This chapter delineates the critical premises underpinning FGV’s BCM framework, ensuring alignment with its operational realities and strategic vision.
While foundational, these assumptions are dynamic—subject to rigorous validation and adaptation in the face of evolving risks.
This chapter outlines the foundational assumptions guiding FGV's BCM program. It establishes a structured framework for anticipating disruptions, prioritising critical business functions and operations, and allocating resources effectively.
It clarifies the organisation’s risk tolerance, dependencies, and recovery objectives, ensuring alignment across stakeholders and setting clear expectations for BCM planning.
Assumption: Core infrastructure—IT systems, processing plants, and logistics networks—can be restored within 72 hours of the disruption.
Rationale: Investments in redundant IT architectures, distributed energy systems, and diversified transportation routes.
Implications: Regular stress tests and partnerships with local authorities to prioritise infrastructure recovery in crises (e.g., port closures due to geopolitical tensions).
Assumption: Key personnel and cross-trained teams will remain accessible during disruptions, ensuring operational continuity.
Rationale: Robust succession planning and remote-work capabilities validated during past crises (e.g., COVID-19).
Implications: Development of decentralised leadership protocols and mental health support to sustain workforce morale.
Assumption: Primary suppliers and logistics partners maintain their BCM plans, minimising cascading disruptions.
Rationale: Supplier audits and collaborative risk-sharing agreements, particularly in regions prone to environmental risks (e.g., Southeast Asian monsoon seasons).
Implications: Diversification of suppliers for critical inputs like fertilisers and machinery parts to avoid single-point failures.
Assumption: Regulatory frameworks (e.g., MSPO, ISO 14001) will remain consistent, permitting swift compliance during recovery.
Rationale: Active engagement with policymakers and pre-approved contingency permits for emergency operations.
Implications: Proactively monitoring geopolitical shifts (e.g., EU deforestation regulations) to pre-empt certification challenges.
Assumption: Liquidity reserves and insurance policies will offset revenue losses and recovery costs for up to 90 days.
Rationale: Historical financial resilience during commodity price volatility and structured payouts from parametric insurance.
Implications: Stress-testing financial models against prolonged crises, such as simultaneous market and operational shocks.
Assumption: Communication platforms (e.g., crisis hotlines and cloud-based alerts) will remain operational to coordinate with employees, customers, and investors.
Rationale: Redundant communication networks tested during cyberattack simulations.
Implications: Regular drills to ensure seamless information flow, preserving trust during incidents like plantation wildfires.
FGV Holdings’ BCM assumptions are not static doctrines but living hypotheses continually refined through scenario analysis and stakeholder feedback.
By anchoring its resilience strategy in these premises, FGV redefines resilience as a proactive, adaptive ethos—transforming potential vulnerabilities into opportunities for innovation.
As the company navigates the complexities of sustainable agribusiness, these assumptions will evolve, ensuring that resilience remains synonymous with growth and responsibility.