Every executive I have spoken with since the Gulf disruption agrees that resilience is worth paying for. I have not met one who can tell me what they paid for it.
That gap is where the industry conversation has quietly stalled. Four shocks (COVID, the rebound, the trough, the Gulf crisis) in six years won the argument in principle, and nobody defends single-sourcing on a podium anymore.
The committee is not being short-sighted. It is applying the discipline it was built to apply.
A cost-reduction project arrives with a number attached. A flexibility investment arrives with a story about a bad day that may not come. One of those clears a hurdle rate and the other does not, and no amount of agreement in the room changes the arithmetic on the page. The return on resilience is a crisis that did not hurt you, which is the hardest thing in finance to point at.
The word itself makes it worse. "Resilience" sounds like a virtue, and companies do not fund virtues. They fund purchases.
What is actually being bought is simple enough. A known cost, paid every year, in exchange for a payoff that only shows up when something goes wrong. Companies buy that all the time and call it insurance, or a hedge, or firm transport, or a second qualified supplier. Nobody needs a new framework to evaluate it.
For six years we have been asking for resilience when we should have been putting a price on a specific risk.
The reason that ask kept failing was that the payoff stayed hypothetical. Everyone could imagine the bad day. Nobody could invoice it.
I have run this calculation once already, in a much smaller business, and it worked.
Years ago I was the business manager for Dow's aircraft deicing fluid business. What we sold was insurance. An airline with fluid on hand flew. An airline that ran out did not, and the cost of that was enormous. But running out was rare, which put us in exactly the position the resilience argument sits in now. We were asking customers to pay for something whose value only appeared on the days it was missing.
So we measured the missing days. We tracked how often an airline called in a panic for fluid, how long the shortage lasted, and what it cost them while it did. After a few seasons we could tell a customer what a 99.9 percent on-time delivery record was worth inside their own operation, using events from their own industry. Reliability stopped being a virtue we asserted. It became a price on a specific risk, and the customer could decide whether to buy it.
Chemicals has never been able to run that calculation on feedstock flexibility, because the industry lacked the events. This year supplied them.
The Gulf disruption ran long enough and cut deep enough to produce real numbers on both sides of the question. Companies that could switch feedstock have results from a quarter in which switching mattered. Companies locked to one source have the other half of the same experiment. Nobody volunteered for this, and it is still the largest trial the industry has ever run on the value of flexibility.
The three things we counted for deicing fluid are now countable for feedstock. How often a route closes. How long it stays closed. What it costs while it is shut, in lost margin and in customers who did not get product. Those three numbers are a price tag. A board can accept a price tag or reject it. Nobody can do anything with the question of whether resilience matters.
One caution, and the cost side has earned it. Nobody insures a building for more than the building is worth. Cover gets sized to the loss, or it becomes the waste it was meant to prevent. The habit that requires is the same cost discipline the industry already has, pointed at a risk instead of a unit cost.
Count it while the receipts still exist. What did the disruption cost us this year, in dollars, and which route caused it. That number is sitting in this year's actuals right now. In twelve months it gets rebuilt from memory, and a number rebuilt from memory does not survive a committee.
Then take them a price tag instead of a principle. We are buying cover on this feedstock route. It costs this much a year. It pays when the route closes. A paper that says resilience gets agreement and no money. A paper with a price on it gets a decision, and a no is worth more than a nod.
Last, decide once and at the top how often we think the world breaks. Every one of these projects currently has to win that argument by itself, and no single project can. Leadership naming the number does more for all of them together than any one business case will.
The efficiency era built the discipline this requires. Reading a number honestly, and sizing an investment against the return it can actually defend. Those habits are exactly what pricing a risk demands, and the people who spent their careers taking cost out are the only ones equipped to do it properly.
The work got harder. It did not become someone else's.
Until next week,
Kendall -
Find me on LinkedIn or Book a 1:1 call
Not a subscriber yet? Subscribe here