Promoting Sustainability in Kuwait: An Exploratory Study of Disaster Management Preparedness and Resilience in State Organizations

Abstract

This exploratory study examines the current state of disaster management preparedness and resilience in Kuwaiti organizations, focusing on sustainability. The study employed a cross-sectional survey design, using a web-based questionnaire distributed through social media platforms, collecting data from 438 respondents representing a diverse range of institutions and job classes. The study assessed employees’ perceptions of their institutions’ competence in disaster management, addressing four phases of the disaster management cycle: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. The findings reveal areas for potential improvement in Kuwaiti organizations’ preparedness and resilience towards disasters and crises, highlighting the need for ongoing training programs, infrastructure investment, and supply chain sustainability. Discrepancies in perceptions of potential risks and the effectiveness of training programs were identified, as well as concerns about the selection process for disaster management response teams. The study’s findings emphasize the importance of developing comprehensive, sustainable disaster management strategies that prioritize employee safety, operational continuity, and realistic recovery plans. The results contribute significant insights for policy and practice development in Kuwait and other countries facing similar challenges, laying the groundwork for future research on operations and supply chain management within the context of disaster management.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the world has witnessed a surge in disasters and crises, including pandemics, wars, and climate change-induced events, highlighting the importance of preparedness, resilience, and sustainability at all levels of society. The state of Kuwait, situated in a region with significant geopolitical and geographical sensitivities, is particularly vulnerable to a range of natural and human-made disasters, including earthquakes, floods, fires, cyberattacks, and security threats. Consequently, it is imperative that Kuwaiti organizations are adequately prepared and resilient to manage any contingency and safeguard their people, operations, supply chains, and assets proactively.

Despite these known threats, however, the current level of preparedness is inadequate. The most recent unexpected global COVID-19 pandemic exposed the vulnerabilities of many governments in the face of disasters and crises, in which decision-making was characterized by confusion and bewilderment [1,2,3,4]. Furthermore, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security’s Global Health Security (GHS) Index 2021 report, which assesses health security throughout the globe, reveals that a lack of readiness exists even in the present day after the COVID-19 outbreak [5]. This report indicates that Kuwait’s GHS index score of 36.8 out of 100 points is a cause for concern. This score reveals significant gaps in the current system, indicating a need for more robust and effective disaster management strategies.

Motivated by this conspicuous and compelling issue, this study endeavors to investigate and bridge the considerable gap in disaster management capabilities within Kuwaiti organizations. This apparent readiness deficit necessitates immediate attention and thorough investigation. Thus, this preliminary exploratory study investigates how prepared and resilient Kuwaiti organizations are in the face of disasters and crises, focusing on operations and supply chain sustainability. This research evaluates how effectively these organizations perform in each phase of the disaster management cycle and develops recommendations for improving preparedness and resilience. Specifically, the strategic plans of a range of organizations, including public, private, and non-profit institutions, are studied. Primary survey questionnaires are used to assess various organizations’ disaster management systems and practices. The evaluation of the preparedness and resilience of Kuwaiti organizations is based on the perspectives and perceptions of the sample of employees who participated in the study.

2. Disaster Preparedness and Resilience

The literature places a strong emphasis on both disaster preparedness and resilience, as well as the idea that the two concepts are closely related. Disaster preparedness is defined as the process of planning, organizing, training, equipping, exercising, reviewing, and implementing corrective measures to ensure incident response coordination [6], and disaster resilience is defined as the capacity to withstand, absorb, accommodate, adapt to, transform, and recover promptly and efficiently from risks [7]. Consequently, resilience is community- and relationship-based, emphasizing population strengths, organizational assets, and sustainable growth, while preparedness is episodic and primarily focuses on phases [8].

Some studies have speculated that more effective use of preparedness attributes results in increased resilience [9,10]. For example, Hemond and Robert conducted a literature study [11] in 2012 that attempted to demonstrate how the shift from a “state of readiness” to a “state of resilience” has impacted disaster management. They discovered that transitioning to a resilient state has allowed for greater disaster management flexibility, reducing the resources required to respond to disasters. In addition, the transition to resilience has also made organizations improve their ability to foresee and prepare for disasters, as well as their capacity to react to and recover from such events, and to create more thorough and efficient strategies.

A literature review by Rahi [12] analyzing 30 articles published between 2000 and 2017 identified several key themes related to organizational resilience indicators, including the importance of leadership and culture, communication and collaboration, risk management and contingency planning, and learning and adaptation. However, the paper notes a lack of consensus on the definition of resilience and the appropriate indicators to measure it. The study concludes that future research should focus on developing a standardized set of indicators to assess organizational resilience across different industries and contexts. Another literature review by Vakilzadeh and Haase [13] complements and expands on the findings of Rahi and provides a broader overview of the key building blocks that contribute to organizational resilience. Vakilzadeh and Haase’s paper also identifies risk management and contingency planning as key building blocks of organizational resilience, along with leadership and culture, communication and collaboration, learning and adaptation, and resource management.

While numerous studies have examined disaster preparedness and resilience, the vast majority focus on disaster management activities at the community level, including mitigation practices, preparedness initiatives, response capabilities, and recovery programs and initiatives after disasters [14,15,16]. Nevertheless, other research exploring disaster preparedness and resilience at the institutional level has mostly focused on medical, educational, and tourism institutions. These studies have examined the structural, non-structural, and functional components of disaster preparedness and resilience in these sectors and found that preparedness and resilience differ significantly amongst various sectors.

According to Bajow and Alkhalil [17], structural attributes are the factors that determine the overall safety of a building, such as its design, quality of materials, and other distinctive elements that identify a building’s structure. Also, non-structural attributes include architectural and furnishing components such as windows, ceilings, partition walls, lighting systems, electrical power, water and sanitation, and a waste treatment system. On the other hand, Mulyasari et al. [18] defined functional preparedness attributes as including emergency stocks such as medicine, communications tools, and transportation facilities. Madrigano et al. [19] suggested that the next step in advancing resilience is emphasizing field-building factors, specifically developing a resilience-oriented labor force, where all professions possess the knowledge, attitudes, and abilities needed to be integrated and resilient in the event of a catastrophe.

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the importance of evaluating the preparedness and resilience of organizations in all industries and sectors, prompting a need to examine the status of disaster management in Kuwait. Despite extensive studies on disaster management, there is a noticeable gap in research assessing the preparedness and resilience of organizations in Kuwait. Consequently, further research is required to better understand the unique challenges and opportunities for building organizational resilience in Kuwait. For instance, the 2021 Global Health Security Index report by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security [5] highlights a need to evaluate Kuwait’s disaster management systems, particularly in the context of health-related disasters. Since organizations in Kuwait and worldwide face various risks and crises, including natural disasters, pandemics, cyber-attacks, and political instability, disaster preparedness and resilience have become critical. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive assessment of organizational preparedness and resilience to identify areas for improvement and develop effective strategies to mitigate risks and ensure continuity in the face of disasters.

To address this gap, it is essential to explore the existing literature on disaster preparedness and resilience in organizations in Kuwait. Several best practices, tools, and frameworks have been developed to help organizations become more resilient to disasters. The ISO 22301 standard, for instance, offers instructions for building and implementing a business continuity management system (BCMS), which strives to secure the continuation of essential activities during and after a disruptive event [20]. Similarly, the Disaster Resilience Scorecard for Cities (DRSC) is a tool that assesses the disaster resilience of cities based on ten critical dimensions, including governance, infrastructure, and social capital [21].

Furthermore, there are several case studies and examples of organizations in Kuwait and other countries in the region that have demonstrated effective disaster preparedness and resilience. For instance, Kuwait Oil Company (KOC), the national oil company of Kuwait, has implemented a comprehensive emergency response plan (ERP) to ensure the safety and continuity of its operations in the event of a disaster [22]. The ERP includes various measures, such as risk assessment, emergency procedures, communication protocols, and training programs for employees and contractors. Another example is the Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), which has developed a Business Continuity Management (BCM) framework that integrates ISO 22301, ISO 22313, and other best practices [23]. The BCM framework covers various disaster preparedness and resilience aspects, including risk assessment, business impact analysis, crisis management, and recovery strategies.

3. Methodology

3.1. Study Design

In order to assess the preparedness and resilience of various institutions in Kuwait, a cross-sectional survey was conducted via SurveyMonkey software version 2022 and distributed through social media. The study used convenience sampling as a practical and efficient method to recruit a large number of participants. By doing so, individuals from different job classes and institutions had the opportunity to participate in the study while minimizing potential biases resulting from top management’s attitudes toward their institution’s preparedness. The survey was administered for ten consecutive weeks from 6 August 2022 to 15 October 2022, with subsequent rebroadcasts of the online survey link every two weeks to serve as a reminder to participate in the study.

Guided by the logical framework approach, the survey questionnaire was designed based on the following logical sequence:

• Input: A comprehensive literature review and expert consultations were conducted to form a basis for the survey design. This input was crucial in identifying the key factors affecting organizational disaster management practices across the four phases of the disaster management cycle.
• Activities: The core activity involved formulating and distributing the survey, aimed at assessing the current state of disaster management practices in Kuwaiti organizations. The questionnaire consisted of both Likert scale items and multiple-choice questions designed to determine the respondents’ understanding and perceptions of their organizations’ strategies and practices. The questions were constructed to reflect each phase of the disaster management cycle.
• Output: The survey’s output was a comprehensive dataset that was subsequently analyzed to ascertain disaster management practices and identify potential areas for improvement in Kuwaiti organizations.
• Outcome: The study aimed to shed light on the perceived preparedness and resilience of the organizations, forming an understanding of their disaster management capabilities.
• Goal: The ultimate goal is to inform policy and organizational practice in disaster management, contributing to developing more effective strategies for disaster preparedness and resilience in Kuwaiti organizations.

The questionnaire was presented to two statistics faculty members from the College of Business Administration at Kuwait University in order to determine its validity. As a result, several comments were made to enhance the presentation of some questions and answers, and improvements were made based on these ideas. In addition, the final version of the questionnaire was further improved based on the results of a pilot survey of 20 individuals. The pilot test assessed the clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness of the questionnaire before it was distributed on a larger scale, and feedback from the pilot test was used to refine the questionnaire. Finally, the tool reliability coefficient (Krumbach Alpha) was calculated and found to be close to 0.940, indicating high reliability of the questionnaire and a remarkable degree of question consistency.

3.2. Survey Instrument

The survey questionnaire, which consisted of closed-ended questions (see Supplementary Material), was divided into two sections. The first section addressed the phases of the disaster management cycle, including questions on mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery, where participants rated their own institutions’ competency on a series of items reflecting each phase. Participants were asked to rate their perceptions on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, with “strongly disagree” being the lowest response (score = 1) and “strongly agree” the highest response (score = 5). In addition, some items used Yes/No and checkbox-style questions. The first section concluded with four questions of a general nature, enquiring about participants’ overall evaluations of their organizations’ preparedness for disasters and crises, as well as the types of disasters to which their institution is most vulnerable.

The second section of the questionnaire was dedicated to capturing the participants’ demographics and their respective institutions. Participants’ demographics included gender, age, educational qualifications, job category (top management, middle management, artisans, administrative services, etc.), and years of experience. Institutional demographics included questions on the organizations’ type (public, private, or non-profit), location, industry, and size.

The objective of this survey, within the frame of the logical framework approach, is to gain a deeper understanding of the level of preparedness and resilience among various institutions in Kuwait, focusing on operational sustainability. Unlike traditional approaches focusing solely on structural, non-structural, and functional attributes, this survey adopts a unique approach by examining the four phases of the disaster management cycle: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. However, the survey questions indirectly incorporate traditional attributes to comprehensively assess an organization’s preparedness and resilience. For instance, participants were asked questions regarding the extent of investment in disaster-proof infrastructure, the provision of disaster training programs, the capability to maintain operations during and after disasters, and the existence of recovery support programs and plans. These questions are designed to provide a complete picture of an organization’s preparedness and resilience from the perspective of the operational sustainability of the disaster management cycle.

4. Analysis and Results

This section begins with a general descriptive analysis of the preparedness and resilience of various organizations in Kuwait, followed by a more focused examination from the perspective of the phases of the disaster management cycle: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. The objective is to assess preparedness and resilience in Kuwait, focusing on the operational sustainability of organizations, both in general and in relation to each phase of the disaster management cycle. This analysis can help draw conclusions and make recommendations for enhancing the country’s disaster management strategies. It is worth noting that some respondents did not complete all survey questions during the data collection process. This may be attributed to the perceived irrelevance of certain questions to their organization or discomfort with specific questions in the survey. Despite these limitations, the statistical analysis generated significant findings regarding operational sustainability and the level of preparedness and resilience exhibited by Kuwaiti organizations in the context of disaster management.

4.1. General Descriptive Analysis

The study’s sample size comprised 438 responses, encompassing participants from all six districts of Kuwait, including Ahmadi, Capital, Farwaniya, Hawalli, Jahra, and Mubarak Alkabeer. A visual representation of these districts is shown in Figure 1, depicting the map of Kuwait. The respondents came from diverse sectors, including government, private, and non-profit organizations, possessing diverse backgrounds and work experiences, ranging from entry-level positions to executive management roles. This diverse sample adds to the robustness and representativeness of the study results. However, given that the survey was conducted using social media platforms, it was not possible to ascertain the exact number of individuals reached by the survey link and, therefore, difficult to estimate the response rate. Nonetheless, the obtained sample is considered suitable for this research.

Figure 2 illustrates the demographics and characteristics of the various organizations. According to Figure 2, 81.34% of the organizations were Government-type organizations, with the majority (38.43%) located in Kuwait’s Capital district. The size of the organizations, as measured by the number of employees, ranged from the smallest, with less than 100 employees (14.93%), to the largest, with more than 20,000 employees (8.21%). However, most respondents (22.01%) came from organizations that have between 1000 and less than 5000 employees. Despite working in various sectors and industries, 31.34% of the survey respondents worked in educational and research institutions, the largest single category in the study across the sectors of organizations.

Additionally, a descriptive analysis was carried out to examine employees’ perceptions of their organizations’ effectiveness in disaster management. This evaluation encompassed an examination of perceptions and attitudes related to the operational competencies of each phase of the disaster management cycle, as well as an assessment of the overall impressions concerning the organizations’ general disaster management capabilities. In order to assess the perceived disaster management competence of organizations by their employees, a scoring system was employed. This involved averaging the responses to specific survey items, resulting in both an overall score and individual scores for each phase of the disaster management cycle. The average scores are based on the five-point Likert scale categories used in the survey questionnaire: 1—strongly disagree; 2—disagree; 3—uncertain; 4—agree; and 5—strongly agree. The resulting average scores are reported in

Table 1. Average scores of the disaster management cycle phases.

Subject	Minimum Value	Maximum Value	Mean	Standard Deviation	95% Confidence Interval
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Average score of the mitigation phase	1	5	3.2600	1.05686	3.1331	3.3867
Average scores of the preparedness phase	1	5	2.7959	1.03271	2.6720	2.9198
Average scores of the response phase	1	5	3.0862	0.91619	2.9763	3.1961
Average scores of the recovery phase	1	5	2.9146	0.98797	2.7961	3.0331
Overall competence average score	1	5	3.0528	0.93175	2.9410	3.1646

.

Table 2. Ranges and interpretations of average scores.

Range	Interpretation
1.00–1.80	Strongly disagree
1.90–2.60	Disagree
2.70–3.40	Uncertain
3.50–4.20	Agree
4.30–5.00	Strongly agree

provides the ranges and interpretations of the average scores used to evaluate employees’ perceptions of their organizations’ disaster management competencies. For example, if the average score for the mitigation phase is 1.2, it indicates that respondents have a negative perception of their organization’s capability in that phase and “strongly disagree” with the questionnaire items related to it. These average scores could help the government of Kuwait to identify strengths and weaknesses in its disaster management processes and make improvements.

Based on respondents’ perceptions of their organizations’ disaster management competencies, the bar chart in Figure 3 illustrates the computed average scores for the four phases of the disaster management cycle, including the five interpretation ranges mentioned earlier. As demonstrated in Table 1 and the bar chart in Figure 3, the average scores for each phase of the disaster management cycle fall well within the lower and upper bounds of the “uncertain” range, indicating that respondents exhibit limited awareness of their organizations’ disaster management operational strategies throughout all phases of the cycle, as well as an overall lack of confidence in their organizations’ disaster management proficiency.

Figure 4 presents employees’ overall perceptions of their organizations’ disaster management competence, including the effectiveness of operations management and supply chain systems in promoting resilience, ensuring efficient resource distribution, encouraging collaboration, and developing solid contingency plans to keep operations running during and after a disaster. The majority of respondents either disagreed or felt uncertain about their organization’s competency in managing disasters, with 21.82% strongly disagreeing and 18.18% disagreeing. In addition, 27.27% of respondents reported feeling uncertain about their organizations’ disaster management competence. On the other hand, 26.18% of respondents reported agreeing with their organizations’ disaster management competence, while only 6.55% strongly agreed. A significant proportion of employees expressed doubts or uncertainty regarding their organizations’ disaster management strategies and capabilities, including operations and supply chain aspects. These findings underscore the critical need for a comprehensive evaluation and the refinement of operational and supply chain strategies and practices within Kuwaiti organizations, with the ultimate goal of enhancing disaster management competencies and fostering greater organizational resilience.

Furthermore, when asked about the type of disaster their organizations are most vulnerable to, Figure 5 shows that 45.96% of respondents believed natural disasters were the most likely threat, while 55.15% perceived human-made disasters as the more probable scenario. The category “no threat” refers to situations where employees didn’t see any significant risk of a disaster occurring. Figure 5 highlights the importance of understanding employees’ perceptions of the types of disasters that may impact their organizations to effectively plan and prepare for potential disasters.

More precisely, among the subset of respondents who indicated that their organizations are most susceptible to natural disasters, the vast majority (82.38%) identified pandemics as the most salient threat, followed by environmental pollution (72.91%), and then, natural fire accidents (70%). On the contrary, among those respondents who perceived their organizations to be at risk of human-made disasters, a large proportion (85.58%) highlighted fire accidents as the most substantial threat, followed by cyberattacks (62.68%), and then, industrial pollution (59%). However, it is important to note that the options for disaster types are not mutually exclusive, as indicated by some respondents who perceived their organizations to be vulnerable to multiple disaster types. Consequently, respondents could select more than one disaster type. Top of Form Overall, these findings suggest that organizations need to develop different strategies to prepare for and mitigate the impact of different types of disasters and that employees’ perceptions of potential risks should be considered when formulating disaster management plans. The following sections provide an in-depth descriptive analysis of each phase in the disaster management cycle.

4.2. Descriptive Analysis of Disaster Management Cycle Phases

4.2.1. Mitigation Phase

Despite receiving the highest mean score of 3.26, respondents continued to express confusion and uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the operational and supply chain strategies employed by their organizations during the mitigation phase of the disaster management cycle. For instance, when inquiring about their organizations’ investments in infrastructure aimed at mitigating risks associated with potential disasters and crises, such as shelters, storage and backup facilities, transportation vehicles, and backup power supplies, only 191 out of the 438 survey participants (43%) confirmed their organizations’ investment in such infrastructure. Moreover, only 54 of the 191 respondents had direct experience with or received instructions regarding how to use these infrastructures during emergencies. Furthermore, 56% of the 54 respondents who had direct experience with such infrastructure believed the facilities are adequate for use in disaster situations. On the other hand, approximately 30% of the 438 respondents claimed that their institutions do not invest in infrastructures to mitigate the effects of disastrous events, while 25% were uncertain whether their institutions invest in such infrastructures. These data are shown in Figure 6.

Table 3. Infrastructure investments by organization type.

	Government	Private	Non-Profit
Overall	(n = 97)	(n = 21)	(n = 5)
43.83%	78.86%	17.07%	4.07%

displays, by organization type, the proportions of respondents whose organizations invest in infrastructure for disaster mitigation. Governmental institutions seem to invest in and spend more on their infrastructure to reduce the risk of potential disasters and crises than private and non-profit organizations. One probable reason is that government organizations have access to more financial resources, making it feasible for them to make more significant investments in their infrastructure than their private and non-profit counterparts.

Table 4. Location of organizations by district in Kuwait.

	Ahmadi	Capital	Farwaniya	Hawali	Jahra	Mubarak Alkabeer
Overall	(n = 21)	(n = 47)	(n = 20)	(n = 9)	(n = 16)	(n = 10)
43.83%	17.07%	38.21%	16.26%	7.32%	13.01%	8.13%

depicts the percentage of respondents whose organizations invest in infrastructure for disaster mitigation based on the location of their organizations in the main districts of Kuwait. It seems that the government of Kuwait is more inclined to invest in infrastructure for organizations located in the Capital district than in others, with 38% of infrastructure investments taking place there.

The proportions of respondents whose organizations invest in infrastructure for disaster mitigation, broken down by industry type, are shown in Figure 7. According to the data, academic institutions were the most likely to have invested in disaster mitigation infrastructure (23.58%), followed by organizations in the oil and gas industry (13.1%) and the healthcare industry (9.76%). Conversely, organizations within the sport and development sector (0.81%), religious sector (0%), and retail and wholesale sector (0%) represent some of the sectors with the lowest levels of infrastructure investment.

Figure 8 depicts that when asked whether their organizations offer tools or emergency kits that employees can use in case of disasters and crises, about 62% responded that they did. The most frequently cited tools and emergency kits are fire extinguishers (96.15%), ground communications lines (85.84%), first aid kits (79.04%), and drinking water (73.78%). However, other tools and emergency kits were also provided, as illustrated in Figure 8. Moreover, additional tools and emergency kits, such as infirmaries, gas detectors, and firearms, were cited by almost 17% of respondents in the “others” category.

4.2.2. Preparedness Phase

With a mean score of 2.79 for the preparedness phase items, the findings suggest that respondents remain uncertain about their organizations’ operational effectiveness in managing the preparedness phase within the disaster management cycle. For example, only 29.4% of the 381 respondents confirmed that their organizations had a preparedness plan, which included establishing relationships with multiple suppliers for critical goods and services, maintaining adequate inventory levels for essential supplies, and creating contingency plans for transportation and logistics. However, 39.1% indicated that their organizations did not have a plan, and 31.5% of respondents were neutral or uncertain as to whether their organizations had any formal operations plans in place for the preparedness phase. These data are depicted in Figure 9.

Table 5. Presence of a preparedness plan by organization type.

	Government	Private	Non-Profit
Overall	(n = 54)	(n = 22)	(n = 3)
29.4%	74.0%	16.0%	4.1%

displays, by organization type, the proportions of respondents who indicated that their organizations had some form of a disaster preparedness plan. The findings reveal that government organizations are more likely to possess disaster preparedness plans (74%) compared to private or non-profit organizations. This can be attributed to these organizations’ greater investment in mitigation infrastructure, as demonstrated in the earlier analysis of the mitigation phase.

Table 6. Presence of a disaster preparedness plan by district.

	Ahmadi	Capital	Farwaniya	Hawali	Jahra	Mubarak Alkabeer
Overall	(n = 18)	(n = 28)	(n = 5)	(n = 8)	(n = 10)	(n = 4)
29.4%	24.7%	38.4%	6.9%	11.0%	13.7%	5.50%

presents the proportions of respondents whose organizations possess a disaster preparedness plan, categorized by the primary districts of Kuwait where their organizations are located. The findings indicate that organizations in Kuwait’s Capital district are more likely to have a disaster preparedness plan than their counterparts. This observation aligns with the results from Table 2, where investments in disaster mitigation infrastructure were also found to be more prevalent in the Capital district of Kuwait.

Figure 10 reveals that the fire plan was the most cited preparedness plan with a score of 85.52%, followed by the epidemic plan (69.31%) and the flooding plan (58.59%). Additionally, other plans were also mentioned. Moreover, plans such as the “art of dealing with people with neurological diseases,” “armed robbery plan,” “operational failure of computer systems,” and “hacking of consumer accounts and information” were also cited by almost 33% of respondents in the “others” category. Furthermore, over 62% of respondents who indicated the presence of preparedness plans in their organizations also reported that their organizations had established guidelines to assist individuals with special needs and disabilities.

Nonetheless, merely possessing a plan may not be sufficient if it is not accompanied by practice or training. Out of the 352 respondents who addressed the question regarding their organizations’ preparedness training programs, encompassing emergency protocols and procedures, only 30.11% confirmed that their organizations offer disaster preparedness training programs in relation to their plans. Meanwhile, 46.59% indicated that their organizations do not provide any training programs, and 23.3% were uncertain whether their organizations had any formal preparedness training programs. These data are depicted in Figure 11. Nonetheless, among the respondents who reported that their organizations offer training programs, a majority of 62.75% confirmed their active participation in such programs.

The data also reveal that 80% of the organizations providing training programs are government institutions, while 17.5% are private sector organizations, and a mere 2.5% are non-profit organizations. Figure 12 reveals that first aid drills were the most cited training program with a score of 82.18%, followed by evacuation drills (80%), educational lectures (75%), and fire training drills (72.73%). Additionally, other training programs were also mentioned. Moreover, almost 33% of respondents in the “others” category also cited exercises such as “war drills” and “armed robbery drills.”

Training programs play a crucial role in the preparedness and resilience of organizations. The majority of respondents (41%) stated that their organizations provide these training programs annually. In comparison, 20% said they are offered twice yearly, 17% quarterly, 12% every two to five years, and 8% said they are offered every five years. Additionally, the majority of participants in the training programs (65.63%) expressed that the training they received was both adequate and beneficial. In contrast, 15.63% deemed the training to be inadequate, while 18.75% were uncertain about the effectiveness of the training. Moreover, 70% of participants who acknowledged that their organizations have preparedness plans and strategies believed these plans have been recently developed or revised in response to the recent COVID-19 pandemic.

4.2.3. Response Phase

A mean score of 3.08 for the response phase items indicates that respondents were uncertain whether or not their organizations could adequately respond to disastrous events. Only 35.61% of the 337 individuals who answered the question on the presence of a disaster management response team in their organizations confirmed the presence of such a team, 37.09% denied its existence, and 27.3% were uncertain. These data are depicted in Figure 13. The majority of respondents (44%) who confirmed the presence of a disaster management response team in their organizations believed that the team has complete operational authority, signifying decentralized decision-making. In contrast, 25% believed the team lacks such operational autonomy, and more than 30% were uncertain of the team’s operational authority.

Table 7. Presence of a response team by organization type.

	Government	Private	Non-Profit
Overall	(n = 75)	(n = 16)	(n = 3)
35.61%	79.79%	17.02%	3.19%

presents, by organization type, the distribution of respondents who indicated the presence of a disaster response team within their organizations. As shown in Table 7, government organizations are more likely than private or non-profit organizations to have disaster response teams (79.79%). This outcome aligns with the observations from the mitigation and preparedness phase evaluations, which denote the superiority of governmental institutions compared to their private and non-profit counterparts.

Table 8. Presence of a disaster response team by district.

	Ahmadi	Capital	Farwaniya	Hawali	Jahra	Mubarak Alkabeer
Overall	(n = 17)	(n = 39)	(n = 8)	(n = 12)	(n = 13)	(n = 5)
35.6%	18.1%	41.5%	8.5%	12.8%	13.8%	5.32%

shows the percentage of respondents whose organizations have a disaster response team according to where their organizations are located in Kuwait’s main districts. According to the findings, disaster response teams are more likely to exist in Kuwait’s Capital district organizations (41.5%) than in other districts of Kuwait, with Mubarak Alkabeer organizations being the least likely to have one (5.32%).

Figure 14 shows the proportions of respondents whose organizations have a disaster response team by industry type. The educational and research sector accounts for the majority of responses (26.6%), 17% are from the healthcare industry, and the oil and gas industry accounts for about 16%. The 0% response rate in the political, religious, sports and development, and wholesale and retail sectors demonstrates their lack of disaster response teams.

Of the 125 survey participants who reported the absence of a disaster management response team within their organizations, merely 34% believed that a task force or disaster management response team could be established in response to a disaster or emergency in their organizations. Moreover, only 16% of these respondents thought that such a team can be formed on the same day as a disastrous event. The answers of those who believed their organizations need more than 1 day and less than 3 days, between 3 days and a week, between 1 week and 2 weeks, and more than 2 weeks are very close, between 20% and 22.73%. These data are depicted in

Table 9. Time to response team formation.

	Same Day	More Than 1 Day and Less Than 3 Days	Between 3 Days and a Week	Between 1 and 2 Weeks	More than 2 Weeks
Overall	(n = 7)	(n = 9)	(n = 9)	(n = 9)	(n = 10)
34.0%	15.9%	20.45%	20.45%	20.45%	22.73%

.

Figure 15 provides a breakdown of the various methods organizations utilize to establish disaster management response teams, as reported by respondents who expressed confidence in forming such teams in response to catastrophic events. It is essential to note that the data presented are entirely based on the perspectives of these individuals. In addition, it is worth noting that the categories presented in Figure 15 are not mutually exclusive. As a result, some respondents reported utilizing multiple approaches to select disaster management response teams within their organizations. Consequently, some respondents may have chosen multiple methods for determining disaster management response teams. Based on the data presented in Figure 15, it can be inferred that a significant proportion of respondents (61%) believed that disaster management teams are selected through “nomination” methods. This approach entails the recommendation or suggestion of another individual or a group of individuals, based on factors such as trust, expertise, or seniority, rather than through an open application or selection process. In addition, 51.28% of the respondents believed such teams are formed based on individuals volunteering for such positions. On the other hand, the data presented in Figure 15 indicate that a significant proportion of respondents (48.72%) believed that disaster management response teams are formed based on personal “connections,” regardless of individuals’ qualifications and competencies. In comparison, 46.15% believed that such teams are formed based on individual competencies. Therefore, based on the data presented in Figure 15, a significant proportion of respondents believed that personal “connections” play a huge role in forming disaster management response teams. Finally, it is worth noting that a smaller proportion of respondents believed that disaster management response teams are formed based on seniority or outsourcing, with 28.21% of respondents believing each of these methods to be used equally.

When asked about the promptness and efficiency of notifying all stakeholders in the event of a disaster, including suppliers, transportation providers, emergency responders, and government agencies, 50.77% of respondents were confident that stakeholders could be immediately notified, while 25.7% were doubtful, and 23.53% were uncertain. These results are illustrated in Figure 16.

Regarding early warning systems for disasters within an organization, Figure 17 reveals that out of the total number of respondents, 160 individuals acknowledged that their organizations had implemented some form of early disaster warning and alert system. A prevalent method adopted by organizations for disaster alerts is the use of sirens, which was reported by 83.77% of respondents. This was followed by the use of special corporate communications devices (64.58%), phone calls (61.1%), and text messages (56.08%). Other methods were also cited under the “others” category by some respondents (34.56%), including e-mails, formal letters, and social media. Since alert methods are not mutually exclusive, some respondents selected multiple methods. Furthermore, the majority of respondents (67.73%) believe that early warning systems are frequently reviewed and maintained by their organizations, while just 10.13% disagreed and 22.15% were uncertain.

When survey participants were asked whether or not their organization could continue operations and for how long, the vast majority believed that in the event of a disaster, their organizations could continue both primary and other supporting operations indefinitely. However, a significant proportion of respondents (18.84%) reported that their organizations would be unable to continue either primary or any other operations in the event of a disaster. This finding highlights the need to improve disaster preparedness and resilience in such organizations. These data are depicted in Figure 18.

Figure 19 presents a breakdown of the respondents’ perceptions of their organizations’ ability to maintain primary operations during a disaster, categorized by sector type. The results highlight a significant gap in employees’ understanding of their organizations’ disaster resilience across several sectors. For example, around 26% of respondents in the educational and research sector expressed confidence that their institutions could continue primary operations indefinitely during a disaster. However, the same percentage within the same sector lacked confidence in their organizations’ ability to sustain primary operations, indicating that their institutions may not be able to continue primary operations at all. These findings suggest a discrepancy in perceptions of organizational preparedness within the educational and research sector.

4.2.4. Recovery Phase

The survey’s recovery phase items revealed a mean score of 2.91, implying that respondents expressed uncertainty regarding their organizations’ ability to recover effectively and adequately from disasters. The recovery phase is characterized by coordination and collaboration among various stakeholders, including government agencies, non-governmental organizations, private sector entities, and communities, to ensure an efficient and streamlined recovery process. For instance, only 29.4% of the 288 respondents who were asked about their organizations’ recovery plans reported having a formal recovery strategy. In contrast, 25.7% of respondents confirmed that their organizations lacked a proper recovery strategy, and 30.9% were uncertain whether their organizations had one. These findings are illustrated in Figure 20. Additionally, approximately 32% of respondents indicated that their organizations had established laws, resolutions, or procedures to support employees affected by disasters or crises in recovering from or overcoming their challenges. In contrast, approximately 35% of respondents denied the existence of such procedures, and about 32% were unsure whether such procedures existed in their organizations.

Figure 21 illustrates the various support programs organizations offer to their employees in the event of a disaster, with additional paid leave being the most commonly reported form of aid (68.6%). Additionally, 28.21% of respondents mentioned other forms of support under the “others” category, such as health insurance programs.

In response to the question about the recovery time required for organizations to resume primary and all operations after shutdowns caused by disastrous events, the majority of respondents expressed confidence in their organizations’ ability to recover quickly. Most respondents believed that their organizations could recover in “less than a week.” However, a considerable number of respondents also reported that their organizations could require “more than six months and indefinitely” to recover. This suggests a potential disaster preparedness and recovery planning gap in these organizations, which may have significant implications for their operations and long-term viability in the event of a disaster. These data are depicted in Figure 22.

Finally, when queried about the existence of clear and expedient procedures for the reconstruction of buildings and infrastructure damaged by disasters and crises, including the timely provision of necessary equipment, materials, and personnel to affected areas, only 22.47% of respondents indicated that their organizations possessed clear procedures, while 37.32% expressed doubts, and 40.22% were uncertain. These results are shown in Figure 23.

5. Discussion

The results of this study provide profound insights into the current state of disaster management in Kuwaiti organizations from an operational perspective, particularly in how different phases of the disaster management cycle are addressed. While some organizations have made strides to enhance their disaster management capabilities, much work remains to be carried out to effectively manage and prepare for potential disruptions caused by disasters and crises in operations and in supply chains, communications, and other essential services. In addition, the research findings indicate that a significant number of employees were either unaware of their organizations’ disaster management strategies or did not believe such plans exist, which could greatly affect organizations’ operations and supply chains. Therefore, organizations must prioritize disaster management and invest in ongoing training programs, infrastructure, and supply chain sustainability to improve their preparedness and resilience in the face of potential disasters.

Furthermore, the study also identified discrepancies in perceptions of the types of disaster organizations are most vulnerable to. While almost half of the respondents identified natural disasters as the most likely threat, the majority perceived human-made disasters as the more probable scenario. Among those who identified natural disasters as a significant threat, pandemics were considered the most salient risk. On the other hand, among those who perceived human-made disasters as a significant threat, fire accidents and cyberattacks were highlighted as the most substantial threat. To address this, organizations must develop different strategies to prepare for and mitigate the impacts of different types of disaster, considering employees’ perceptions of potential risks. This includes taking a holistic approach to resilience and preparedness, considering all potential threats of the various disaster types, and developing a comprehensive plan that prioritizes the safety of personnel, equipment, and supplies, as well as the continuity of operations. Regular risk assessments should be conducted to identify areas of vulnerability, and preventive measures should be prioritized accordingly. Additionally, organizations should ensure that their technology infrastructure is resilient and secure, and that their data are backed up in case of a disaster.

Additionally, the preparedness and resilience of organizations are also influenced by the frequency of training programs and the promotion of collaboration and dialogue between different departments. Therefore, organizations in Kuwait should create a culture of preparedness and resilience by providing regular training and education to personnel. This study found that most organizations in Kuwait provide these programs annually, highlighting their recognition of the importance of ongoing training and development. Nevertheless, some organizations offer training programs only once every two to five years, which may not adequately prepare employees for potential disasters and crises. The study also found that the majority of respondents who participated in training programs believed the training to be adequate and beneficial. However, a significant percentage of employees remained unsure about the effectiveness of these programs.

In addition, further attention should be placed on how disaster management response teams are selected. Our results suggest that in some organizations, individuals may be chosen for disaster management response teams based on personal relationships or connections rather than their qualifications and competencies. This may have implications for the effectiveness of these teams in responding to disasters and emergencies, as individuals without the necessary skills and knowledge may be selected over more qualified candidates. However, it is worth noting that nearly half of the respondents believed that disaster management response teams are formed based on individuals’ competencies, which suggests that competency-based selection processes are also used in some organizations.

Regarding resiliency and continuity of operations, this study highlights a misperception among respondents in certain sectors regarding their organizations’ ability to continue primary and other operations during disasters. While a considerable proportion of respondents reported that their organizations would be unable to continue operations, others in the same sectors expressed confidence in their organizations’ ability to sustain operations during disasters. This discrepancy emphasizes the need for organizations to improve their disaster preparedness and resilience. By reducing misperceptions, employees will better understand their organizations’ disaster response strategies and be better equipped to develop appropriate plans to promote organizational resilience in times of disaster.

Finally, our findings suggests that most respondents had a relatively optimistic view of their organizations’ ability to recover quickly following a disaster. However, it is essential to note that this perception may not be based on actual experience or evidence, and it is crucial for organizations to have realistic recovery plans and strategies in place to ensure effective and efficient recovery. Also, the study revealed that only a small percentage of respondents believed their organizations had official disaster recovery plans, and even fewer believed their organizations had laws or procedures in place to assist employees affected by a disaster. Therefore, organizations must prioritize developing official disaster recovery plans and consider implementing updated policies and procedures to reflect the most current information and best practices to help employees recover from disasters and crises.

6. Limitations

To ensure the validity and legitimacy of the findings, this study’s sample size of 438 respondents included individuals from diverse organizations and employment experiences in Kuwait. Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that the study’s findings are limited by the sample size and the quality of the information provided by the participants, with a proportion (31.43%) of respondents coming from the educational and research sector. Furthermore, the sampling approach used, i.e., social media platforms, may limit the generalization of the results to the entire population of institutions in Kuwait. As such, caution should be exercised when applying the study’s findings to the broader population.

While this study provides a detailed exploration of disaster management preparedness and resilience among various organizations in Kuwait, the focus is primarily on the observable strategies and practices employed in disaster management. The study did not delve into internal dynamics, such as collaboration and intentions within these organizations. The collaborative analysis of the internal intentions and requirements of disaster management organizations was not within the scope of this study. Furthermore, as this study is based on self-reported data, there is potential for bias in the responses, including memory biases, recall errors, and social desirability bias.

7. Conclusions

This study provides valuable insights into the disaster management preparedness and resilience of various organizations in Kuwait, with a particular focus on their operations and supply chain practices. The study has revealed new and previously unrecognized information on how organizations in Kuwait address the four phases of the disaster management cycle. The findings suggest significant room for improvement in the disaster management capabilities of organizations in Kuwait, especially in operations and supply chain management. In addition, these findings provide a basis for future research to investigate how organizations can better address these areas. Implementing the recommendations outlined in this study can help organizations in Kuwait develop more targeted and effective disaster management strategies, ultimately contributing to building a more resilient and prepared society in the face of potential disasters and crises. Moreover, the findings highlight the importance of supply chain sustainability to ensure organizations can maintain operations and effectively respond to disruptions caused by disasters. These insights can inform the development of effective disaster management strategies and policies that can mitigate the impact of disasters and increase the resilience of organizations in Kuwait. Future research could include inferential analysis to gain a deeper understanding of disaster management practices in Kuwait. Overall, this study emphasizes the importance of disaster management in the context of operations and supply chain management and provides a foundation for further research in this field.

Additionally, this study underscores the importance of an integrated, holistic approach to disaster management. As evidenced by the findings, organizations could enhance their disaster resilience by fostering a culture of preparedness and proactivity, not only within their operations but across their entire supply chain. Regular risk assessments, robust training programs, and strategic partnerships among government bodies, businesses, and non-profit organizations are pivotal. Moreover, integrating sustainable practices in disaster management strategies is revealed as a crucial factor, contributing to societal resilience and overall sustainable development. Therefore, this study goes beyond a mere assessment of current practices, offering a vision for a more resilient and sustainable future for Kuwaiti organizations and society.