The Countries Most at Risk for Energy Security

Achieving a stable energy supply in times of political upheaval, overpopulation, dwindling traditional resources and a transition to a low carbon world is downright challenging. And for some countries that challenge seems nearly impossible, according to risk analyst firm Maplecroft, which rated the following countries at “extreme risk” for energy security:

  1. Sierra Leone
  2. Gambia
  3. Guinea-Bissau

The area is commonly known for severe political conflicts, corruption and frequent violence, which further weakens already-fragile communities and governments. In the case of the one country most at risk for energy security, Maplecroft found that:

Sierra Leone emerged from a decade of civil war in 2002 and despitereconstruction efforts and recent economic growth, it is the worst performing country in the Energy Security Index (short term). Sierra Leone was also categorized as extreme risk in the 2011 Energy Security Index (short term). Nearly 10 years after the end of the war only 10% of the country’s population has access to electricity and the supply is erratic and limited to major towns. This highlights the lasting effect that conflict can have on the energy security and infrastructure in vulnerable nations.

But these West African countries are not the only ones at risk for energy security.

buy advair rotahaler online cosmeticdentistrywilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/advair-rotahaler.html no prescription pharmacy

Most of the G-7 nations are included in the short-term “high risk” category, including Italy, Japan, UK, Germany, France and the USA.

The world’s second largest consumer of energy, the USA, rates as ‘high risk’ in the short-term, primarily because of the high imports of fossil fuels and electricity needed to support its colossal demand for energy. The largest percentage of US oil imports come from Middle Eastern countries – leaving the country at continual high risk of supply interruption and price shocks.

buy finasteride online cosmeticdentistrywilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/finasteride.html no prescription pharmacy

In 2008, the US imported an average of 12.9 million barrels of oil per day, which represents 15.10% of world production in that year, with 23.36% coming from the MENA region.

Canada is the only G-7 nation rated as “low risk,” most likely because of the country’s abundant energy production and exporting business, coupled with its wealth of energy expertise, science and technology.

Japan’s ranking as “high risk” was due to many factors, including the earthquake and tsunami in March, which severely damaged the country’s ability to generate energy.

There is a silver lining, however, as Prime Minister Naoto Kan recently unveiled plans to bring down the cost of solar power generation by 2010 and to install solar panels in 10 million Japanese homes.

The Gulf Oil Spill: One Year Later

One year ago today, there was an explosion on BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico that ignited a fire that killed 11 workers. The inferno blazed for two more days before the giant metal structure succumbed, collapsing to the seabed and triggering the largest environmental disaster in the history of the United States.

We didn’t know the full extent of the spill for a few more weeks, but now that we do, we will be spending years trying to learn all the lessons of this horrible catastrophe.

Today, on the anniversary of what started it all, I spoke about the fallout of the Gulf spill with Bob Glasser, or as he’s better known in the industry, “BI Bob,” managing director and head of the business interruption and insurance claims practice at BDO Consulting.

Oil on a beach in Gulf Shores, Alabama, June 12, 2010

Jared Wade: What was your immediate reaction last April when you actually started to understand the gravity of the Deepwater Horizon explosion?

Bob Glasser: We thought that due to an explosion on the oil rig, there would have been a property damage that could have been a peril that would have triggered a lot of insurance claims under contingent business interruption. Everyone thought that was the tie-in to trigger their policies. But apparently, I mean I have to be frank, I have not been involved in one insurance claim associated with this catastrophic event — which is just unbelievable. I’ve only been involved with filing business claims against the Gulf Coast Claims Facility.

Many companies, the big hotel chains, for example, had coverage for all this, but their policies didn’t respond due to exclusions. When you’re dealing with your major hotel chains that have extremely sophisticated manuscript policies, I’ve spoken with them and we’re all scratching our head about how they could have had different language in their policy that would have covered this. It just ended up being not a coverable event — as was the volcanic eruption [last summer]. It was a catastrophe in itself that ended up being a non-coverable event because there was no property damage and there were no real triggers that gave rise to getting coverage for a business interruption loss.

Two unique situations within one year that no one would have ever anticipated and, yet, the insurance industry went unscathed.

Wade: Would you say then that this is a wake-up call for risk managers to some of these so-called “black swan” events? The main thing with insurance is that it gives you the peace of mind that if something goes wrong, you have a policy for that. But if two things can happen in one year where the language is such that it isn’t covered even though it was related to perils you thought you had coverage for, doesn’t that stress that risk managers need to be a little more creative in negotiations to get better language?

Glasser: Correct. Broader language and possibly fewer exclusions — going to, perhaps, a more “all risk”-type policy. And for all we know, policies in 2011 and 2012 will, in certain industries, have language dealing with volcanic eruption and how their policy will respond to it. If you’re willing to pay a premium to transfer the risk associated with loss of business — you always have to balance how much the premium is worth to transfer that risk to someone else — if companies deem that that balance is worth it, insurance companies surely will contemplate and look into covering that event.

Same thing with the Gulf oil spill. There may be broader language in future policies to talk about oil spills. Because when people contemplated pollution exclusions, they were really thinking more of sewage or other things happening over time. Because the impact on tourism wasn’t an “event,” it got excluded. But [the Gulf spill] was certainly an event on one day where, all of the sudden over a number of months, millions of gallons of oil went to the Gulf coast.

So you could have a redefinition of what is a covered peril with either broader language or specific language that addresses an oil spill and a volcanic eruption. And then, when the next unusual thing comes about, there will be an extension of a coverage covering that next unique thing.

Wade: So it almost seems that these insurance policies are sort of standing on the shoulders of what came before them? These events are unforeseeable as far as falling under a broad coverage that a lot of companies would have demand for. So when something strange happens, it sort of wakes everyone up?

Glasser: Certainly. Look at 9/11. And also what is happening in the Middle East and Northern Africa. Who would have thought so many countries within such short a period of time would have such political unrest and try to overthrow the leader in power. So it may open up the eyes of many different companies that may not have cared about political risk insurance. But now, maybe they get products from Egypt. Maybe they get products from Saudi Arabia — other than oil. And maybe they need coverage now. So, yes, as things happen, coverage evolves and capacity opens up to cover insureds with a desire to buy insurance.

Wade: So then does it behoove risk managers to try to think ahead to foresee everything that could possibly go wrong and then get that coverage before it becomes in demand? You could try to negotiate any coverage at any time, right? It’s only once everyone else catches on that it’s going to become expensive.

Glasser: Correct. It always makes sense. And this is where the risk manager has evolved into a much more important role in corporations and organizations. It’s not strictly looking at whether property gets damaged or if someone sues me for D&O coverage or if somebody slips and falls. The risk manager understands, through discussions with their broker, the plethora of coverage available. So it behooves the risk manager to be the facilitator within an organization. To meet with financial management, operational management, logistics management and all the key areas of an organization [and become] the central focus for determining “What happens here? What happens if this goes wrong? What if this happens?”

I recommend to my clients to have these discussions, in major meetings, about whether or not anyone has ever thought about what happens if this one key component becomes unavailable? Or something happens to the shipping lanes in Japan? Or there’s a shortage of containers? Or there’s a Middle East war? Whatever it is, and it may sound silly, but when you come up with the most obscure type of event, you may come up with some very good discussions among senior management as to how you handle it.

Wade: Would you say, then, that the primary duty of the risk management profession now is to not necessarily be the person that can look at all the known perils and find a way to mitigate them but to be a person who can be more of a creative thinker and connect the dots?

Glasser: Absolutely correct. He needs to be a creative thinker to get the strategic and, I’ll say, “catastrophic” thought process going in senior management of an organization so they all think out of the box about what could happen. And that includes thinking about what could happen to your suppliers.

You might not have any physical damage. You could be one big, very-large manufacturer or distributor in the U.S. and you’re not prone to earthquakes, to hurricanes, to tornadoes. You’re not near a river so you’re not going to have flooding. But you source components across the world so now you have to think about what could happen to my major suppliers. Because they’re in Japan. They’re in the Middle East. They’re in Haiti. Wherever. So you need to not only think of you and what could go wrong; you need to get senior management to think about what could happen to your suppliers.

And then on the other hand, you need senior management to think about what could happen to your customers.

If you’re a chemical manufacturer and 40% of your chemicals go into one industry or one customer, you need to think about, what if something happens to that customer? What’s that going to do to my business? If you sell to Walmart — Walmart’s huge, it’s the largest retailer out there — what if something happens to Walmart? Your stream of customers just dried up. It’s probably an unlikely case because nothing’s going to happen to Walmart, but my point is that the risk manager’s role has become more and more important and valued within the C-suite, if you will.

Wade: After the Gulf oil spill, I remember reading about how seafood companies, and even restaurants and commercial fishermen, up in Maine and Massachusetts were dealing with the fallout. It seems that everything has shockwaves now.

Glasser: I’m working with a major food distributor where we were helping them to determine, identify and quantify lost margins due to seafood sales. Not that their seafood sales decreased dramatically, but their profitability decreased dramatically because there was a substantial increase in seafood costs that they couldn’t pass along to customers.

The reality of it is that it did have a global effect. It also had a global effect in tourism. I know in dealing with some major hotels on the west coast of Florida, they had conversations with travel brokers and agents who basically told them that foreign travelers just presumed that all of Florida was covered with oil. And they just said “we’re not going to vacation there this year.”

There were just so many ramifications to what happened in the Gulf Coast.

Child Labor: A Reputation Armageddon

For the most part, a company never anticipates its suppliers will be using child labor to provide a product, but for many large corporations with production facilities or suppliers in poorer countries, that is exactly what is, and has been, happening. And the reputation damage inflicted by accusations that a company uses child labor to make a profit, even if unaware, is devastating.

You may remember back in 2007 when Gap came under fire for, apparently unknowingly, using child labor in the production of a line of children’s clothing in India. An investigative reporter videotaped the scene at the factory.

It shows children who appeared to be between the ages of 10 and 13, stitching embroidered shirts in a crowded, dimly lit work-room. The video clearly shows a Gap label on the back of each garment. The reporter, Dan McDougall, said the children were working without pay as virtual slaves in filthy conditions, with a single, backed-up latrine and bowls of rice covered with flies. They slept on the roof, he said.

Though Gap immediately ordered a full evaluation and had a clean record of ethical out-sourcing up until that point, the reputation damage was severe and lingers to this day.

But Gap is not the only company accused of using child labor. In 1998 Nike agreed to root out underage workers and require overseas suppliers to meet strict Unites States health and safety standards after it received heavy pressure from critics.

Nike said it would raise the minimum age for hiring new workers at shoe factories to 18 and the minimum for new workers at other plants to 16, in countries where it is common for 14-year-olds to hold such jobs. It will not require the dismissal of underage workers already in place.

Though the shoe and apparel giant took some steps to ease the concerns of critics, the company suffered boycotts by consumers who refused to support such “sweatshops.” Examples include this boycott petition and this website encouraging the end of support for anything Nike.

More recently, Apple “said it found more than a dozen serious violations of labor laws at its suppliers.” One investigation found that three overseas facilities had hired 11 workers who were 15 years old (the minimum employment age is 16 in those countries). Apple’s reputation damage continued to worsen this year with news of an alarming rate of suicides at its biggest supplier, China’s Foxconn (check out an in-depth article on the topic).

China, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Pakistan are among the countries with the most widespread abuses of child workers, according to a report released today by Maplecroft. Below is a map illustrating the ares most prone to use of child labor.

Screen shot 2010-12-01 at 11.24.01 AMAs the report states, there are more than 200 million children working throughout the world, many full-time. Of these, 126 million are exposed to hazardous forms of child labor. As we have seen, many big-name companies have been accused of using child labor, and though they’ve taken many steps to correct their ethical violations, the reputation damage still lingers — and may do so forever.

Big Companies Not Managing Water Scarcity Risks

water scarcity

Despite recent scrutiny of some large corporations that rely heavily on water resources, it seems many companies are still falling short in managing and disclosing water scarcity risks. That’s according to a recent report issued by the Ceres investor coalition, the financial services firm UBS and financial data provider Bloomberg.

The report evaluates and ranks water disclosure practices of 100 publicly traded companies in eight key sectors exposed to water-related risks. The report shows that many companies are not including material water risks and performance data in their financial filings, nor are they providing local-level water data, particularly in the context of facilities in water-stressed regions. Moreover, none of the 100 companies are providing comprehensive water data on their supply chains, an especially glaring omission given that the vast majority of many corporations’ water footprint is in the supply chain.

The report uses a scoring scale of 0 to 100 with the three highest scoring companies being UK beverage company Diageo, Swiss mining company Xstrata and U.S. electric power company Pinnacle West (owner of Arizona Public Service).

“Most companies provide basic disclosure on overall water use and water scarcity concerns, but their focus and attention so far is not nearly at the level needed given the enormity of this growing global challenge,” said Mindy S. Lubber, president of Ceres. “Our global economy runs on water and in many parts of the world this finite resource is under threat. Companies must do more to disclose their potential exposure from this issue and their strategies for responding.”

The report assesses companies in eight different sectors: beverage, chemicals, electric power, food, homebuilding, mining, oil and gas and semiconductors. The report found the following:

The mining sector scored highest overall, followed by the beverage industry. Companies in the homebuilding sector had the lowest overall scores.
Only 21 companies disclose targets to reduce water use, and even fewer – just 15 companies – had goals to reduce wastewater discharge.
Only 17 companies report local-level water data and only a handful provide the information in the context of operations in water stressed regions.
  • The mining sector scored highest overall, followed by the beverage industry. Companies in the homebuilding sector had the lowest overall scores.
  • Only 21 companies disclose targets to reduce water use, and even fewer — just 15 companies — had goals to reduce wastewater discharge.
  • Only 17 companies report local-level water data and only a handful provide the information in the context of operations in water stressed regions.
The findings in this report do not bode well for companies with the highest scores. Investors have been increasingly critical of companies that do not disclose environmental, social and governance risks they may face. It is nice to see that this report offers a bit of guidance for those companies wanting to be more transparent with such risks. It recommends companies:
  • include material water risk factors and performance data in their financial filings;
  • provide water performance data broken down to the facility level for operations in water-stressed regions;
  • outline actions and policies for assessing and managing water risks, including quantified targets for reducing wastewater and water use;
  • disclose how they are collaborating with stakeholders and suppliers on water risks, including setting performance goals for key supply chains;
  • outline specific strategies for developing water-related products with strong market potential in a water-constrained world.

For more about water scarcity, check out the cover story we ran in our June 2009 issue. And please, let us know how your company is managing water scarcity risks.