SRI Security Research Institute, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia
Emergency Management (EM) and Business Continuity Management (BCM) frameworks incorporate measures of strategic and operational aspects. Defined within a number of Australian and international standards as well as guidelines, such concepts may be integrated to provide increased resilience for disruptive events. However, it has been found that there is some degree of misalignment of concept integration amongst security and EM bodies of knowledge. In line with cognitive psychology exemplar‐based concepts, such misalignments may be associated with a lack of precision in communality in the approach to EM and BCM. This article presents stage 1 of a two‐stage study. Stage 1 compromised a critique of international literature. Findings indicate that EMs operational function, as an initial response, is saliently considered integrated with the response strategies of BCM. However, the strategic link between BCM and EM concept integration are still distinguished by many separate views. As such, this study has concluded that EM is considered an operational component of BCM by the majority; however, with a broader misalignment of strategic integration. Understanding underpinnings of such misalignment will aid in raising the standards and application of professionalism within Security, EM and BCM domains, supporting clarification and definition of professional boundaries.