Episode 340: Iran Escalates: How Geopolitical Shocks and the Strait of Hormuz Becomes an Organisational Crisis

In this episode, we host K. Campbell to examine how the escalating conflict with Iran should be understood not only as a military confrontation but as a wider risk event with implications for shipping, supply chains, critical infrastructure, and corporate decision-making. Drawing on his background in intelligence and security risk management, Campbell explains why the key escalation indicator is the point at which the Iranian regime believes its survival is truly at stake and why threats to the Strait of Hormuz, civilian infrastructure, and international targets should be read through that lens rather than through sensational headlines. 

 We discuss the warning indicators he is watching most closely, why so many so-called “black swan” events are in fact failures of imagination, how red-teaming can help organisations think more clearly about escalation, and why leaders should focus less on surprise and more on preparedness. 

K. Campbell, CBCP, CPP® is a seasoned security and intelligence professional and former US military intelligence officer with extensive experience in security risk management, executive protection, threat assessment, and business continuity. His previous roles included leadership positions in National Security Agency units, the Defence Intelligence Agency, the Joint Staff, and a special operations staff, and he co-led and led highly sensitive intelligence and planning efforts against North Korea and Iran, including war planning against Iran’s WMD programmes. He has also led and co-led business continuity planning in four organisations, served on the technical committee that updated the ASIS International security risk assessment standard approved by ANSI in April 2024, and contributes to Homeland Security Today and the Domestic Preparedness Journal.

The International Risk Podcast brings you conversations with global experts, frontline practitioners, and senior decision-makers who are shaping how we understand and respond to international risk. From geopolitical instability and organised crime to cybersecurity threats and hybrid warfare, each episode explores the forces transforming our world and what smart leaders must do to navigate them. Whether you’re a board member, policymaker, or risk professional, The International Risk Podcast delivers actionable insights, sharp analysis, and real-world stories that matter.

The International Risk Podcast is sponsored by Conducttr, a realistic crisis exercise platform. Conducttr offers crisis exercising software for corporates, consultants, humanitarian, and defence & security clients. Visit Conducttr to learn more.

Dominic Bowen is the host of The International Risk Podcast and Europe’s leading expert on international risk and crisis management. As Head of Strategic Advisory and Partner at one of Europe’s leading risk management consulting firms, Dominic advises CEOs, boards, and senior executives across the continent on how to prepare for uncertainty and act with intent. He has spent decades working in war zones, advising multinational companies, and supporting Europe’s business leaders. Dominic is the go-to business advisor for leaders navigating risk, crisis, and strategy; trusted for his clarity, calmness under pressure, and ability to turn volatility into competitive advantage. Dominic equips today’s business leaders with the insight and confidence to lead through disruption and deliver sustained strategic advantage.

Subscribe for all our updates!

Transcript

[00:00:02] K. Campbell:
I think the top thing for me, having worked directly on, led, and co-led some of the most sensitive projects on Iran when I was in the military, is the tripwire of the Iranian theocracy thinking that they have no other options and that the regime’s survival is truly at stake. To me, that’s the most important thing I’m watching. 

[00:00:24] Dominic Bowen:
Welcome back to the International Risk Podcast, where we discuss the latest world news and significant events that impact businesses and organisations worldwide. This episode is brought to you by Conductor. Conductor software helps you design and deliver crisis exercises without needing a big team or weeks of preparation. You can create a central exercise library with Conductor Worlds, and you can generate reports that support your governance and compliance requirements. So, if you want flexible, realistic crisis exercises that are easy to adopt, then Conductor is worth a look. 

[00:00:56] Dominic Bowen:
And I have a quick favour to ask before we start today. If you’re a regular listener, please subscribe to and follow the International Risk Podcast. It’s the simplest way to support the show, and it helps us reach more listeners who need this content. My commitment to you is that we’ll keep improving every part of the experience, from our guests, to the quality of the research, to the practical insights we provide. And if there’s a guest you think we should bring on the podcast, or a risk that you want unpacked, send it through to us. I promise we read all of your comments. 

[00:01:25] Dominic Bowen:
Please hit the subscribe or follow button now, and let’s jump into today’s episode. The security environment is getting more blended by the week, with kinetic conflicts spilling into cyber domains. We’re seeing shipping routes turned into pressure points yet again, and we’re seeing critical infrastructure sitting in the crosshairs of so many foreign state actors. Executives and board members want certainty, but the fact is they’re not going to get it. 

[00:01:50] Dominic Bowen:
I’m Dominic Bowen, host of the International Risk Podcast, and today we’re joined by K. Campbell. He’s a seasoned security and intelligence professional with experience in the US military, but he’s also got some really interesting credentials. He’s a Certified Protection Professional, board-certified in security management by ASIS International, and he’s also a Certified Business Continuity Professional. I think the conversation we can have today about geopolitics, about decisions, and about what organisations actually should be doing today to protect their people and keep operating, is something that we all need to hear. KC, welcome to the International Risk Podcast. 

[00:02:28] K. Campbell:
Hello, and thanks for having me on. 

[00:02:31] Dominic Bowen:
KC, when you look at the world right now, there’s so much going on, and we’re recording this in the early part of March. There are ongoing attacks in Iran. Iran is retaliating. Nearly every country in the Middle East has been affected. 

[00:02:46] Dominic Bowen:
But it’s not just what’s happening in the Middle East that really matters. So when you read the news every morning, when you’re speaking with colleagues and friends, and when you’re looking at different work topics, what are the risks that are really sitting at the front of your mind today? 

[00:02:59] K. Campbell:
A few things. Of course, the big elephant in the room is a war with Iran, and it is a war. But a little further out, there are a few things I’m concerned about. One is what I call my “Department of Gerontocracy”, right? So you have some pretty powerful folks who are on the elderly side of their lifespan, some of whom are not the healthiest even for that age. 

[00:03:21] K. Campbell:
So at the top of my list is Donald Trump. And when I talk about geopolitics and risk, and risk intelligence, I stay away from politics. It’s often a conversation that makes people uncomfortable. But I think it’s clear that Donald Trump is not the healthiest. I think it’s something that we need to talk about. 

[00:03:37] K. Campbell:
I’m seeing the same obfuscations and denials that I saw with Joe Biden when he was in office. Another leader I’m watching is Vladimir Putin, who reportedly has cancer. That’s debatable, but I remember seeing statements, or hearing statements, and seeing quotes from Marco Rubio when he was a senator, and from Joe Biden’s national security staff. 

[00:04:01] K. Campbell:
Both groups had access to highly classified information, and they gave some hints and innuendo about Putin’s health. And, of course, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, was also on my list, but he’s no longer on this earth. Then there’s actually Paul Biya of Cameroon, and he is probably going to be the oldest leader in a few years, the oldest head of state. 

[00:04:27] K. Campbell:
So these folks, especially Trump and Putin, have huge geopolitical implications if they were to leave office before their terms are up. So that’s one thing I watch, and the other is, of course, infectious disease spread, especially here in the US, with measles, RSV, and Covid to a lesser extent. But I’m watching the spread of measles in specific states. 

[00:04:48] Dominic Bowen:
It’s a really interesting list you’ve raised there. We actually did an episode last year when we were looking at the risks of things like Covid again and what that looks like, but also the age of many of the world’s leaders. You talked about President Trump’s age, you talked about Putin, you talked about the President of Cameroon, and of course Ayatollah Khamenei was killed recently, but also President Xi of China, who’s 72 now. I’m sure many of these leaders have a lot more medical support and health support than most of us do. 

[00:05:15] Dominic Bowen:
But, you know, when we think about our 72-year-old parents and grandparents, they’re generally not of the mental capacity that we’d want running many things, let alone the world’s biggest countries. But you raised some interesting points about President Trump and Putin’s health. I know I was in Ukraine when Russia first invaded and have been back many, many times since. Often my Ukrainian friends and colleagues will show me pictures of Putin and say, “Look, he’s sick.” I often say back to them, “Well, you know what? This is probably just disinformation. This is probably just propaganda. Forget about it. Just concentrate on what matters to you.” 

[00:05:43] Dominic Bowen:
But how do you, as someone who has worked in the field of intelligence and in understanding misinformation, deliberate disinformation, and propaganda, break through all that noise and identify what really matters and what is likely to be true? 

[00:06:04] K. Campbell:
Yes, so I actually find bias to be an even bigger problem than misinformation or disinformation when it comes to the health of these very senior figures. There’s a halo effect, right? That’s the psychological tendency to think that someone you adore can do no wrong and is completely healthy. And the only way to break through that is if something becomes undeniable. 

[00:06:37] K. Campbell:
So, for example, Joe Biden’s debate performance last summer was something that even his ardent supporters looked at and thought, well, maybe there are some issues there. And you saw his support among Democrats drop. 

[00:06:37] K. Campbell:
There’s also the opposite effect, where you have such a strong bias against someone that no matter what they do, what they say, or how they say things, you interpret it through that lens. So I find controlling for those biases to be as important, if not more important, than misinformation or disinformation. 

[00:07:03] K. Campbell:
Because when it comes to things you can actually see, if someone in the Oval Office slurs his words, or in any presidential building or palace goes missing for a week or two, no amount of misinformation or disinformation can change that. That’s why I think cognitive biases at the individual level, or even at collective levels, are arguably more challenging than misinformation or disinformation when it comes to people’s health. 

[00:07:28] K. Campbell:
And I should also mention that the US Congress is something I’m watching. Same thing there: there’s a bias factor that you have to control for. The current Congress is the third oldest in US history, and we’ve seen a couple of people, because of their age, decide not to run again or die in office. Frankly, I see at least one or two other people leaving office, or dying in office, sometime in 2026. 

[00:07:50] Dominic Bowen:
Yes. And I have to say, of course we have sympathy for people who are unwell, but the arrogance and the inappropriateness of some members of Congress having to be driven in in wheelchairs, being unable to speak or stand or communicate properly, and somehow still being expected to represent their citizens in the US Congress, just baffles the mind. KC, I’m sure you wanted to respond to that. 

[00:08:12] K. Campbell:
Well, yes. There’s one congresswoman who was actually living in a facility that catered to people with, I think, dementia, right? And then, of course, you have Dianne Feinstein. So again, as a geopolitical analyst and risk intelligence professional, it’s important to stay away from politics and just look at things through the most unbiased lens possible. 

[00:08:36] K. Campbell:
But these things you notice, and then you factor in: what are the political and geopolitical impacts if they were to leave office before their terms were up? Some would argue that it’s bad form to do that, but from an intelligence perspective, one of my favourite areas was biographical intelligence. 

[00:08:56] Dominic Bowen:
I don’t want to get too stuck in the headlines. We try to go a little bit deeper on the International Risk Podcast, but I think we do need to look at Operation Epic Fury, or the Israeli Roaring Lion operation, where they’ve targeted nuclear sites, missile facilities, air defences, and leadership centres right across Iran. As we’ve mentioned a couple of times, they’ve killed the Supreme Leader and caused significant disruption to leadership across the Iranian regime. 

[00:09:22] Dominic Bowen:
And of course that’s not happening in isolation. Iran’s retaliatory attacks on Israel, on US bases, and on Gulf states like the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and now Azerbaijan and Oman, have involved hundreds of drones and missiles. Most of them have been intercepted, but there have been casualties. We’ve seen up to 4,000 people killed in Iran, over 5,000 people killed in Israel, and there have been 12 deaths. We’ve had six US service members killed. In the Gulf states, there have been about 10 people killed so far and hundreds injured. 

[00:10:00] Dominic Bowen:
We’re seeing reports from the Iranian Red Crescent citing that over 500 civilian facilities have been attacked. And when we look at the conflict as it’s occurring now, at the time we’re recording this interview, there is just no sign that any party is about to slow down its attacks, counter-attacks, or defensive manoeuvres. 

[00:10:21] Dominic Bowen:
But when you look at this as a risk professional, what are the risk indicators that you’re monitoring? What are the things that you’re looking at? We’ve seen some people making what are attempts to be humorous memes about whether we’re heading into World War Three. We’ve seen some disruption on the stock exchange. I mean, the Korean stock market has been affected the most, with about a 20% decline. It made back about 11%, but it’s still in the negative. The S&P has been largely flat. 

[00:10:41] Dominic Bowen:
But what are the things that you’re looking at when we consider the risk indicators associated with the current violence in the Middle East? 

[00:10:47] K. Campbell:
I think the top thing for me, having worked directly on, led, and co-led some of the most sensitive projects on Iran when I was in the military, is the tripwire of the Iranian theocracy thinking that they have no other options and that the regime’s survival is truly at stake. To me, that’s the most important thing I’m watching. 

[00:11:05] K. Campbell:
And there’s pretty much nothing that the Iranian regime has done that I did not expect. I don’t think any intelligence professional who has worked the Iran issue would have been surprised by much of this, because the regime’s ultimate goal, its most important strategic objective, is survival. 

[00:11:31] K. Campbell:
So when you’re targeting, I think, over 40 of their senior leaders who have died, both civilian and military, including clerics on the civilian side, that is why you’ve seen the targeting of US bases, threats to close the strait, and the targeting of civilian infrastructure in the Gulf states. All of that I pretty much foresaw, and I think most people who’ve worked in intelligence looking at Iran foresaw it. 

[00:12:00] K. Campbell:
However, it’s a spectrum. And once the regime truly thinks, “Okay, it’s this or nothing. We’ve got to go full bore. We’re very desperate. Our regime is truly at stake”, I think that’s when things could get even worse, depending on the weapons capability that hasn’t yet been attrited. 

[00:12:15] K. Campbell:
The actual mining of the strait is one thing that could make things worse, because right now things are already pretty bad. Very little traffic is going through the Strait of Hormuz. If Iran were to drop just one mine in the strait, it could take several days for even the most capable military to clear even a single shipping lane through the Strait of Hormuz. And that could have a pretty bad effect on the global economy, or at least on some aspects of the global economy. 

[00:12:48] K. Campbell:
I’m concerned about the Iranian use of chemical weapons. If you look at 2019, the Defence Intelligence Agency, which was one of my assignments, expressed concern about dual-use chemicals. It didn’t say specifically chemical weapons, but it did raise concerns about dual-use chemicals. And in 2025 the US intelligence community’s threat assessment does mention chemical weapons specifically, for example that Iran provided them to Libya without declaring that they did. 

[00:13:21] K. Campbell:
So, in a worst-case scenario, that is one of my biggest concerns: the use of chemical weapons by the Iranian regime, or at least dual-use chemicals that could be used as chemical weapons. 

[00:13:35] K. Campbell:
And finally, there is the prospect of worldwide terrorist attacks. Again, that is a worst-case scenario, or at least tied to the regime’s perception of a worst-case scenario. The killing of the Supreme Leader, combined with the January 2021 US killing of General Qasem Soleimani, who was the head of the IRGC Quds Force, basically their special operations unit, could prompt terrorist attacks throughout the world, limited only by the intent and capabilities of Iran’s proxies. 

[00:14:08] K. Campbell:
That could include the US. Since the late 1990s, over 128 Hezbollah-linked operatives and affiliates have been arrested in the US, involved in various things related to intelligence gathering, weapons, and so forth. A lot of people are not familiar with that. 

[00:14:31] K. Campbell:
I’m looking at South America, which has a huge Lebanese population. Hezbollah is known to operate there, doing many things such as money laundering. Two of Hezbollah’s most successful terrorist attacks were in Argentina some time ago. So that’s the concern. Those are my top concerns: what could result if the Iranian regime gets very desperate and believes it has no other option. 

[00:15:01] Dominic Bowen:
So you mentioned the Strait of Hormuz. Since 28 February, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has threatened to fire on any vessel that tries to move through the strait. Traffic dropped about 70% straight away, but as of today traffic is down to about zero. Now, the Strait of Hormuz is particularly important. This chokepoint handles about a third of all global oil and about 20% of liquefied natural gas. 

[00:15:28] Dominic Bowen:
There are about 150 tankers anchored nearby that can’t get in or out of the strait. So far, we’ve seen five oil tankers damaged. Unfortunately, there have only been two people killed. We’ve seen Brent crude surge by about 13%; it’s now about $82 a barrel. So we’ve seen prices understandably increase. 

[00:15:47] Dominic Bowen:
Now, President Trump and the US Navy have promised escorts, but insurance companies and operators are not necessarily saying that this is going to make a big difference for them. When business leaders see this, when business leaders see a critical supply chain like this turned off or shut down, what are they meant to do? How should they read these risk signals, and what do they do about it? Do they need to start hoarding energy supplies, or is it too late now? Is this something that they should have considered six months ago? 

[00:16:16] K. Campbell:
Oh, tough question. At minimum, they should have been thinking about this a few weeks ago. There were signals that this kind of thing would happen. One reason it’s a tough question is that it depends on the type of company and how much exposure it has. 

[00:16:34] K. Campbell:
And it’s not just about oil. From what I last saw, there are about half of the 700 or so ships stuck either inside or outside of the strait. About half of them are stuck inside, within the Persian Gulf, and about 100 of those ships are container ships. So it’s not just about oil; it’s about supplies. 

[00:16:53] K. Campbell:
So alternate routes matter. Hopefully, over the last few weeks at minimum, if not since last summer, there were contingency plans in place. It reminds me of the coronavirus, where I think there was a lack of imagination in some C-suites over the years. 

[00:17:17] K. Campbell:
I keep hearing CEOs and C-suite executives say, “Well, Covid-19, the pandemic, was a black swan event. No one could have seen it coming.” And that’s absolutely not the case. For years — and I wrote an article a couple of years ago about red teaming, and red teaming is basically an alternative way of thinking about things. Intelligence communities do it famously. Some CIA red-team memos were leaked in the WikiLeaks leaks, and basically it forces people to think about things differently. 

[00:17:52] K. Campbell:
In that article, I outlined eight or nine things that had happened over the previous 20 years that were very similar to Covid, but on a much smaller scale. So you had MERS, SARS, Ebola, and by the way, some of these diseases, like Ebola, have a much higher fatality rate than Covid. And there was the flu epidemic back in, I think, 2009. 

[00:18:19] K. Campbell:
After that flu epidemic, the US government — I forget exactly which department, but I think it may have been the Department of Labor — actually wrote a flu pandemic booklet that basically outlined the exact measures that everyone later put in place in 2020 and 2021: social distancing, some engineering controls in terms of plastic barriers, and things like that. 

[00:18:54] K. Campbell:
So my point is that many things we think of as black swans are not black swans. The signs were there and had been there for years, but there was a lack of imagination in thinking about the things that could hurt you. So I hope that what is happening in the strait right now, with oil and container ships, is not a big surprise to most companies. 

[00:19:12] Dominic Bowen:
I’m really glad you mentioned that, KC. I made a few people feel a little uncomfortable during Covid, not intentionally, when CEOs and executives would say, “Covid was a black swan. Who could have predicted this?” And my retort was, “Well, a lot of people.” And not just the World Health Organization, but the World Economic Forum and many other bodies that were not health-related had predicted this. The business impact of a global pandemic was very high and likely to be realised within the next five to ten years. 

[00:19:41] Dominic Bowen:
And I think similarly, Israel’s and America’s attacks should not have come as a surprise. I mean, America doesn’t move two aircraft carriers into the region and reposition fighter jets in bases all across the Middle East just to threaten. Now, of course, it didn’t guarantee that the Trump administration was going to attack, but as we’ve seen in Venezuela, as we’ve seen in several other locations during the Trump administration, it is definitely willing to attack. Like we’ve seen in Iran in 2025, the US and the Israelis are definitely willing to attack Iran. So this should never have been seen as something that was surprising. 

[00:20:14] K. Campbell:
Yes, absolutely. And I’ll give you an example. In terms of the ship movements, there were a lot of pundits saying, “Look, would any president move that much weaponry into a location and not use it?” 

[00:20:33] K. Campbell:
And so you could have a healthy debate about whether that necessarily meant anything, because the negotiations could have succeeded and he could have pulled everything back. Or you could also argue, legitimately I think, that at minimum any president would carry out at least some symbolic strikes. And by the way, I hate symbolic uses of the US military. 

[00:20:55] K. Campbell:
So there is something to be said about assessing the likelihood of something happening simply because of the massive amount of weaponry moved into the area. I think the last time that much weaponry was moved there may have been during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the invasion of Iraq. I think that was the last time that much weaponry was moved there. So frankly, there’s not much excuse for being completely caught off guard. 

[00:21:34] K. Campbell:
And it reminds me of when Covid shutdowns started to happen in March 2020. I had a couple of family members working in the federal government, and what surprised me was that one of them said they were trying to work out simple things like VPNs for remote work. And again, going back to all the earlier signals — SARS, MERS, Ebola, and that handbook put out by the US government after the flu epidemic that killed, I think, something like 60,000 people that year — I remember thinking: really? Your office is trying to figure out how to use VPNs and how to manage the technical aspects of remote work only now? 

[00:22:19] K. Campbell:
And it was like that for many companies. So I tell that story to highlight the fact that there are certain cognitive biases that allow us to be caught flat-footed when we shouldn’t be, when we don’t need to be flat-footed. And whether it’s not having a risk management department, not having a business continuity department, or not having geopolitical people, whatever it is, I think that at a certain level it’s a failure of leadership not to be prepared. 

[00:22:52] K. Campbell:
You can’t imagine everything, and intelligence people never really predict things, contrary to popular opinion. But there is a certain level of preparedness that would prevent you from being completely caught flat-footed. 

[00:23:08] Dominic Bowen:
Yes, definitely. And just for our listeners, it’s interesting to have a look at the WikiLeaks CIA memos that you referred to. One was a CIA memo dated February 2010, and that memo was actually titled “What if Foreigners See the United States as an Exporter of Terrorism?”, which is particularly interesting considering the conversations going on in Europe today about whether they can rely on the US as an ally. 

[00:23:38] K. Campbell:
And by the way, just as a caveat, I do not condone the leaking of classified information. But if there was anything good about those early WikiLeaks releases, especially the State Department ones but also the CIA memos, it is that they showed the extreme professionalism and quality of the work that those professionals do, both diplomats and intelligence professionals. 

[00:24:00] K. Campbell:
That red-team memo you mentioned, for example, is a very good product. And for anyone who wants to start creating their own red-team products to help foresee or prepare for what some people consider black swan events, I think that’s a good place to start. 

[00:24:20] Dominic Bowen:
That’s a really good point, KC. Thanks for mentioning that. And we’ve talked about black swan events, and certainly something that is a big concern for European businesses and government agencies is the risk to critical infrastructure. Hybrid threats are going through the roof here. There have been about 200 confirmed hybrid attacks across Europe in the last two years alone. War, sanctions, and grey-zone activities have basically become part of daily business in Europe. 

[00:24:53] Dominic Bowen:
If you’re advising chief security officers, enterprise risk managers, and executive officers in companies that are trying to understand their critical dependencies, how should they prioritise what they need to harden first and what they need to focus on, when hybrid threats generally come from state actors, but as a corporate actor you can sometimes feel like you have no dog in the fight, even though you really do? What would you advise them to be looking at? 

[00:25:24] K. Campbell:
Risk assessment. Short answer: risk assessment. That’s one of the main things I do these days and have been doing for a few years. I was on the technical committee that helped write the update to the risk assessment standard for the security industry around the world: the ASIS International Security Risk Assessment Standard. 

[00:25:51] K. Campbell:
And the thing about risk assessments is that they’re not just about security. Business continuity is one of the key early steps in any business continuity planning process, and within that you’ve got to look at interdependencies and dependencies. And I think that if you do that, you’ll go a long way. 

[00:26:12] K. Campbell:
I’ll give an example. The bridge collapse in Baltimore — when was that? A couple of years ago. I remember watching on television a man whose warehouse business was very much impacted by that bridge collapse. And as I watched his short interview on the news, I found myself wondering whether he had ever done a risk assessment and factored in the possibility that his business could effectively collapse if his customers could no longer use that bridge. 

[00:26:44] K. Campbell:
That was the point of the interview: his business was doing very poorly because his customers couldn’t get across that bridge to store things in his warehouses, so he couldn’t charge them for it. 

[00:26:57] K. Campbell:
A lot of people are simply not aware of the interdependencies and dependencies when it comes to critical infrastructure, including some of the infrastructure being targeted by the Russians, especially in Europe. 

[00:27:10] K. Campbell:
Another example: I gave a presentation to a Business Continuity Association chapter about commercial facilities vulnerabilities. A lot of people in the US and around the world think the electrical grid is more resilient than it really is. It’s not as resilient as people think it is. There are vulnerabilities there, and you see that all the time with natural disasters and man-made events. 

[00:27:36] Dominic Bowen:
You mentioned a few things there that I thought were really interesting, including business continuity and planning for different crises. Now, I know you’ve led business continuity planning for different civilian and government agencies. Can you talk to us about the difference between business continuity planning and crisis preparedness? One of the few benefits of the terrible Covid pandemic was that it forced many companies to build proper and realistic business continuity plans, but that is different from crisis programmes. 

[00:28:11] K. Campbell:
Every company, I think, approaches crisis and crisis management differently. But I view crisis management simply as: how do you respond to this crisis in terms of public statements, internal statements, and immediate communications? It’s a very short-term thing. And I view crisis management as potentially falling underneath business continuity. 

[00:28:38] Dominic Bowen:
You speak to a lot of business leaders, and if you had one minute with a CEO who was pushing back and thought that security and risk management were just a cost to the business rather than something that adds value, what would be your 60-second elevator pitch? How would you persuade them, using evidence, that security, risk management, and business continuity are so important to company success? 

[00:29:02] K. Campbell:
Yes, that’s a common problem, especially on the security side. But I think it affects both business continuity and security risk management. The bottom line is that security risk management is not about guns, guards, and gates. That’s a facility-level view. 

[00:29:15] K. Campbell:
Unfortunately, CEOs and the C-suite often just see security and security risk management as a cost centre. In fact, they often don’t even see security risk management; they just see “security” in the narrow sense of guns, guards, and gates. And what’s worse is that people are sometimes put into these senior security positions who also only think in those terms. 

[00:29:46] K. Campbell:
What I would say to a CEO or other C-suite professionals is that properly done security is not a cost centre. It actually provides value. Done well, it can create opportunities. 

[00:30:02] K. Campbell:
The example I always use with friends, family, and students is this: suppose you have a country that most companies want to avoid because of perceived levels of crime, corruption, natural disasters, or a broader public perception problem. But your company has a good geopolitical team or a good risk intelligence team, which usually falls under the security department, that can really drill down and identify that actually the country is not so bad, or that a specific city or region in that country is thriving for particular reasons. 

[00:30:34] K. Campbell:
If you break geopolitics down into its components — political, economic, and social — you may realise that there is actually an opportunity there. And in that way, it could be the security people or the risk intelligence people who become the money-makers for a company when they stop looking only at guns, guards, and gates. 

[00:31:00] K. Campbell:
There’s also the fact that risk-based security mitigation, when done well, prevents the loss of goods. So it’s not a money-losing department or cost centre; it actually protects value. A lot of the time, implementing the right security in a cost-effective way can protect tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars’ worth of equipment. 

[00:31:22] K. Campbell:
It’s the same calculation with business continuity. How can your business keep operating during a disruption, and what are the losses if it cannot? That’s why one of the key steps in business continuity is a business impact analysis. You identify the risks that could create a business impact, and then you analyse that impact. So both business continuity and security risk management can not only save money in the long run but also create opportunities for organisations. 

[00:32:05] Dominic Bowen:
I think it really does. I mean, security and risk management really are growth engines for companies. They’re not a drag; they’re something that enables companies to excel, advance, and take market share at the same time. In today’s world, where there is so much cybercrime, organised crime, and geopolitical volatility, having good security and risk management enables companies to be proactive and move forwards. 

[00:32:30] K. Campbell:
There’s one story I heard — I wasn’t involved in this — about a film studio, although I have no idea which studio it was. I heard that some film canisters were being shipped to the US, I think to Hollywood, and the security department identified a storm in the shipment’s path. The security department recommended some pretty significant mitigation to avoid delays to that equipment. That’s one example. 

[00:32:58] K. Campbell:
Another example is the threat of premises liability for negligent security. In a nutshell, that’s when organisations get sued because they didn’t foresee and mitigate something they should have known about. 

[00:33:20] K. Campbell:
For example, if there are constant muggings and shootings three blocks away, and because the security department is not doing proper risk assessments — or because there is no real security department and people are only focused on guns, guards, and gates — those risks are not mitigated, then US case law has shown that some organisations have been sued successfully for exactly that. They should have foreseen the risk and mitigated it with guards or other measures. 

[00:33:48] K. Campbell:
If someone gets hurt on their property, that failure becomes a legal and financial liability, and potentially a reputational risk as well. So that’s another way in which security can prevent losses. 

[00:34:05] Dominic Bowen:
Yes. Thanks for explaining that, KC, and thank you very much for coming on the International Risk Podcast today. 

[00:34:09] K. Campbell:
Oh, my pleasure. It was great. 

[00:34:11] Dominic Bowen:
That was a really interesting conversation with K. Campbell. He’s an active contributor to the security and business continuity fields, and he has presented three times at the Global Security Exchange. He’s also a regular contributor to Homeland Security Today, a peer-reviewed preparedness journal. I’m Dominic Bowen. Thanks very much for listening to the International Risk Podcast, and we’ll speak again in the next couple of days. 

[00:34:32] Dominic Bowen:
And before we go, a short shout-out to our sponsor, Conductor. If you’re serious about crisis preparedness, have a look at their website at conductor.com/demos. I’m Dominic Bowen. Speak again soon. 

[00:34:44] Dominic Bowen:
Thank you for listening to this episode of the International Risk Podcast. For more episodes and articles, visit theinternationalriskpodcast.com. Follow us on LinkedIn, Bluesky, and Instagram for the latest updates and to ask your questions to our host, Dominic Bowen. See you next time.