The concept and application of resilience have been significantly expanded in the last three decades and the term is being used more and more broadly to represent a large-scale multi-disciplinary and comprehensive approach to both natural and human-related coastal issues associated with rising sea level, increased storm frequency and intensity, and human stressors. This chapter reviews the relevant findings from the recent global climate-change reports and introduces the resilience of barrier–inlet systems. In terms of the natural system, the survival of the very landform under the condition of accelerating sea-level rise is discussed via a conceptual model or a couple of numerical models. The resiliency of the human–natural barrier–inlet environment is far more complicated than just the natural system. The concepts and complicated framework outlined in the recent NRC (National Research Council) and USGCRP (US Global Climate Research Program) reports are reviewed, and illustrated with two case studies.

As the pace of climate change accelerates, the impacts of a warming world become more evident and more inevitable. Climate change multiplies and compounds stresses on human and natural systems and amplifies the risk and implications of slow- and sudden-onset disasters worldwide. Some of these risks can be avoided. Some can be alleviated. Some, however, may now or soon be unescapable. The risk continuum is shaped by the degree to which the international community mobilizes to mitigate emissions, to facilitate adaptation, and to prepare for climate-related impacts that cannot be eased or eliminated. The less we do to mitigate, adapt, and prepare, the more acute the risks of climate change become, especially in the global south and especially for already-vulnerable communities. With average global temperatures currently on track to exceed the 2°C target, climate change is expected to multiply the number of people susceptible to poverty, undermine food security, intensify heat and water stress, and increase the risks of fires, storms, flooding, landslides, and infectious and parasitic diseases. In this world of amplified risk, the lines between natural disasters and climate-related disasters blur. Even as these lines blur and the demand for improved coordination grows, critical institutional and legal disjunctions remain. Focusing on the Warsaw Mechanism for Loss & Damage, this chapter examines evolving efforts to construct a more effective and equitable rule of law and institutional framework at the intersection of climate change and disaster law.

Climate change has dramatically increased the frequency and severity of disasters including hurricanes, floods, wildfires, droughts, and pandemics. In a globally connected economy, climate-change fueled disasters disrupt supply chains and upend markets, affecting corporations no matter where they are located. From a risk-management perspective, however, climate change is just another external threat to hedge against, no different in principle than the risk that interest rates might rise or that an economic downturn could reduce the demand for a corporation’s products or services. Thus, corporations have reason to address the problem of climate change, but only to the extent that corporations can thereby produce value for their shareholders. This chapter argues, to the contrary, that climate change should trigger a compliance response. Unlike risk management, a compliance-based approach would require corporations to internalize the problem of climate change and to give it priority over competing considerations.

This chapter analyses the regulatory framework of bankers’ remuneration in the UK in response to the problems in the pre-GFC practice. It first summarises the ideological change among regulators and academics with respect to the regulation of bankers’ remuneration and concludes that maintaining financial stability and protecting the public interest are the primary objectives. The chapter then discusses the initiatives implemented by the UK banking regulators, including deferral, clawback, malus and risk-adjusted performance metrics, which are aimed at guiding banks to reform their incentive mechanisms by extending the assessment period of performance assessment and applying risk-adjusted and stability-oriented indicators. It also discusses the EU bankers’ bonus cap and the opposite stance of the UK regulators to its implementation.

Health and Safety within the perioperative area present unique challenges in terms of managing the unique hazards and risks that staff and patients can be exposed to. Hazards from lasers, electrical equipment, chemicals, moving and handling, exposure to noxious vapours and gases are just some of the common environmental risks staff are exposed to on a daily basis. This chapter focuses on putting some of the legislation and guidance into the perioperative context. One of the primary aims of the chapter is to foster a culture of appropriate risk assessment and safe practice which will reduce or minimise errors.

People seeking asylum have particular needs that affect what kind of interventions will help, and how they should be offered.

The chapter first considers unmet physical health needs and the interconnectedness of physical and mental health. The role of medication for mental health difficulties is then reviewed, with detailed attention to the choice of medication, and to the practical and psychological context of prescribing.

The authors consider when formal psychological therapy may be helpful, looking at the factors common to all therapies, and at the specific options available. NET, EMDR, trauma focussed CBT and expressive, creative and body-based therapies are reviewed, together with a discussion of other forms of therapy.

Interventions for post-migration difficulties may be both the most acceptable and the most effective. The range of these interventions is considered, including the provision of medical evidence in an asylum claim. Risk management is reviewed, with attention to safety planning, minimising the harms of immigration detention, managing the threat of removal, and preventing destitution.

In Chapter 4, we shift the focus of our analytical framework to the effect of natural disasters on subsidiary-level foreign direct investments by multinational corporations (MNCs). in this chapter we conceptually examine how natural disasters, compared to industrial disasters and terrorist attacks, shape MNCs foreign market entry and expansion. We also investigate whether MNC subsidiary-level investment is more likely to decrease in response to specific types of natural disasters that result in a higher number of fatalities. In addition, we also elaborate on how country institutional governance characteristics (i.e., regulatory quality, rule of law, democratic freedoms, political stability, and corruption levels) moderate the relationship between disasters and MNC subsidiary-level investment.

In Chapter 8, we empirically examine the research questions conceptually discussed in Chapter 5: Are MNCs able to gain experiential advantages from managing during natural disasters that enable them to enter and expand into other countries experiencing similar risks? And how do MNCs’ experiences with natural disasters compare to those associated with terrorist attacks and technological disasters? We used a panel dataset with 57,500 observations from 106 European Global Fortune 500 MNCs and their subsidiaries operating across 109 countries during a seven-year period, 2001-2007. We find that experience with high-impact natural disasters (as well as terrorist attacks, and technological disasters) can be leveraged for expansions into an existing host country but not for initial entry into other countries experiencing similar high-impact disasters. We also find that experience with low-impact natural disasters does not appear to reduce the negative effect of disaster severity on expansion (or entry). A notable exception, experience with high impact floods does show a positive and significant moderating effect on the negative link between disaster severity and MNC entry. N14:N15

In Chapter 5, we continue to develop our conceptual framework describing how MNCs’ foreign subsidiary investments are affected by natural disasters. We do so by examining whether MNCs are able to gain experiential advantages from managing through low or high impact natural disasters that enable them to enter and expand into countries experiencing similar risks. We also conceptually discuss whether advantages accruing from MNCs’ subsidiary-level experience with natural disasters are greater than those from terrorist attacks or technological disasters. Discontinuous risks, such as natural disasters that are often difficult to anticipate or predict, have received little attention in the strategic management research. Much of the research in this area has focused on firms’ experience with continuous risks, risks that are steady and more predictable in a firm’s operating environment.

In Chapter 7, we empirically test the propositions and hypotheses developed in Ch. 4. Specifically, we examine whether natural disasters, compared to other industrial disasters and terrorist attacks, affect multinational corporations (MNCs) foreign subsidiary investment. We also analyze if this effect varies in response to different sub-types of natural disasters. Then, we test if stronger institutional environments moderate the relationship between disasters and foreign subsidiary-level investment. We test our hypotheses using a panel dataset that includes 31,285 observations from 71 European Fortune Global 500 MNCs and their subsidiaries operating across 101 countries during the period 2001–2006. Our findings indicate that MNC foreign subsidiary investment is likely to decrease in response to severe terrorist attacks or technological disasters but not natural disasters, except for the case of windstorms and related water surges, the deadliest weather-related natural disasters. For natural disasters, the likelihood of MNC subsidiary-level disinvestment increased with higher host country democratic freedoms and decreased with higher host country’s regulatory enforcement quality.