The Sendai Framework and business continuity

1. A continuity issue, not a new treaty

For a small business, a disaster is not over when the immediate danger passes. A damaged workspace, interrupted deliveries, lost stock or a temporary closure can keep affecting sales and cash flow. The ability to reopen depends on decisions made before the event, the speed at which support arrives, and whether the business can keep essential operations going while repairs and claims are underway.

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 gives this problem a place in the wider work of reducing disaster risk. It calls for business continuity to be incorporated into business practice, with particular attention to MSMEs. The framework is a policy direction, not a guarantee that a particular owner will receive a payment or public support by a specified date. Its relevance here is that the continuity of small businesses is part of resilience, not an afterthought once emergency response ends.¹

UNDRR’s work on small-business resilience describes the scale of the issue: SMEs bear about 75% of business disaster losses, and disaster-risk reduction can reduce losses by up to a third.¹ Those figures make a case for prevention and continuity planning alongside recovery. They do not mean every disaster can be prevented, or that every business has the same exposure or capacity to prepare.

2. What the evidence says about preparation

A Japan survey cited in UNDRR’s SME resilience report offers a concrete comparison: 8% of prepared SMEs had not recovered sales, compared with 19% of unprepared SMEs.² The difference supports the practical value of preparation. It does not establish that planning alone caused every difference in recovery, nor that the same percentages would apply in every country, sector or disaster.

That distinction matters. Small firms may face a common kind of disruption but have very different resources for responding to it. A business with a written continuity plan may still be unable to operate if its premises, suppliers or local infrastructure are unavailable. An owner may have insurance but still face a period when a claim has not been decided and ordinary income has stopped. Planning is therefore one part of resilience; timely and usable support is another.

The policy question is not simply whether owners should prepare. It is whether the support systems around them make preparation worthwhile and reopening possible. A business can take sensible steps and still need an insurer to decide a claim, or a bridge to funds while a decision is pending. The Sendai Framework’s emphasis on continuity points toward a shared task: owners, support providers and public institutions all have roles in reducing the time a business remains disrupted.

3. What Reseated’s reports show

As of 6 July 2026, the Resilience Council had 84 members from 37 countries and had received 73 reports from 35 countries. All 73 reports concerned disaster situations. The median amount at stake was approximately US$5,014. That figure is a median, not a total loss estimate or a measure of what every reporting owner lost. It is an indication of the scale at which disruption can matter to a small business.

The reports came from a range of places. The Philippines and the United States each accounted for eight reports; Japan and the United Kingdom each had five; the Netherlands had four; and Mexico, Spain and Canada each had three. These are counts of reports, not rates of disaster impact or comparisons of national risk. They should not be read as showing that one country is safer or more exposed than another. The council’s information is a set of member reports, not a representative survey of all businesses in those countries.

The reported businesses also varied in size. Forty-two percent of the reports came from owners who described their team as “just me”; 38% described teams of two to nine; 18% described teams of 10 to 49; and 1% described teams of 50 to 249. The percentages are reported as recorded in the council’s data. They show why continuity advice designed around larger organizations may not fit a business whose owner is also its entire

workforce, or one with only a small team to manage operations, communications and recovery.

There had been 38 reports in the 30 days before the data snapshot. That is a measure of recent reporting to the council, not a count of all disasters or affected businesses in that period. Taken together, the figures establish that members are reporting disruption across countries and business sizes. They do not by themselves establish the frequency of disasters across the wider economy or prove that a particular insurer, public program or other provider has acted improperly.

4. What this means in different countries

The framework offers a common direction, but recovery happens through systems that vary from place to place. Owners should not assume that a process, deadline or source of emergency support available in one country applies in another. The council’s reports span 35 countries, but they do not provide a country-by-country comparison of insurance rules, public relief programs or claim outcomes. Reseated therefore makes no such comparison in this brief.

For owners, the practical implication is to identify the local arrangements that would matter to their own business before an emergency: how to contact an insurer or other relevant provider, which records may be needed, what local emergency information to monitor, and where to check for official support. A business that operates in more than one country or relies on suppliers across borders may also need to identify which parts of its operations could be affected in different places. These are planning questions, not claims that every owner has access to the same services.

For institutions, variation is a reason to make processes understandable and usable, not a reason to leave small firms to navigate them alone. Continuity support should account for businesses with little administrative capacity and limited cash reserves. A process that assumes an owner can pause trading, assemble extensive paperwork and wait without income may be difficult to use precisely when it is most needed.

5. The Resilience Council’s position

The council’s RS-001 Reopen Standard sets out three proposed measures: insurance claims decided within 30 days; bridge funding within 10 days of a declared disaster; and continuity planning support for micro businesses. These are the council’s requested standards. They are not existing universal legal requirements, and this brief does not suggest that any particular provider has agreed to them.

The proposals address different points in the path from disruption to reopening. A decision on a claim gives an owner clarity about the insurance process. Bridge funding is intended to address the gap between a declared disaster and the point when other funds may become available. Planning support recognizes that very small businesses may need help building a workable continuity plan, rather than being handed a template designed for a larger organization. Together, the measures treat recovery as a practical sequence, not a single payment or document.

RS-001 has passed four of the council’s five pattern tests: Volume, Frequency, Consistency and Spread. Corroboration is pending. The council’s process requires reports to be examined against all five parts of the pattern test before a draft fix proceeds through consultation and an Assembly ballot. The status is important: the council has a defined proposal, but its evidentiary review is not complete. The reports are a basis for investigation and policy work, not proof of every claim about disaster recovery.

6. What owners can do before disruption

Owners can begin with a short continuity plan that answers practical questions: what activity must continue first; what could stop it; who needs to be contacted; and what would be needed to reopen. A plan need not be lengthy to be useful. It should fit the actual business, including its team size and its dependence on premises, equipment, stock, records, suppliers or particular people.

Keep essential business information where it can be found if the usual workspace or equipment is unavailable. Depending on the business, that may include contact details, key operating records, insurance information and a current inventory of important assets. Owners should check the terms and contact route for any relevant insurance or support arrangement and note what information they may need to provide. These are

general planning steps, not a promise about what a policy covers or what a claim will require.

Consider which operations could be paused, moved or carried out differently for a limited period, and which cannot. Identify important dependencies, including suppliers or services whose interruption could prevent reopening. Where possible, decide in advance who will communicate with staff, customers and suppliers if the owner is unavailable. A one-person business may need a plan that names a trusted contact; a larger small business may need to assign responsibilities across its team.

7. What owners can do during recovery

After a disaster, prioritize immediate safety and follow relevant local instructions. When it is safe and practical, keep a record of damage, interruptions and recovery-related costs, and retain communications about claims or support requests. Owners should use the reporting and assistance routes that apply locally rather than rely on assumptions drawn from another country’s process.

Keep a simple timeline of key events and decisions. If a business cannot reopen, record what is preventing it from doing so and what support has been requested. This can help an owner manage follow-up and make a clearer account of the disruption. It can also help the council understand recurring problems when members choose to report them. Reseated members are anonymous unless they choose a public seat, and members do not need to disclose the name of their business in council reporting.

Owners should avoid treating a proposed council standard as a current entitlement. RS-001 asks for defined timeframes, but it has not yet completed the council’s evidentiary process and has not been adopted by the Assembly. For any live claim or local support process, the relevant terms and rules remain those that apply in that place. The brief is intended to support preparedness and policy discussion, not to replace locally applicable advice.

8. The next step is accountable support

The Sendai Framework makes business continuity part of disaster-risk reduction. UNDRR’s evidence links preparation with better recovery outcomes, while Reseated’s reports document owners facing disaster-related disruption across many countries. Each source has limits: the framework sets a direction rather than a claim deadline; the Japan survey is not a global estimate; and the council’s reports are not a representative sample. Read together, they support a focused question: what practical help will let a small business prepare, keep operating where possible and reopen sooner?

The Resilience Council’s answer is specific: planning support for micro businesses, claim decisions within 30 days and bridge funding within 10 days of a declared disaster. The council will continue testing the reported pattern, including the pending corroboration stage. Owners can contribute by reporting their experiences and distinguishing what happened, when it happened and what was at stake. Institutions can contribute by making continuity processes clear and examining whether support reaches firms that have little time, staff or spare cash to navigate them.

Resilience is not a promise that a business will escape every loss. It is the effort to limit avoidable disruption and make recovery more possible. For the smallest firms, a useful plan and timely support can be the difference between an interruption and an extended inability to trade. The policy commitment in the Sendai Framework is meaningful only when it reaches that level of practical business continuity.

Notes and sources

1. UNDRR, “Supporting disaster risk reduction and resilience practices for small and medium-sized enterprises.”
   ^[2] UNDRR, Resilience of SMEs report, citing the Japan METI survey. ↩

Sources

1. UNDRR: Supporting disaster risk reduction and resilience practices for small and medium-sized enterprises
2. UNDRR: Resilience of SMEs report