Use Readable text for larger type, or zoom in on the pages.
Resilience Council
Prepared versus unprepared: the recovery gap
Why the recovery gap matters
A disaster can turn ordinary business dependencies into immediate barriers to reopening: premises, equipment, stock, communications, access to customers and the ability to pay people or suppliers. For a micro business, a disruption to one essential part of the operation may be enough to stop trading. The effects can continue after the immediate hazard has passed, while the owner waits for a claim decision, replacement equipment, repairs or working capital.
The available external evidence gives a reason to treat this as a business continuity issue, not only an emergency response issue. UNDRR reports that small and medium-sized enterprises bear about 75% of business disaster losses. It also reports that disaster risk reduction can reduce losses by up to a third.1 Those figures describe the importance of risk reduction at the level of SMEs as a group. They do not mean that every small business faces the same hazard, has the same resources or will experience the same outcome.
A Japan METI survey, summarized in the UNDRR SME resilience report, found that 8% of prepared SMEs had not recovered sales, compared with 19% of unprepared SMEs.2 This is a substantial difference in the reported shares, and it gives owners and institutions a concrete reason to consider preparation. It is not proof that preparedness by itself caused the difference: the figures do not tell us that the two groups were otherwise identical, or that their disasters and operating conditions were the same. The finding is best read as evidence consistent with a recovery benefit, not as a guarantee.
For Reseated, the policy question is therefore practical. What can an owner do before a disaster, and what should insurers, lenders, public bodies and other institutions do when one occurs? A continuity plan can help an owner identify essential operations and dependencies. But planning cannot itself repair premises, decide an insurance claim or provide the cash needed to restart. Resilience requires both preparation and a workable route through the recovery period.
What the Reseated data shows
As of 21 September 2026, the Resilience Council had 131 members in 47 countries and had received 253 reports from 48 countries. The median amount at stake in those reports was approximately US$4,525. The reports cover situations classified as disasters. In the 30 days before the data snapshot, 86 reports had been filed.[3]
The range of reported locations is one reason not to treat disaster recovery as a concern limited to a single region. The largest report counts were from the United States, with 40; the Philippines and Canada, with 18 each; Spain, with 16; the United Kingdom, with 14; Mexico, with 10; Japan, with 9; and India, with 8. These counts show where reports came from in this dataset. They do not rank countries by disaster exposure, the severity of their losses, the quality of their response systems or the proportion of businesses affected. The figures are reports submitted to Reseated, not a representative national survey.
The business-size profile also matters. Among reporting owners, 37% said they worked alone, 45% reported teams of two to nine, 15% teams of 10 to 49, and 3% teams of 50 to 249. This means that the evidence includes many businesses with very small teams, alongside larger small businesses. A recovery process that assumes a dedicated risk manager, a separate finance department or spare staff capacity may not fit the circumstances of an owner who is also responsible for daily operations.
The median amount at stake—about US$4,525—does not describe the full range of losses. A median is the midpoint of the reported amounts, not a measure of every owner’s need. Nor does it capture all the costs of interruption: lost sales, time spent handling a claim, delayed reopening or the strain of maintaining obligations while trading is disrupted. It does, however, help keep the discussion grounded in the scale of money that can matter to a small firm. For some owners, an amount that looks modest to a large institution may be central to whether they can continue operating.
These figures should be used carefully. The Council’s members and reports are not a census of small businesses in the 48 countries represented, and the dataset does not establish how many affected businesses were insured, how long recovery took, or which intervention would have changed an outcome. Its value is different: it gathers owner reports across locations and business sizes, gives the Council a basis for identifying recurring problems, and helps set priorities for further evidence and action.
What it means across countries
Owners in different countries face different hazards, institutions and routes to support. The report counts do not allow Reseated to compare those national systems or say that a business in one country will recover faster than a business in another. They do make clear that the recovery question arises across a wide set of locations, and that the same broad needs—understanding what has been damaged, keeping essential operations going and meeting immediate costs—can arise in very different settings.
In a country with a well-established insurance market, a policy may still leave an owner needing to understand exclusions, document losses or wait for a decision. In a place where suitable insurance or formal support is less accessible, the owner may have fewer routes to replace lost assets or bridge a period without sales. These are possible differences in the recovery landscape, not conclusions drawn from the country counts in this dataset. The Council’s position is that processes should be designed around the needs of micro businesses and should not assume that every owner has the same coverage, paperwork, professional advice or ability to wait.
The Japan survey is useful as a specific case, not a template for every country. Its comparison of prepared and unprepared SMEs supports asking whether continuity planning is associated with better sales recovery. It cannot tell an owner elsewhere what preparation will achieve in their particular circumstances. Nor should it shift responsibility for recovery entirely onto the owner. Preparation is one part of resilience; timely decisions and access to support are also part of the conditions in which a business attempts to reopen.
The Council’s position
The Resilience Council is developing RS-001, the Reopen Standard. Its ask is that insurance claims be decided within 30 days, bridge funding be available within 10 days of a declared disaster, and continuity planning support be provided for micro businesses. These are proposed service expectations: they set out the Council’s desired response, rather than describing existing guarantees or a rule already in force.
The timeframes reflect different points in a recovery. A claim decision within 30 days is intended to reduce uncertainty about an owner’s route to recovery. Bridge funding within 10 days of a declared disaster addresses the period when urgent costs may arise before a claim is settled or normal trading resumes. Continuity planning support recognizes that a small firm may need accessible help to identify critical operations and prepare a realistic way to keep them going. The details of how these expectations should be applied are part of the Council’s work, not assumptions that every business or disaster can be handled identically.
The Council has reported that RS-001 has passed four of the five parts of its pattern test, with corroboration still pending. The test considers Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration. That status matters: it indicates that the case is not yet complete under Reseated’s process. The Council’s position should be understood as a developing proposal, subject to the remaining evidence and the public process, rather than a final finding that all relevant cases have been established.
There is a wider principle behind the proposal. A recovery standard should not treat small firms as if they have the same reserves, staffing or ability to absorb delay as a large organization. The reported team sizes show why that matters: most reports came from owners working alone or in teams of fewer than ten. A process that depends on extensive paperwork, specialist staff or an owner being able to pause ordinary work may be difficult for the businesses it is supposed to serve.
What owners can do
Owners can begin with a short continuity check rather than waiting for a perfect plan. Identify the few activities that must continue for the business to serve customers: for instance, access to essential records, a way to communicate, key equipment, critical suppliers or a way to receive payments. Decide what could be temporarily moved, substituted or paused. The answers will differ by business; the purpose is to make dependencies visible before disruption makes every decision urgent.
Keep essential records in a form that can be reached if the usual workplace or device is unavailable. This may include contact details, insurance documents, inventories, supplier information and copies of important business records. Owners should understand what their own policies and support arrangements require, including how and where to report a loss. This brief does not offer country-specific insurance, legal or financial advice, and the Council’s proposed timeframes should not be mistaken for terms that already apply to an individual policy.
After a disaster, record the interruption and its effects as clearly as circumstances allow. Keep a dated account of damage, expenses, communications and steps taken to resume operations. Prioritize immediate safety and follow relevant local instructions. If the business cannot reopen normally, make the dependencies and urgent needs explicit when contacting insurers, suppliers, lenders or public support services. A concise record may help an owner explain what happened and what is needed next, though it cannot guarantee a particular decision or outcome.
Owners can also contribute to the evidence base by reporting recurring obstacles through the Council’s process. Reports help Reseated assess whether a problem is repeated and consistent across businesses, rather than relying on a single account. Members remain anonymous unless they choose a public seat, and stories should not disclose a member’s business name. Reports are one part of the process, alongside corroboration, a draft fix, public consultation and an Assembly ballot.
For now, the central lesson is neither that preparation prevents every loss nor that recovery can be reduced to a checklist. The evidence points to a preparedness gap worth examining; the Council’s own data records reports from owners across many countries and business sizes; and the proposed Reopen Standard addresses the time and support needed after disruption. Preparation can make dependencies clearer. A fair recovery process must also recognize that owners often need a decision, funding or practical support before they can turn a plan into a reopening.
Notes
- UNDRR, Supporting Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Practices for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises.
- Japan METI survey finding as summarized in the UNDRR Resilience of SMEs report.
- Resilience Council internal data snapshot dated 21 September 2026.
Notes and sources
Sources
This document has no standing until adopted under the Founders Charter. Reseated Councils is not affiliated with the United Nations.