either a strategic risk or consequence of a risk.

    Reputation is much more amorphous than what most think. It is not just about incidents, its about perceptions and a bunch of other stuff that makes it far more dangerous.

    The problem is that in most companies the existing model of Residual Risk (Impact) likelihood after controls seems to be more financial focused rather than stakeholder reputation impact focused.

    Also, since reputation recovery is a function of pro-activeness, communication and readiness prior,
    during and after a crisis, it is advised that a company tighten up on crisis management &
    communication.

    Personally I advocate a pre-reputation event action, during a crisis and post – recovery actions, AND these sound simple but they are not.

  2. Whilst I agree in some with your second-order risk part, I would like to add some additional thoughts to consider.

    It is very difficult to quantify reputation risk and it is therefore imperative that a company become
    more proactive and deal with risks and issues preferably whilst they are still small. If rep – risk cannot be quantified, then an ‘issue-based‘‘ approach to issues and incidents will aid in protecting the reputation.

    By examining and extrapolating and viewing issues and incidents through the lenses of a stakeholder, opportunities, shortcomings and mitigation approaches will be revealed.

    There is thus a need to educate management to factor stakeholder management and reputation management thinking into decision making processes. The lack of adequate stakeholder profiling and issues analysis spotted in many incidents serves as an example of this.

    Treatment of Rep – Risk could be problematic until a decision is taken at senior level to treat Rep – Risk as either a strategic risk or consequence of a risk.

    Reputation is much more amorphous than what most think. It is not just about incidents, its about perceptions and a bunch of other stuff that makes it far more dangerous.

    The problem is that in most companies the existing model of Residual Risk (Impact) likelihood after controls seems to be more financial focused rather than stakeholder reputation impact focused.

    Also, since reputation recovery is a function of pro-activeness, communication and readiness prior,
    during and after a crisis, it is advised that a company tighten up on crisis management &
    communication.

    Personally I advocate a pre-reputation event action, during a crisis and post – recovery actions, AND these sound simple but they are not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *