4. Promoting Cooperation in Disaster Reduction

4-3. Promoting Corporate Disaster Management
4-3-1. Trends in Business-Sector Commitment to Disaster
Prevention in Japan
Recently, there has been a growing awareness of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in theJapanese private sector, in response to the globalization of economic activities, spread of IT
technology, and changes in consumer awareness. There is no internationally agreed definition of
CSR, but it is generally understood that the term refers to corporate accountability for the whole
range of corporate activities including economic, environmental, social aspects, and CSR isconsidered an effective tool for enhancing competitiveness and brand value of an enterprise. The
issue of disaster reduction has become one of the significant CSR activities enterprises are supposed
to commit themselves to. This section describes the general trends in the commitment of theJapanese private enterprises to disaster prevention.

1)

Council for Private Enterprises and Disaster Prevention
Traditionally, the priority in corporate disaster reduction activities was given to protecting
enterprises themselves from disasters. Private-sector disaster prevention activities not only
include in-house disaster reduction measures of individual enterprises, but also carry an
important role in the enhancement of community disaster reduction capabilities. Therefore, in
December 2002, the “Deliberative Council on the Corporate Involvement in Disaster
Prevention” chaired by the Minister for Disaster Management was established to consider
how private enterprises should commit themselves to disaster reduction activities. After three
sessions of discussion, the Council compiled a report in April 2003. The report is outlined asfollows:
Outline of the “Deliberative Council on the Corporate Involvement
in Disaster Reduction” Report
I. Community Disaster Management and Private Enterprises(1) Contribution to local communities during disasters(2) Cooperation with local governments in disaster response
II. Corporate Involvement in the Creation of Disaster-Resistant Neighborhoods(1) Enhancement of community disaster management capabilities through cooperation among
enterprises in the same vicinity(2) Promotion of active participation of enterprises in the creation of disaster-resistantneighborhoods
III. Application of the Market Power to the Enhancement of Disaster Management Capabilities(1) Promotion of “disaster reduction mark labels” and disaster-resilient designs(2) Proposals for the introduction of “Disaster Accounting System”
IV. Corporate Disaster Risk Management(1) Groundworking for establishment of Business Continuity Programs (BCP)(2) Proposals for a Japan-originated international standards for disaster risk management
It is one of the important responsibilities of private enterprises to ensure the safety of theiremployees and customers, to maintain and continue their business activities, and tocontribute to social and economic stabilization. Private enterprises are expected to use theirorganizational resources to support local disaster prevention activities. Also are desired
development of disaster reduction goods and systems as well as establishment andimplementation of disaster reduction capability assessment standards and incentives topromote such efforts. In addition, enterprises are expected to transform themselves andbecome able to cope with a wider range of risks through development of disaster
reduction-centered risk management techniques and introduction of disaster risk

１２０

4. Promoting Cooperation in Disaster Reduction

management systems.

2)Statement of the Japan Federation of Economic Organizations: “Toward
Construction of a Disaster-Resilient Society”
In July 2002, The Japan Federation of Economic Organizations compiled and published awritten opinion report titled “Toward Construction of a Disaster-Resilient Society,” the basic
ideas of which are that one of the top priority issues of Japan is to make it earthquake-resilient,and that natural disaster risk management provides the foundation of the “Attractive-Japan
Initiative” described in “New Vision” of the Japan Federation of Economic Organizations(released in May 2002). The report stressed the importance of the cooperation among private
enterprises, the government, NGOs and so on to minimize damages from natural disasters
such as large-scale earthquakes, and emphasized that the top management should take thelead in efforts of corporate involvement in disaster reduction activities. The outline of thereport is as follows:
Written Opinion Report from the Japan Federation of Economic Organizations“Toward the Creation of a Disaster-Resilient Society – Agendas for Private Enterprises”
I. Expectations for Private Enterprises
Enterprises should support the enhancement of disaster reduction capabilities of local
communities in addition to in-house disaster reduction efforts
II. In-house Efforts(1) Enterprises should introduce practical measures based on damage estimates.
(2) Enterprises should study strategies for quick recovery of economic activities.
III. Contribution to SocietyEnterprises should strengthen their mutual ties and their relationships with local
governments, and community organizations. Enterprises should use their human andmaterial resources to contribute to the enhancement of disaster reduction capabilities of
local communities.
There are also remarks on “Requests to the Government,” “Construction of Collaborativeand Complementary Relationship with NPOs,” and “Inter-Economic Federation Cooperationin Support to Disaster-Struck Areas.”

This written opinion report is a proposal for private enterprises’ commitment to CSR at
home. However, it is considered necessary that Japanese companies abroad should contributeto local communities on similar principles. Support to community activities and social
contribution are naturally expected of Japanese companies abroad as part of their corporatesocial responsibility.

4-3-2. Japanese Enterprises in Asian Countries and their
Commitment to Local Disaster Prevention Activities
It is considered that Japanese enterprises operating overseas should carry their share of
responsibility in disaster reduction as they do at home. Commitment to disaster reduction is an
expected part of corporate social responsibility overseas as well.
Currently, approximately 400 Japanese enterprises consisting mainly of large-size corporations areoperating in Asian countries. It is assumed that these companies are involved in wide ranges of local
social contribution activities.
After a temporary hiatus in the expansion of Japanese companies into overseas markets following
the collapse of Bubble Economy, the number of Japanese companies operating overseas peaked
during the China investment boom from 1994 to 1996. Then, however, the Asian Monetary Crisis in

１２１

4. Promoting Cooperation in Disaster Reduction

1997 deteriorated the profitability of foreign investment and caused a mass pullout of Japanesecompanies – a trend still ensuing. The ongoing restructuring of business operations triggered by thedeterioration of balance sheets due to the slow domestic economy and intensifying international
competition is also responsible for the pullout of Japanese enterprises. A size-based analysis ofJapanese companies that withdrew during the last three years reveals that approximately 85 % ofthem were locally incorporated subsidiaries of large-size companies with capitals exceeding 1 billion.
The fact that many large enterprises that can supposedly afford local and social contribution havepulled out and most of the remaining enterprises are small- or medium-size companies suggest thatnot many Japanese companies abroad can afford involvement in disaster reduction activities as partof their contribution to local communities. However, this does not necessarily mean that Japaneseenterprises operating abroad are reluctant to contribute to the promotion of disaster reducion
activities. Many overseas subsidiaries of Japanese companies provide financial and material support
through the parent companies to overseas disasters. For example, when the Southwest IranEarthquake occurred in December 2003, the Japan Federation of Economic Organizations led its
member companies to make donations for the affected areas.
The current domestic and overseas economic environments are quite hostile to Japaneseenterprises, and it is obvious that these circumstances still make it difficult for Japanese enterprises tomake social contribution including disaster reduction activities. Fewer large companies stay andoperate at the same location for a long time. This situation is considered to be a factor that stalls
contributory activities of Japanese enterprises abroad.
To promote business-sector involvement in disaster reduction activities in future, it is necessarythat enterprises will enhance their own financial prowess to the degree that they can affordcommitment to such activities. While individual enterprises are supposed to participate in disaster
reduction activities as part of their CSR on their own initiative, it is also true that the current
economic situation makes it impossible to count on enterprises for voluntary efforts. It may benecessary to introduce incentive measures to encourage corporate involvement in disaster reduction
activities.

4-3-3. Model Cases of Business Sector Commitment to Disaster
Prevention Activities in Asia
This section outlines several presentations on cases of corporate involvement in disaster reduction
activities from the “International Conference on Total Disaster Risk Management 2003” held on
December 2 -4, 2003.

1)

A Case in the Philippines
Mr. Albert Aldeba Lim (President of the Corporate Network for Disaster Response）～ The role of Private Sector in Disaster Preparedness and Response ～○ The Formation of the Corporate Network for Disaster Response(The 1990 Luzon Earthquake and Private Sector
Commitment）
The July 16, 1990 Magnitude 7.2 Luzon earthquake was a catalyst for the deeper
involvement of the private-business sector in disaster management. There were 1,666 deaths,
about 1,000 persons were reported missing, and over 3,000 were injured. Most casualties
occurred in Baguio City and surroundings. The rainy season, which began soon after thetremor, produced new casualties
The business sector mobilized relief and rehabilitation resources. The resources mobilized
went beyond cash, medicine, blankets, and old clothes. Corporate aircraft as well as
ten-wheelers and communication facilities were deployed free of charge. Search and rescue
groups from among the mining companies were pressed into service. Teams of
psychiatrist-trained groups were organized to handle psycho-social needs. In the succeeding
months, after an assessment of the economic and infrastructural damages, the private sector

１２２

4. Promoting Cooperation in Disaster Reduction

again dug into its collective pocket to fund rehabilitation activities.
Two months after the earthquake, the Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP), a
leading social development NGO whose members are philanthropic corporations, organized ameeting of several companies who had responded to review the lessons from the earthquake
which include:• the value of an effective relief delivery system,• the proper role of the media, and• the importance of timeliness and appropriateness of response
These learnings laid the foundation for the creation of the Corporate Network for Disaster
Response (CNDR). CNDR is today a formal voluntary alliance of private corporations,business associations, and corporate foundations operating in the Philippines. Since its
creation, the business sector’s involvement in mobilization of relief and response resources
has been institutionalized. Disaster response is now regarded as an extension of its corporate
philanthropy. CNDR is a regular member of the Technical Working Group and Relief andRehabilitation Committee of the National Disaster Coordinating Council of the Philippines(or NDCC). NDCC has made the following proposals to CNDR:• Provision of telecommunications equipment during disasters,• Utilization of aircraft for emergency response and rapid damage assessment,• Provision of warning advisories, bulletin boards, and other signboards in
pre-identified hazardous areas,• Designation of fund raising and donation centers in banks, and shopping malls.
• Extension of rehabilitation efforts to include income generating projects andhousehold livelihood programs, and• Production and dissemination of advocacy messages on emergency preparedness
and public safety.
○ Lessons from CNDR’s Experiences
The Corporate Network for Disaster Response believes that the business sector should
assume a risk management posture as an extension of their business strategy, which also
includes corporate social responsibility. CNDR has thus been involved in roles which areconsidered pioneering in this part of the world. These are:• Testing New Approaches: The Bayanihan Program of Prevention, Mitigation,
Preparedness (“Bayanihan” means “Philippinos working together.”)
The business sector constantly seeks opportunities for innovation. The four
year Bayanihan Program implemented by CNDR with support from USAID isa successful prototype on prevention-mitigation and preparedness where
various sectors (government, NGOs, business sector, the academe, and local
communities) are involved.
• Stakeholders Networking and Advocacy
As an extension of its corporate practices, the business sector is adept at
networking, alliance building, lobbying, and advocacy. In the Philippines, CNDR
has established partnership with non-government organizations, local
government units, the leagues of local governments (municipalities, cities, andprovinces) and the National Disaster Coordinating Council. One important rolethat the private sector performs is advocating improvements on disastermanagement policies and actions. Happily, the receptiveness of policy makers toproposed reforms has been gratifying.
• Public Education: Support to Hazard Awareness
The Corporate Network For Disaster Response also performs a public
education role through the media, some of whom are also members of CNDR. It
had worked with the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology

１２３

4. Promoting Cooperation in Disaster Reduction(PHIVOLCS), PAGASA and the National Disaster Coordinating Council inseveral public awareness programs such as the Science and Technology Caravan
and various seminars on earthquake preparedness.
• Building Disaster Resistant Communities
Encouraged by the success of the Bayanihan PMP, CNDR would like to beengaged in new programs to build disaster resistant communities. CNDR and its
partner NGOs and local government units have agreed to continue working at thevillage level. This time the focus would be reducing vulnerability of livelihood
on which the community depends. The business sector will provide the technicaladvisory role on livelihood risk management. It is envisioned that approaches
would be tested and documented and when successful, the experiences could be
replicated.
○ Conclusion: Risk management makes money and sense.
The uncertainty of predicting the occurrence of large earthquakes should not be taken as an
excuse for inaction. The growing involvement of the business sector in disaster response is ameasure of the broadening areas of pursuit of corporate social responsibility. As we haveattempted to prove, to any effective business leader, risk management makes money andsense.

2)

A Case in India
Mr. Pawan D. Kant (Hindustan Construction Company Ltd.）～ Partnership with the Private Sector in Promotion of Total Disaster Risk
Management (TDRM) ～○ Background
It was during the Gujarat Earthquake on January 26, 2001 that a request came to thecorporate office of Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. The request was from the project
office of one of its construction projects located in Gujarat. The request was to rush inadditional resources for rescue works. At that very moment, the Chairman of HCC wasparticipating in the annual World Economic Forum’s Engineering & Construction Governors
meet. It was the first attempt for networking and mobilizing resources for response functions.
Disaster Resource Network was conceived. During the relief operations, HCC and othercontacting companies had deployed heavy engineering equipment, skilled manpower, andengineers to facilitate the efforts. Besides, the entire cadre of its officers and employees
donated a minimal days wage as a token of support. DRN-India was formally established in
November 2002.
○ The concept of DRN
DRN is a network of companies committed to assist Government & humanitarianorganizations in their disaster management efforts by providing infrastructure related
engineering, construction, transportation, and logistics services. The objective is not tocompete with or replicate existing services, but rather to complement, support and enhancethe efforts of Government and NGOs.
○ Is there SPACE for the corporate to participate?
To enable any stakeholder to willfully contribute in disaster management, it is necessary todetail out with clarity the role expected of them. This clarity is necessary for the stakeholder(here the corporate) as well as organizations that intend to collaborate them. With this

１２４

4. Promoting Cooperation in Disaster Reduction

intention, DRN-India embarked on conducting a study across various states of India(especially Orissa and Gujarat) across a broad spectrum of stakeholders from Government(central, state as well as the community level), NGO. International Organizations, Corporatecompanies, individual volunteers as well as the affected victims of disasters. Responses
obtained thru interviews and field studies on ways the corporate sector can contribute inDisaster Management. The study helped in identifying which of the thirty-four categories ofdisaster (as detailed in the National Disaster Plan of the High Powered Committee in India)
the private sector could participate with its resources. The study went on to detail out
resources (both tangibles as well as intangibles), which Construction & Logistics industry canoffer in a disaster response function.
Corporate from these industries can volunteer skilled resources viz.:• Engineers (structural, civil, mechanical, electrical, water and sanitation,
telecommunications)• Technicians• Operators• Skilled workers (masons, carpenters, welders, cutters)
A few core functions where the resources are most useful:• Damage assessment of infrastructure (e.g. advising on bracing/barricading adamaged structure)• Emergency establishment of infrastructure (e.g. setting up of camps, sanitary block,water treatment plants, DG power sets, etc)
• Supply chain management (e.g. inventory management of humanitarian assistancereceived)• Logistics management (establish warehouses, fleet management, obtaining
necessary clearances between inter-states for rapid deployment of resources)• The resources could play crucial role in supplementing the efforts of damage
assessment• Project Management & Project planning assistance to the local Government/NGO’s:
Project Managers have an intricate skill of working under harsh terrains. This skill
could be effectively utilized in providing assistance to effectively plan and monitor
the mobilization of resources at the requisite areas○ The way forward
The corporate sector is an equally important stakeholder in disaster management efforts.
They need to be encouraged to participate. However, it is important to recognize theirpriorities and within this ambit encourage participation.
<Reference>
For details of Disaster Resource Network India (DRN-India), visit the following website:
http://www.hccindia.com/flash/drnindiainitiative.htm

The common theme of the two cases above is that private enterprises made efforts to establish a
network for collective action rather than make individual commitment. In the Philippines, involvementof enterprises in various industries allows each enterprise to participate in activities in its own
specialized field. In India, construction companies took the initiative in the establishment of the
network, which is characterized by the fact that the key players of its activities are volunteers who are
specialist employees of enterprises. It is often the case that involvement of private enterprises indisaster recovery activities is inefficient with no coordination among them. In both Philippines’ andIndia’s cases above, the secretariat of the network coordinates activities of different organizations inorder to facilitate efficient recovery. These cases would serve as a model for private-sector
involvement in recovery support activities.
In addition, the World Economic Forum (WEF), which is well-known as Davos Forum, also plays

１２５

4. Promoting Cooperation in Disaster Reduction

an important role in disaster reduction activities. Founded in 1971, WEF is an independent
organization institutionalized as a Swiss NPO with more than 1,200 corporate and organizational
members. Every year, from the end of January through the beginning of February, WEF convenes theannual general assembly (a.k.a. “Davos Forum”) in Davos village, Graubunden Canton, Switzerland.
The distinction of this forum is that it has participation not only from top managements of private
enterprises around the world but also from senior government and international organization officials.
With occasional head-of-state level participants, the forum has great international influence. In 2001, it
happened that Davos Forum was held when an earthquake hit the Gujarat state of India. The
participants of the Forum provided humanitarian relief support to India. This event served as a catalyst
for the creation of Disaster Resource Network (DRN). Since then, every time a large-scale disaster
happens, DRN provided human and material support from its corporate and organizational members toaffected areas. DRN is a WEF’s executive organization for disaster reduction, whose international
corporate network consists of corporate members in engineering, construction, logistics, andtransportation industries. DRN was founded in order to support humanitarian relief organizations at
the time of emergency. The main activities of DRN include:• Setting up collection and distribution centers for relief supplies in affected areas to facilitatesmooth delivery of material supplies,• Establishing and maintaining human networks with people influential in routine local disasterprevention activities to make arrangements for effective relief delivery during disasters,• Preparing manuals and providing training programs to enable employees of member enterprises
to work efficiently as relief volunteers, and• Regularly compiling databases of regulatory information and proper procedures to eliminate thepossibility that laws, regulations, and contracts may delay disaster responses.
To give a recent example, in December 2003 when an earthquake occurred in the Bam region in
Iran, DRN sent as much as 75 tons of relief supplies, dispatched coordinators specialized inemergency relief activities in affected areas, and let emergency relief organizations use its satellite
communications equipment. At the request from DRN, the Indian disaster resource network mentioned
above (DNR-India) took advantage of its geographical location and dispatched a search-and-rescue
specialist team to Iran as soon as several hours after the earthquake occurred. This can be said to be acase where an international corporate disaster reduction network functioned organically andefficiently.
(World Economic Forum website on DRN:
http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Disaster+Resource+Network）
In February 2004, a conference of the International Emergency Management Society (TIEMS) was
held in South Korea. TIEMS is an NPO founded in the United States in 1993 in order to apply modern
risk management techniques and cutting-edge technologies to reduce disaster damages. Of its
activities, TIEMS places a particular focus on Business Continuity Program (BCP), which was
discussed by Japan’s “Deliberative Council on the Corporate Involvement in Disaster Prevention”
discussed and is to be further discussed as part of risk management Japanese enterprises should work
on. The conference was co-hosted by the ROK National Institute for Disaster Prevention (NIDP), andthe BCP Forum, TIEMS’ proxy in South Korean. The conference discussed a diverse and wide range
of issues including systems, measures, and methods to help disaster-struck governments or enterprises
to pull themselves together for early resumption of their activities, emergency information andtelecommunications systems using satellites, and warning systems incorporating latest technologies.
As a bridge between the Government and the business sector, the BCP Forum, which co-hosted theconference, takes the initiative for business continuity programs in disasters.
(BCP Forum website: http://www.bcp.or.kr/)

１２６

4. Promoting Cooperation in Disaster Reduction

4-3-4. Business Sector Commitment to Disaster Reduction andRisk Management
1)

Global Trend in Risk Management
Most types of disasters are rare phenomena that only occur infrequently. This is the main
factor that makes it difficult to learn much about them. In other words, the scarcity ofopportunities to learn through experiences leads to ambiguous or biased awareness of disasterrisks. Under such circumstances, introduction of risk management techniques is an effectivemeans for promoting business-sector involvement in disaster prevention.
Private enterprises are now facing the globalization of the world economy, and the emergenceof a borderless market. In order to cope with these circumstances, it has become necessary for
private enterprises to introduce international risk management systems.
In order to promote international trade, ISO has already started to consider creatinginternational standards as a means of removing obstacles to trade activities. It was agreed tostart with the preparation of documents on risk management terminology, and Japan took thelead in the compilation of “ISO/IEC Guide73: Risk management - Vocabulary - Guidelines foruse in standards.”
The global trend in risk management is summarized below.

１２７

4. Promoting Cooperation in Disaster Reduction

Table 4-3-4-1 Major Risk Management Standards in the WorldCountry

Australia &New Zealand

CanadaUnitedKingdom

Japan

Name

OutlineCharacteristics

AS/NZS
4360:1999

Provides specifications on risk management,
consisting of the following components:• A system that executes risk management,• Background to the introduction of a risk
management system,• Identification of risks that can be significant for an
organization,• Analysis and assessment of identified risks,• Deliberations on measures for risks,• A mechanism for monitoring risks,• A mechanism for reviewing risk management
programs, and• Measures for raising awareness among members of
the organization, education and training, andenhancement of risk management capabilities.

• The world’s first risk
management systemdeveloped in 1995.
Revised in 1999.
• Regarded as
indispensable for risk
management in strategicplanning by organizations
and enterprisemanagement.
• There is a move toglobalize this standard.

Was established as “guidelines for decision-makers,”
whose purposes are:• Identification of risks of all types by thedecision-maker,• Application to analysis, assessment and control,and• Provision of a comprehensive decision- making
process•A risk management
system developed in 1997.
• These guidelines define
the purpose of risk
management as“identifying great risks andtaking appropriate
measures to minimize therisks to the reasonably
achievable extent.

“Risk management for corporate governance.”
Explains how strategic risk management should be
implemented. Introduces a procedural flow
consisting of “risk investigation” → “identificationof risks” → “implementation and continuation ofnecessary measures” and the final “reporting.”• Developed by British
Standard Institution in2000• Regarded as apreliminary standard usedduring the development ofa full-fledged risk
management system.

“Guidelines for constructing risk management
systems,” whose purpose is protecting private
enterprises from incidents and accidents to reduce
their impacts on society. These guidelines include:• Framework (Creation of an organization)• Policies (action guidelines, basic objectives)• Planning (risk analysis, assessment, goal-setting,measures)• Implementation (operation and management)• Correction and improvement of the system• Review by the CEO of the organization, and• Scheme and mechanism for maintaining the system• Established as a JIS
standard in 2001.
• Applicable not only toprivate enterprises, butalso to public and privateorganizations.
• Helps to construct risk
management systems on
the basis of the same
management system as
ISO 9000 and ISO 14000.

CAN/CSAQ850-97PD
6668:2000

JIS Q 2001

１２８

4. Promoting Cooperation in Disaster Reduction

United States

NFPA 1600

Regarded as “Standards for disaster reduction andbusiness continuation programs” for publicorganizations and the private sector. Broadly divided
into
three
sections:“Outline,”“Program
management,” and “Program components.” The third
section “Program components” include:• Identification of disasters,• Disaster analysis,• Risk assessment,• Communications and warnings,• Procedures, logistics, and equipment for emergency
activities,• Risk communication• Education and Training• Developed in 1995 by
the National Fire
Prevention Association(NFPA) of the UnitedStates, and approved as an
American standard in
2000.
• The one and only risk
management system(program) specifically fordisaster prevention.
• Views disasterprevention not just as
countermeasures against
disaster but also as ameans of ensuring business
continuity.
• To be revised in 2004
with the inclusion ofanother article “Mutual
Assistance.”

Moreover, EU has a plan to develop risk management standards for disaster prevention in
Mediterranean countries.

2)

Remaining Tasks
The time has come that private enterprises must consider risk management as part of business
management. It may not be too much to say that risk management is business management per
se. In particular, introduction of a risk management approach to disaster reduction is consideredvery effective not only for earthquake-proofing of building and equipment, establishment ofdisaster response organizations, preparation of manuals, and enhancement of other tangible
measures, but also for raising disaster reduction awareness in the entire workforce from the top
management down to the rank and file employees. Moreover, it will be more necessary forenterprises to develop and maintain partnership and cooperation with a wide spectrum of
stakeholders outside the business sector, including local populations, municipalities, customers,
stockholders, and NGOs. Risk management techniques will provide an effective tool forestablishing such relationships. In actual application of risk management techniques, however,costs occur. This makes it difficult for the business sector to integrate disaster risk management
into its culture overnight. To promote introduction of disaster risk management in the businesssector, it will be necessary to create a framework that encourages enterprises to take disaster
reduction measures to win social respect, and introduce incentive measures, such as state
support and subsidy systems, should be introduced.
Risk management standards such as JIS Q 2001 do not include articles specifically relating todisaster reduction. It is desired to develop a risk management standard dedicated to disaster
reduction.
JIS Q 2001 is no more than a local standard of Japan, not an international standard. From now
onwards, Japan should make efforts to develop and turn excellent standards into global
standards comparable to ISO 9000 or ISO 14000. Currently, AS/NZS 4360 developed byAustralia and New Zealand is gradually winning a wider international recognition. While it istrue that Australia and New Zealand suffer natural disasters such as droughts, wind and flood
damages, and earthquakes (only in New Zealand), neither of them has experienced even asingle disaster of extreme magnitude. Japan has experienced more devastating damages fromlarger-scale disasters than either of the two countries, and applied lessons from theseexperiences to post-disaster reconstructions and rehabilitations. This would give a good reason
to globalize a Japan-originated risk management standard. It is desired that all the stakeholders
will take the lead in winning international recognition of a Japanese risk management standard.

１２９