In the climb phase in charge of the crisis i

It is approximately four years than the State, administrations and businesses are coming on their radar the risk of a pandemic. As in the past, the State services sometimes were little racers in the management of crises (especially during the heat wave of 2003), both the Government and its various services mobilized around this preparation to an inter-ministerial delegate who is unanimously. Obviously, we have this time a good pilot in the aircraft.

The scenario seems ahead is on regression of crisis by the weakness of serious cases and a slowdown of the broadcast during the summer in the northern hemisphere, followed by a very difficult period from next October.

But the action of the State, especially with regard to the very large risks, focuses on the safety of persons and health risk. In a certain way, the crisis is acute and less State just help businesses. All means are therefore concentrated on safety-health service. The direct consequence is that the responsibility of the Organization, preparation and implementation of a policy influenza pandemic in the succession of its responsible business plan legal, moral or managerial.

Only a limited number of sectors have actually worked: the Government, major centralized services, health and infrastructure companies. The latter, be they public or private, have received the instructions and the obligations to carry out active preparation campaigns internally and make the investments in human and material resources. This population is therefore the only educated one. But as soon as it left the small circle, very Parisian, the overall level of preparation collapses. Declare that "something is expected", that "in dealing" is not a guarantee of good crisis management. Leaders disbelief, context of crisis, the illusion that the State can do everything are always invoked reasons for delaying the preparation. But this is not the first time we encounter a situation of general mobilization around a major risk. We also met with these same difficulties now about 15 years ago when it came to prepare companies to the passage to the year 2000 (also found today in many teams of crisis dedicated "pandemic" of former officials year 2000).

It is interesting to the parallel. Let us remember: from 1992 to 1995, while a certain risk emerges on information systems, no management team does truly aware of the problem. From 1995 to 1997, professional associations, conducted by Cigref (computer Club of large French companies) mobilizing major groups that undertake the necessary work. The State, the trailer, launches really activity that end 1998, by the establishment of a national Committee. In the meantime, international organizations will rise (Global 2000), responsible to assess country by country preparedness to prevent any systemic risk. Financial markets will worry, regulators require listed companies to publish their status. The United Nations and the G8 will be involved. Communication campaigns will be carried out, many clubs created users, so that the diffusion of knowledge can be. The State eventually mobilize the Government on the night of December 31, 1999 at Bercy. In the end, very many incidents will be given the result, for the most part obscured by the storm of 1999. The French preparation cost of the order of EUR 10 billion. If you compare a subject national mobilization and of French companies at the time where the pandemic crisis has just burst, it is concluded that French companies are prepared "as in mid-1997. We have therefore approximately four months to catch up.

The risk is very clearly divided into two files. On the one hand, the risk the safety of employees, on the other hand the risk of business continuity. In the climb phase in charge of the crisis (i.e. today), the major risk for a company is to mount the concern of the employees who will conclude that the business is unprepared, especially comparing its actions to those of the large infrastructure companies.

In other words, if a company has not stored masks, prepared its management of human resources, provided a communication plan, thought the eventual development of some workstations, etc., it will be de facto left to develop a specific risk within the company that might support the use of the right of withdrawal. This situation is all the more alarming that Grenada has be reported by the Air France driver who refused to board the last week. There is therefore a risk activity and some areas where the interdependencies are important health risk even before there really is acutely in France. In some sectors, the preparation of certain companies posed a systemic risk.

In this situation, the companies have no choice to mobilize immediately to implement without delay management devices from responsive crisis, taking into account the health of the expectations of the staff situation, of the evolution of the regulatory context, of the markets in which operates the company. The interest of the undertakings is therefore that the level of preparation is more homogeneous. All major parties must play a role of training and accompaniment of their ecosystem. It is a matter of common sense of team spirit and of general interest.