VCIA board members said at a press conference that the association was considering moving the venue in 2012 to Stowe, Vt., some 45 minutes away. The motive, they said, was to feature a different part of the state.

I can see several reasons for wanting to do this. For one, there were three conferences going on simultaneously in Burlington, including VCIA. That meant restaurants and hotels were booked and fewer rental cars were available. I can also understand why other parts of the state would want some of the action. Stowe, a well known ski area, has the facilities, but not the crowds during the summer months when VCIA is held.

Another is that the VCIA conference is bursting at the seams. Already, the dining area is set up in a large tent (not complaining, I like the open, airy atmosphere). In fact, this year, the keynoter—the co- founder of the “Life is Good” company—gave his presentation in the tent.

And efforts to expand to the nearby UVM campus have been so-so. It’s a bit of a hike in hot weather, meaning that busses much be relied upon. From what I understand, Stowe’s facilities offer similar space, but are configured differently, which VCIA said would make the location more accommodating.

At any rate, there are a few drawbacks as well. There is no airport in Stowe, meaning people would still fly into the Burlington airport and would then be bussed to Stowe. This could work, but conference attendees arrive throughout the day and evening—and sometimes much later when there is a storm causing flight delays. Renting a car is an option—again, providing enough cars are available.

I also heard from a local vendor that this would mean fewer staff would be able to attend. With the current setup, the vendor said, employees that live in the Burlington area can work at the company’s booth during the day. The commute to Stowe, however, would rule this out as more staff would have to stay overnight.

So while there are a few drawbacks, as I said, there are advantages. A change of venue wouldn’t be a bad thing and who could complain about spending time in a beautiful area like Stowe? I am confident the VCIA staff and board will think of every plus and minus before making their final decision.

Any other thoughts on the potential location anyone?

Not only is this a nice surprise, it also means people are taking more responsibility for their lives and safeguarding their environment.

And if this all sounds off the wall, here’s a statistic that I recently read: Mother Jones, the magazine known for covering environmental issues, just last week announced that unique visitors to its website have jumped 125 percent year over year for the second quarter of 2010. Its digital revenue has climbed 61 percent over the same interval. There’s a message here.

While this is all great, I’m also seeing growing concern and even anger from people I talk to about how businesses and governments are lagging behind in these areas.

Harmful insecticides are still being used along with outdated methods for everything from trash and garbage disposal to weed control. In fact, at a recent conference for risk managers, I attended a seminar where use of insecticides and the associated hazards were discussed. But when I asked whether these dangers were being addressed by less harmful chemicals I was met with a wall of silence. To be sure, environmental risks are the next hot button.

With an increasing number of people growing their own vegetables and farmers markets and community gardens popping up everywhere, isn’t it time for businesses and municipalities to get with it? I’m happy to say that some things are being done. More businesses advertise going “green,” towns and counties are acquiring land for green space and setting aside plots for community gardens, but much more is needed.

The disgust and rage towards BP for its inept handling of the Gulf oil spill should be an indication of where many people stand on these issues. Hopefully this ongoing, out of control spill isn’t a sign of things to come. This is a good time for businesses and municipalities to take the lead in finding creative ways to do things—and still keep costs down.

In fact, maintaining the status quo isn’t always the best way to get the job done and keep spending down.

Here are a few suggestions:

• Instead of mowing the entire green area along highways and parkways, why not mow the strip adjacent the roadway and leave the rest of the grass alone? Nothing wrong with wildflowers and this would save a bundle of money.

• When cutting down dead trees, where there isn’t a danger of a tree falling directly onto a structure, leave the entire trunk and just remove the limbs. A tree without limbs isn’t going to be blown over and there is a lot less time, labor and space in the landfill needed if the trunk remains standing—not to mention providing habitat for wildlife.

• Instead of clear cutting for a parking lot, leave islands of mature trees. Shade is a good thing in the summer and having exposed land will greatly help the problem of water runoff after a storm.

• Municipalities can go even further by installing porous parking lots and requiring them of business. As water becomes scarcer and much of it is lost to runoff, new ways must be found to save this precious resource. Do the math—saving water is much cheaper than building desalinization plants.

• Rather than resorting to dangerous, indiscriminate use of insecticides, look into other, less lethal products. Keep buildings clean and empty trash quickly. By using strong products such as insecticides and herbicides, we are simply growing “super bugs” and poisoning our soil and water. This is another problem that will eventually have to be dealt with. Why not now?

Bermuda Premier Ewart Brown welcomed attendees; while other officials participated in a panel discussion about the domicile. Bermuda has consistently made it clear that the country stands behind the companies domiciled there, tweaking regulations, changing or tightening them when necessary and keeping an open dialogue with business.

In the U.S., by comparison, Vermont’s Governor frequently welcomes conference attendees and Hawaii also has shown long term support of the captive industry.

Like other captive domiciles, Bermuda has had to overcome a down market, but it also has fought the “offshore” image of “tax haven” and easy regulations. It has done so by meeting with the U.S. government to set and meet standards and with Solvency II policymakers.

Bermuda appears to be staying the course, going for stability and long term growth and if its conference was any indication, its efforts are being noticed. Attendance was the highest since the start of the conference six years ago. Last year, I was told, it topped 350.

I talked with captive owners, several of whom have had a captive in Bermuda for years. They said they are happy with the expertise there and the convenience of travelling there. The perception of boards and coworkers, however, is a different issue that some have had to deal with on a regular basis.

Perception is the dirty word that will have to be dealt with. How, remains to be seen.

Any suggestions from captive owners or managers?

Here is another CEO who doesn’t appear to have a clue. How did he get to be CEO in the first place? No one is saying he needs to sacrifice his life to this disastrous oil spill, but he could lay low, at least until the leak stops!

It looks like none of this will be a problem for long, however. BP wants him, and the poor public persona problem to “go away,” but it can’t even get that right. BP’s chairman announced Tony is exiting his oil spill command to be replaced by Bob Dudley. Other company officials, however, have indicated Mr. Hayward may remain at his post until August, after the spill is stopped.

What a PR nightmare. Either there is no public relations plan in place there, or the heads of the company are flat-out ignoring it. Both scenarios are bad for the company and its image at this critical time.

As for Tony’s recent botches, such as his yacht outing and his sullen mono-syllabic answers in the recent hearings, I have to wonder, doesn’t he watch U.S. reality television—AKA televised Congressional hearings? Didn’t he watch the Enron execs, or recently the heads of the failed U.S. banks, have their days on the hot-seat? Like dolts, there they sat, either not recalling anything or denying knowledge of a situation’s existence.

OK, so maybe the CEO doesn’t always know everything that goes on in his (or her) organization, that’s understandable. But since there generally is ample notice of a hearing, my advice to these CEOs would be this: for Pete’s sake, study up. Pull a few all-nighters if need be. Talk to people in the organization and find out what went wrong, why and when. Constantly saying you don’t know or don’t recall only leads to embarrassing questions like, “Do you know what day this is?”

Most of all, listen to the people in your organization who can help you to do your best, or at least put up a front—your PR team. Listening only to lawyers, after all, will make you appear to be insensitive. Ask Kenneth Feinberg after his work with the families of 9/11 victims. After being publicly trounced for his callous attitude towards victims’ families, he took a hard look at himself and admitted that as an attorney he had a lawyer’s demeanor towards people who were suffering. He changed his attitude and in the end was seen as a hero of sorts.

Reputation risk, especially in this age of the Internet, is right up there with every other risk. For some reason, it’s also the risk that gets ignored during a crisis, such as BP is going through. Possibly because some CEO’s think they are above listening to anyone, and possibly because a contingency plan was not exercised. In any case, the results can be disastrous.

As one risk manager recently told me: It can take 30 years to build up a company’s good name and only a day to destroy it.

Take a major headline of the past couple of weeks, with plumes from a volcano in Iceland halting air traffic between several of the world’s largest hubs. As a result, thousands of travelers were stranded in major airports with no relief in sight.

While this may not be a major insurance loss, it is most certainly a risk management crisis. People were trapped in airports with nowhere to go. Businesses were crippled.

From what I’m hearing, airport contingency plans for dealing with stranded passengers kicked in well. Cots were provided for people to sleep on. Food and beverages were available, and there were even temporary shower facilities set up.

In fact, this is exactly what risk management is all about—being prepared for the unforeseeable.

This brings me to a report by the World Economic Forum released this month, “Rethinking Risk Management in Financial Services—Practices From Other Domains.” The report makes risk management recommendations to the global financial sector based on the experience of several other industries.

The report explains that leading up to the recent economic crisis, many financial institutions had similar exposures not widely seen as important. And so when liquidity contracted suddenly and violently after the dive in housing prices, prompting the collapse of derivatives linked to mortgages, many institutions suffered horrendous losses simultaneously.

“As these institutions had similar funding structures, risk-management practices and mitigation strategies, it was as if someone had yelled ‘Fire!’ in a packed theatre, and all ran to the same exit,” the report said.

What was lacking was risk diversification. The report uses the example of a Chilean salmon farm, which lost millions of fish to a virus, costing thousands of jobs. It was found that the salmon were raised in over-crowded conditions, causing the virus to spread rapidly. Antibiotics made the fish more vulnerable in the long run as the bug became drug resistant.

The solution seems simple—don’t pack the fish in so closely—but the organization, obsessed with short-term profits, ignored the obvious risks.

Similarly, financial institutions should vary their modeling assumptions for risk management. Boards, executives and investors need to think for themselves rather than implementing me-too strategies and depending on outside verification.

But while the report makes many good points about sharing findings across industries, it also stresses that all of this is futile if upper management turns a blind eye.

Many top managers in the financial sector, it said, had never experienced a significant crisis. Many also believed they were “too big to fail,” and operated under the “black swan” belief that a system-wide crisis was extraordinarily unlikely.

The biggest lesson here is that arrogance and ignorance will cause the most seemingly sound risk management systems to fail. Why? Because arrogance is blind to risk.

For this reason alone, it’s imperative that upper management make room for and support criticism from within their organizations without fear of retaliation—something that was lacking in the troubled financial sector, the report found.

Part of sound risk management is putting the proper incentives in place, keeping the entire organization focused on the bigger picture. Yet the financial crisis was fueled by perverse incentives, including big bonuses based on short-term gains.

True risk management requires a much longer-term outlook.

While the premise of the movie is interesting and at times humorous—as when the robot, who has his own collection of favorite finds, discards a diamond ring and keeps the ring box—the movie is also poignant. And it rings true, as more and more our planet is literally swimming in trash.

It’s by now well known that plastic garbage has accumulated in an area in the ocean larger than the size of Texas-I’ve seen reports that it’s up to three times the size, in fact. Just last week I read a newspaper report that another massive swirl of trash was discovered not far from the stunningly beautiful island of Bermuda.

Most of this garbage is plastic—water and drink bottles and scads of other items we discard daily without thinking.

The scary part is that this plastic is being churned into tiny particles, which are being ingested by marine animals, including the fish we eat.

As a commuter, I’m a daily witness to trash that is literally choking canals adjacent to the tracks, canals that feed into wetlands and filter into our water supplies.

Just thinking about the future, as the volume of trash in landfills, streams, lakes and our oceans continues to build is depressing. What’s more, businesses and municipalities don’t appear to be doing a very good job of recycling plastics and other materials. Garbage disposal has been viewed as something someone else needs to take care of—something we want out of sight and out of the way, no matter where it ends up.

Some are starting to take positive steps, however. I know that Lloyd’s, for example, took on the project of reducing, if not eliminating the truckloads of paper the market produces every day, by doing more business online. It’s a good sign to hear the chairman of an organization that size addressing its waste.

Looking ahead, I believe there is hope for our massive garbage problem. Recently I’ve read about new technologies that allow for burning trash, yes our garbage, at extremely high temperatures—3,000 degrees. This would process would create more than enough fuel to create electricity for homes and businesses.

The way I see it, mining our own garbage is about our only hope for keeping the planet from turning into the set of Wall-E. The way to begin tackling the issue is to bring value to waste products, and so far, recycling just isn’t enough. 

Risk managers, do you have any innovative methods or solutions at your organization or municipality? Any advice to pass on? If so, I’d love to hear it and to write about it in future blogs.

One day at lunch my mother’s friend ordered hot tea. The water was served in a glass carafe with a plastic neck and no pour spout. After only a few seconds, her friend discovered the container was too hot to hold and it had to be put down. Remembering the famous spilled-cup-of-hot-coffee at McDonald’s, we recognized the potential for disaster.

A few days later after returning home, my mother called. She had been back to the restaurant—again her friend had ordered hot tea and again it was served in the potentially dangerous carafe. When they mentioned their concerns to the waitress, she shrugged, saying that while she realized the container was a hazard, that her hands were tied because management would not listen to her. The waitress then asked my mother to send an e-mail to the chain’s home office, hoping that might have an impact.

Mom obliged. In the e-mail she described the container and its potential for injury. She also said she hoped the e-mail would be forwarded to both their management and risk management departments. She later received a nice e-mail from the company saying the message would be forwarded to both departments.

End of story? Not at all. It sounds like this restaurant chain has a lot going for it.

I received an e-mail from my mother recently with this message:

“We visited [the restaurant] yesterday. I told the manager when she stopped to see us about my communication with the home office and how they had replied very caringly. [The manager] said, ‘Guess what? The carafes are being replaced nationwide. They are making molds for new ones and will replace these as soon as possible.’ I replied, ‘So I did make a difference!’”

This turn of events demonstrates that even though mistakes are made, many times they are inadvertent. In this case, the company was able to take an honest look at the situation and admit the potential for danger—and what’s more, do something about it! My hat is off to this company.

And sometimes one person can make all the difference. Here, it may keep someone from being injured and possibly prevent a lawsuit.

Risk management, always a focus of mine, came up a several times. In fact, we had a few opportunities to witness first-hand the real meaning of risk management and its implications. First, during a heavy downpour, we stopped at a popular sea-side cafe for dessert. People were tracking water into the entryway and soon the staff pulled out a mop. The wet mop was ineffective and unfortunately the floors were made of potentially slick ceramic tiles—a recipe for disaster. Then they pulled out a standard bright yellow “caution, wet floors” sign. Good so far. But then they placed it in a location and angle that made it impossible to see when entering the restaurant. Not so good.

It was another instance where a potential and obvious danger was being overlooked. In this case, the wait and kitchen staff were left to make important decisions about safety—a decision that should have been anticipated and overseen by management. Unfortunately, scenarios like this are so commonplace they are taken for granted. But these are the things that can drive up insurance costs—liability and workers’ comp for starters.

The next risk management oversight was also in a restaurant, one my mother frequents. During a meal there, her friend ordered hot tea. When it was served, Mom observed it was a different type of container than usual. It was glass, with a plastic neck and no pour spout. After only a few seconds, her friend discovered the container was too hot to hold and it had to be put down.

Anyone remember the famous spilled-cup-of-hot-coffee at McDonald’s? We recognized the potential for disaster here and again had an opportunity to discuss risk management.

A few days later when I was back at home, my mother called me with an update. She had been back to the restaurant—again her friend had ordered hot tea and again it was served in the potentially unsafe carafe. When they mentioned their concerns to the waitress, she shrugged. She said she realized the container was a hazard, but that her hands were tied. She said any attempts to notify management would fall on deaf ears. The waitress hesitated and then asked Mom to send an e-mail to the chain’s home office.

Mom returned to her house, got out her Apple laptop and wrote an e-mail. In it, she said she described the container and its potential for injury. She underscored her point by saying she hoped the e-mail would be forwarded to both their management and risk management departments (like daughter like mother?). She later received a reply that her e-mail was being forwarded to the company’s upper management and risk management departments for review.

Will the e-mail help? Maybe, but it can’t hurt. This is another example of a small, seemingly inconsequential decision made by a large chain, probably without much thought to safety. Just one mishap, however, could mean possible injury to a customer and most likely a lawsuit.

It’s also unfortunate that the waitress felt her concerns would be ignored. This brings to mind the popular new TV show, Undercover Boss, which I’ve mentioned before. I think the show is doing a lot of good because, if nothing else, it’s pointing out how upper management is often clueless to the day-to-day operations—and the hazards present—in their companies.

Then there was rain. For days, torrents of rain drowned the East coast. Thousands of people were without power as soggy tree roots, loosened by soft, muddy soil toppled onto power lines, homes and cars. What a mess.

If there was ever a time for solid contingency plans, it is now. An earthquake, tornado or hurricane generally come to mind with disaster planning, but sometimes it’s the unexpected flood, snow storm or prolonged winds that can bring down a business or municipality.

I’m reminded of a study done in 2009 by Agility Recovery Solutions that found small to medium sized companies woefully lacking in their contingency planning.

This doesn’t mean, however, that risk managers of large companies should start celebrating.

Yes, it was found that 90 percent of smaller companies with more than 100 employees spend less than a day per month maintaining their contingency plans; and yes, one in five spend no time on their plans.

But while 32 percent of larger companies spend one-to-10 days per month updating their contingency plans, a huge 44 percent spend less than one day per month.

Importantly, the survey found that the same old issues persist. One of the biggest is still getting buy-in from the C-level, regardless of a company’s size. Executives continue their hesitation in acknowledging the importance of contingency planning.

So this is a predicament for risk managers, still trying to get the attention of the C-suite. They know that should a disaster strike, the company or municipality might not be prepared.

This is a tough position to be in, especially since the risk manager most likely will be a target for blame if the organization is not adequately prepared.

What do risk managers need to do to get the attention this issue deserves?

Anyone?

Yesterday a statement in the media by Chris Gidez, director of risk management and crisis communications at Hill & Knowlton, a public relations firm, got my attention. He made this point: “Today companies have to be Johnny-on-the spot as soon as something hits,” he said. “We live in a Facebook world and you have to move fast to keep consumers informed.”

I contacted Mr. Gidez for an interview and posted a story on our Web site today at http://property-casualty.com. He made some good observations comparing the two cases.

In today’s world, for example, the Tylenol case, for years seen as the “gold standard” in risk management, might not fare as well. Tylenol waited about a week before recalling product from store shelves. In today’s world of blogs and Internet news sites—which means reporters often are churning out news 24/7—a week is an eternity. Organizations need to have a plan of action in place well in advance, detailing who is a spokesperson and the types of things that need to be said.

He observed that in our digital world, where even deleted e-mails can be resurrected, anything that went on within the Tylenol organization before the recall would have been discovered and most likely leaked.

While it appeared initially that Toyota has done a good job of responding, the auto giant is now coming under fire for not coming forward soon enough with potentially damaging information.

To make things worse, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood caused a stir on Wednesday when he advised that a Toyota car owner “stop driving it. Take it to a Toyota dealer because they believe they have a fix for it.” He later recanted the statement after Toyota shares began to drop, modifying it to, “if you own one of these cars or if you’re in doubt, take it to the dealer and they’re going to fix it.”

In the digital age, Mr. Gidez said, companies need to keep in mind that not only does word travel fast because of technology that didn’t exist years ago, but that details will be leaked, pundits will discuss every aspect of a situation, every crumb of information will be blasted over the Internet and blogs will be written.

We live in the “Google Age,” he said.

While the company will survive, what lies ahead are years of court cases and class action lawsuits and a “new normal,” for Toyota, Mr. Gidez observed.