SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kent Akademisi / 2026 / Cilt: 19 Sayı: 6

A Multidimensional Assessment of Disaster Resilience in Industrial Enterprises from a Business Continuity Perspective: Evidence from a Field Study Using an Innovative Self-Assessment Tool

Sanayi İşletmelerinde İş Sürekliliği Odaklı Afet Dayanıklılığının Çok Boyutlu Analizi: Yenilikçi Bir Öz Değerlendirme Aracıyla Saha Araştırması

Fatih Yaman(İstanbul Sanayi Odası)0000-0002-5412-5074
Pages
1–28
Publication Date
2026-08-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Findings reveal significant variability in preparedness levels—even among facilities handling hazardous materials or falling under the SEVESO Directive—indicating that while basic safety protocols are generally implemented, critical strategic gaps persist in comprehensive risk assessments and adaptive capacity building.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Industrial organizations exhibit high vulnerability to natural and human-induced disasters due to their critical roles within complex supply chains and economic systems.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study presents the multidimensional “Disaster Resilience Scorecard for Industrial Facilities” (STADK) model and its field applications, developed to assess the structural, operational, and strategic preparedness levels of industrial enterprises against disaster risks.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Findings reveal significant variability in preparedness levels—even among facilities handling hazardous materials or falling under the SEVESO Directive—indicating that while basic safety protocols are generally implemented, critical strategic gaps persist in comprehensive risk assessments and adaptive capacity building.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:endüstriyel riskler değerlendirme aracı · ISO 22301 · kurumsal risk yönetimi

Abstract

Industrial organizations exhibit high vulnerability to natural and human-induced disasters due to their critical roles within complex supply chains and economic systems. This study presents the multidimensional “Disaster Resilience Scorecard for Industrial Facilities” (STADK) model and its field applications, developed to assess the structural, operational, and strategic preparedness levels of industrial enterprises against disaster risks. The primary objective of the research is to analyse—through a holistic lens—the business continuity and disaster resilience capacities of industrial facilities in Türkiye and to evaluate the functionality of the newly developed self-assessment tool. The study adopts a qualitative, comparative document analysis approach, integrating structured interviews, on-site inspections, and systematic document review. The STADK instrument systematically evaluates enterprises across core dimensions—including structural factors, process management, and operational readiness—to generate a comprehensive preparedness profile. This comparative field assessment was conducted by an expert academic panel with extensive subject-matter expertise. Findings reveal significant variability in preparedness levels—even among facilities handling hazardous materials or falling under the SEVESO Directive—indicating that while basic safety protocols are generally implemented, critical strategic gaps persist in comprehensive risk assessments and adaptive capacity building. The results underscore that integrated resilience frameworks aligned with ISO 22301and ISO 31000 standards should be viewed not as a cost but as a strategic investment in corporate sustainability. The STADK tool is expected to serve as a practical guide for policymakers, the insurance sector, and industrial managers by enhancing enterprises’ self-assessment capabilities and supporting evidence-based resilience planning.

Özet

Sanayi kuruluşları, karmaşık tedarik zincirleri ve ekonomik sistemler içindeki kritik rolleri nedeniyle doğal ve insan kaynaklı afetlere karşı yüksek hassasiyet taşımaktadır. Bu çalışma, sanayi işletmelerinin afet risklerine karşı yapısal, operasyonel ve stratejik hazırlık düzeylerini ölçmek amacıyla geliştirilen çok boyutlu "Sanayi Tesisleri Afet Dayanıklılığı Kontrol Listesi" (STADK) modelini ve saha uygulamalarını sunmaktadır. Araştırmanın temel amacı, Türkiye’deki sanayi tesislerinin iş sürekliliği ve afet dayanıklılık kapasitelerini bütüncül bir perspektifle analiz etmek ve geliştirilen öz değerlendirme aracının işlevselliğini saptamaktır. Araştırmada, yapılandırılmış görüşmeler, saha incelemeleri ve belge analizini içeren nitel araştırma çerçevesinde karşılaştırmalı doküman analizi temelli bir yaklaşım benimsenmiştir. Geliştirilen STADK aracı; yapısal faktörler, süreç yönetimi ve operasyonel hazırlık gibi temel boyutlar üzerinden işletmelerin mevcut durumunu sistematik olarak puanlamaktadır. Doküman analizine dayalı karşılaştırmalı saha değerlendirmesi, konunun uzmanı deneyimli akademisyen heyet tarafından gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bulgular, özellikle tehlikeli madde yönetimi ve SEVESO Direktifi kapsamındaki tesislerde dahi hazırlık düzeylerinin değişkenlik gösterdiğini; temel güvenlik protokolleri uygulansa da kapsamlı risk değerlendirmeleri ve uyarlanabilir kapasite inşasında stratejik boşluklar olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuçlar, ISO 22301 ve ISO 31000 standartlarıyla uyumlu entegre dayanıklılık çerçevelerinin, kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik için bir maliyet değil, stratejik bir yatırım olduğunu vurgulamaktadır. STADK aracının, işletmelerin öz değerlendirme yetkinliğini artırarak politika yapıcılara, sigorta sektörüne ve sanayi yöneticilerine somut bir rehber sunacağı öngörülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yaman, F. (2026). A Multidimensional Assessment of Disaster Resilience in Industrial Enterprises from a Business Continuity Perspective: Evidence from a Field Study Using an Innovative Self-Assessment Tool. Kent Akademisi, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 6, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.1909579

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (51)

  1. Abdi, K., Najafi, Z., Foroughi, Z., & Afshari, M. (2024). Health policy analysis for stewardship of rehabilitation services. BMC Health Services Research, 24(1), Article 1338. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11746-x
  2. Al Yahmady, H. H., & Al Abri, S. S. (2013). Using Nvivo for data analysis in qualitative research. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Education, 2(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.12816/0002914
  3. Bakar, Z. A., Yaacob, N. A., & Udin, Z. M. (2015). The effect of business continuity management factors on organizational performance: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 5(1), 128–134. https://izlik.org/JA46YU57XD
  4. Chand, S. P. (2025). Methods of data collection in qualitative research: Interviews, focus groups, observations, and document analysis. Asian Education and Economic Review, 1(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.25082/aere.2025.01.001
  5. Chen, S., & Xu, J. (2022). COVID-19, business continuity management and standardization: Case study of Huawei. Corporate Governance and Organizational Management, 10(3), 445–462.
  6. Dalglish, S. L., Khalid, H., & McMahon, S. (2020). Document analysis in health policy research: The READ approach. Health Policy and Planning, 35(10), 1424–1431. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czaa064
  7. Ebrahimi-Sadrabadi, M., Ostadi, B., Sepehri, M. M., & Kashan, A. H. (2023). Optimal resource allocation model in disaster situations for maximizing the value of operational process resiliency and continuity. 4Open, 6, Article 48. https://doi.org/10.1051/fopen/2023004
  8. Emsley, E., Smith, J., Martin, D., & Lewis, N. (2022). Trauma-informed care in the UK: Where are we? A qualitative study of health policies and professional perspectives. BMC Health Services Research, 22(1), Article 1168. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08461-w
  9. Etinyoku, S. (2024). Development of a new holistic process safety management system model based on business continuity and organizational resilience standards. Journal of Turkish Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.56554/jtom.1479895
  10. Farooq, M. S., Riaz, S., Abid, A., Abid, K., & Naeem, M. A. (2023). FFM: Flood forecasting model using federated learning. IEEE Access, 11, 24472–24483. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3252896
  11. Gabryelewicz, I., Wędrychowicz, M., Woźniak, W., & Besta, P. (2022). SEVESO III Directive – Information on establishments with a high or increased risk of a major industrial accident. Rocznik Ochrona Środowiska, 24, 248–263. https://doi.org/10.54740/ros.2022.027
  12. Galaitsi, S., Pinigina, E., Keisler, J. M., Pescaroli, G., Keenan, J. M., & Linkov, I. (2023). Business continuity management, operational resilience, and organizational resilience: Commonalities, distinctions, and synthesis. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 14, 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-023-00494-x
  13. Gurtu, A., & Johny, J. (2021). Supply chain risk management: Literature review. Risks, 9(1), Article 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks9010016
  14. Gündüz, F. (2022). Women's disaster experience and lessons learned in integrated disaster administration [Doktora tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (No. 30822792).
  15. Ivanov, D. (2020). Viable supply chain model: Integrating agility, resilience and sustainability perspectives. Annals of Operations Research, 291, 365–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03640-6
  16. Jalilvand, M. A., Raeisi, A., & Shaarbafchizadeh, N. (2024). Accountable hospital governance structure rules in Iran: A qualitative document analysis. International Journal of Health Governance, 29(2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijhg-03-2024-0022
  17. Ji, Y. (2024). A methodological exploration of document analysis as a qualitative research method. Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 10(3), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.30940/jqi.2024.10.3.25
  18. Kalogiannidis, S., Kalfas, D., Papaevangelou, O., Giannarakis, G., & Chatzitheodoridis, F. (2024). The role of artificial intelligence technology in predictive risk assessment for business continuity: A case study of Greece. Risks, 12(2), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks12020019
  19. Kesa, D. M. (2023). Ensuring resilience: Integrating IT disaster recovery planning and business continuity for sustainable information technology operations. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 18(3), 970–978. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.18.3.1165
  20. Kumar, S., & Anbanandam, R. (2019). Impact of risk management culture on supply chain resilience: An empirical study from Indian manufacturing industry. SAGE Open, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019886718
  21. Loyarte, E., Gurrutxaga, N., & Funcia, J. (2024). Continuity governance model: A new process stage in the BCM system that underpins organizational resilience. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), Article 2434731. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2434731
  22. Mackieson, P., Shlonsky, A., & Connolly, M. (2018). Increasing rigor and reducing bias in qualitative research: A document analysis of parliamentary debates using applied thematic analysis. Qualitative Social Work, 18(4), 552–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325018786996
  23. Mahmeed, A. O. S. M. (2023). Evaluate the continuous improvement of operations according to the business continuity model (ISO 22301: 2019) A case study: The general company for vegetable oils. Indian Journal of Applied Business Studies, 10(1), 1008–1025.
  24. Malik, F. S., & Terzidis, O. (2025). Thriving in turbulence: Resilience and strategic adaptation in global business. Review of Managerial Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-025-00940-8
  25. Meechang, K., & Watanabe, K. (2023). Modeling to achieve area business continuity management implementation via a fuzzy cognitive map. Sustainability, 15(18), Article 13531. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813531
  26. Modanlolu, A., & Keskin, G. (2025). Assessment of the effects of the disaster on the healthcare professionals working in the area after the Kahramanmaras earthquakes: A qualitative research. Disaster and Emergency Medicine Journal, 10(2), 101–112.
  27. Moektiwibowo, H., Rahmawati, C., Yulianto, D., & Adi, S. (2025). Risk mapping for industrial resilience: A quantitative model of disaster mitigation priorities. Disaster Management International Journal of Engineering and Social Sciences, 7(1), 5698–5710.
  28. Moilanen, T., Sivonen, M., Hipp, K., Kallio, H., Papinaho, O., Stolt, M., Turjamaa, R., Hägman-Laitila, A., & Kangasniemi, M. (2022). Developing a feasible and credible method for analyzing healthcare documents as written data. SAGE Open Nursing, 8. https://doi.org/10.1177/23333936221108706
  29. Morgan, H. (2022). Conducting a qualitative document analysis. The Qualitative Report, 27(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5044
  30. Mottahedi, A., Sereshki, F., Ataei, M., Qarahasanlou, A. N., & Barabadi, A. (2021). The resilience of critical infrastructure systems: A systematic literature review. Energies, 14(6), Article 1571. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14061571
  31. Müller, R., Biancolino, C., & Kloeckner, B. (2024). Dynamic business continuity planning in complex organizational environments. Journal of Business Administration Research, 8(3), 234–256.
  32. Nugraha, T. A., & Djakman, C. D. (2024). Implementation of task continuity management in banking service activities and treasury operations for smooth payment system. Journal of Islamic Finance and Accounting, 6(2), 77–88.
  33. Pasman, H. J., Kottawar, K., & Jain, P. (2020). Resilience of process plant: What, why, and how resilience can improve safety and sustainability. Sustainability, 12(15), Article 6152. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156152
  34. Paudel, P. (2024). Examining paradigmatic shifts: Unveiling the philosophical foundations shaping social research methodologies. Journal of University of Rwanda, 12(1), 8033–8045. https://doi.org/10.4038/jur.v12i1.8033
  35. Payares, A. C., Luna, J., & Herrera, A. C. (2024). Digital marketing adoption in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Pensamiento y Gestión, 57, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.32997/pe-2023-4774
  36. Pettit, T. J., Croxton, K. L., & Fiksel, J. (2013). Ensuring supply chain resilience: Development and implementation of an assessment tool. Journal of Business Logistics, 34(1), 46–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12009
  37. Punescu, C., Popescu, M. C., & Blid, L. (2018). Business impact analysis for business continuity: Evidence from Romanian enterprises on critical functions. Management of Contemporary Organizations: Scientific Journal, 2018(1), 21–32.
  38. Rashid, A., Rasheed, R., Ngah, A., Jayaratne, M. D. R. P., Rahi, S., & Tunio, M. N. (2024). Role of information processing and digital supply chain in supply chain resilience through supply chain risk management. Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing, 17(3), 342–365. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGOSS-10-2023-0091
  39. Rattanasaeng, S., & Sukhotu, V. (2024). Business continuity management deployment, community resilience, and organisational resilience in private industry response to 2011 Ayutthaya flooding. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 15(4), 627–651. https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12301
  40. Ruiz-Martin, C., López-Paredes, A., & Wainer, G. (2018). What we know and do not know about organizational resilience. International Journal of Production Management and Engineering, 6(1), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.4995/ijpme.2018.7819
  41. Russo, N., Mamede, H. S., & Reis, L. (2025). An approach to business continuity self-assessment. Technologies, 13(6), Article 242. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies13060242
  42. Russo, N., Reis, L., Silveira, M. C., & Mamede, H. (2023). Towards a comprehensive framework for the multidisciplinary evaluation of organizational maturity on business continuity program management: A systematic literature review. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 17(2), 123–141.
  43. Safonova, M., & Serikov, V. V. (2025). The system of business continuity management and its mechanism for ensuring the sustainability of an economic entity. Vestnik of Samara State University of Economics, 1(259), 60–72.
  44. Settembre-Blundo, D., García-Muiña, F. E., Salgado, M. S., & González-Sánchez, R. (2021). Flexibility and resilience in corporate decision making: A new sustainability-based risk management system in uncertain times. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 22, 340–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-021-00277-7
  45. Song, L., Du, L., Xu, L., Wu, M., & Li, X. (2025). Navigating challenges and building resilience: Qualitative insights into disaster nursing preparedness in Chinese non-first-tier cities. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 19, Article e10. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2024.10
  46. Steen, R., Haug, O. J., & Patriarca, R. (2023). Business continuity and resilience management: A conceptual framework. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 31(3), 445–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12501
  47. Suresh, N. C., Sanders, G. L., & Braunscheidel, M. J. (2020). Business continuity management for supply chains facing catastrophic events. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 48(3), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2020.3005506
  48. Tracey, S., O’Sullivan, T., Lane, D., Guy, E., & Courtemanche, J. (2017). Promoting resilience using an asset-based approach to business continuity planning. SAGE Open, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017706712
  49. Tukamuhabwa, B., Stevenson, M., & Busby, J. (2017). Supply chain resilience in a developing country context: A case study on the interconnectedness of threats, strategies and outcomes. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 22(6), 486–505. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-02-2017-0059
  50. Türk, Z., Ozunu, A., Radovici, A., Malo, C., Calapod, A., & Senzaconi, F. (2021). NATECH hazard identification at national level for Seveso sites affected by floods and earthquakes. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Chemia, 66(2), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.24193/subbchem.2021.2.22
  51. Yolda, E. N., & Ayçin, A. (2025). Disaster-resilient SMEs in international trade: Insights from Japan's business continuity planning model. Afet ve Risk Dergisi, 8(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.35341/afet.1676673