Emergency Management Principles

Emergency Management Principles
Name
Institutional Affiliation
The emergency management principles under review are based on the man-made disaster in Fukushima, Japan which led to many deaths and massive evictions in Japan in 2011.
Reference
Article 1 Hollnagel, E. & Fujita, Y. (2013). The Fukushima disaster – systemic failures as the lack of resilience. Journal of Nuclear Engineering and Technology, Vol. 45(1): pp.13-20.
Article 2 McCurry, J. 2017. Japanese government held liable for first time for negligence in Fukushima. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/17/japanese-government-liable-negligence-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-disaster
Article 3 Noack, R. (2015). The nuclear disaster at Fukushima didn’t have to happen. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/22/fukushima-accident-was-preventable-new-study-finds/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b5a152e11065
Article 4 McCurry, J. (2012). Fukushima reactor meltdown was a man-made disaster, says official report. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/05/fukushima-meltdown-manmade-disaster
The eight principles of EM Analysis of Response and Recovery
Comprehensive EM requires that the emergency managers take and consider all the involved factors, phases, all hazards, all impacts, and all stakeholders the may pertain to disasters. As McCurry (2012) noted during a court hearing, there was a 2002 report revealing that there was one in five chance that a Tsunami would hit the facility within thirty years.

The EM was that not as comprehensive as it did not consider all hazards.
Progressive The EM managers are bound to be anticipatory of future disasters and assume preparatory and preventive steps to create communities which are disaster proof and disaster resilient. Under this regard, the Japanese government never anticipated such a Tsunami and were thus caught unaware.
Risk-driven EM managers utilize sound principles of managing risks like risk identification, analysis of risk and the impact analysis for prioritization of resources. EM in Japan failed on thus part too as they were not risk-driven: they overstayed in their comfort zone.
Integrated EM managers make sure that the all societal elements and the different levels of government are united towards a course. It is evident that the government and TEPCO were not on the same page as the government reports foresaw the disaster but TEPCO ignored the warnings and failed to develop adequate safety requirements.
Collaboration It is under the EM to forge lasting relationships and loyalty with the stakeholders which would cultivate trust, consensus, and improve communication. The EM under review outperformed this task as a new body with stricter rules was chosen the man the nuclear reserves.
Coordinated It is the duty of the EM to synchronize all stakeholder activities towards a certain objective. The stakeholders performed excellent collaboration skills towards saving lives although they still lost many.
Flexible The EM managers are expected to utilize innovative and creative approaches to solve disaster-related challenges. Exposure to the radioactive material could not allow creativity during the time, but further trends of withdrawing the employees was a creative move.
Professional The EM managers should make use of scientific approaches based on objective training regarding relying on the code of ethics and so on. The conduct was professional until they ignored expert opinion of the chances of a Tsunami happening in one out five chances for thirty years.
References List
Hollnagel, E. & Fujita, Y. (2013). The Fukushima disaster – systemic failures as the lack of resilience. Journal of Nuclear Engineering and Technology, Vol. 45(1): pp.13-20.
McCurry, J. 2017. Japanese government held liable for first time for negligence in Fukushima. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/17/japanese-government-liable-negligence-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-disasterNoack, R. (2015). The nuclear disaster at Fukushima didn’t have to happen. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/22/fukushima-accident-was-preventable-new-study-finds/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b5a152e11065McCurry, J. (2012). Fukushima reactor meltdown was a man-made disaster, says official report. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/05/fukushima-meltdown-manmade-disaster