14. Resilience Measurement, Strategy and Future Readiness

Introduction and Context

Supply chain resilience is often discussed as if it were a general organisational quality: a resilient supply chain is expected to withstand disruption, recover quickly and continue creating value. Such a description is useful but insufficient for managerial decision-making. Executives must determine how resilience is measured, which capabilities deserve investment, how much protection is economically justified, and whether the supply chain is prepared for future forms of disruption.

Measurement is therefore not an administrative exercise. It is a way of translating uncertainty into decisions about network design, inventory, sourcing, contracts, technology, people and governance. A firm may recover quickly from a minor disruption but fail during a prolonged crisis. Another may maintain service through expensive excess capacity but destroy cash flow. Resilience must consequently be assessed across time, service, financial performance, organisational maturity and strategic adaptability.

This chapter develops an integrated approach to resilience measurement and strategy. It examines time-to-survive, time-to-recover, service and financial indicators, maturity assessment, investment business cases and trade-off analysis. It also considers autonomous, regenerative and increasingly regulated supply chains. The central argument is that resilience is not a fixed state or a single score. It is a dynamic capability that must be measured against threats, objectives, time horizons and stakeholder expectations.

Learning Objectives

After studying this chapter, students should be able to:

1. Explain the principal dimensions of supply chain resilience measurement.

2. Distinguish time-to-survive, time-to-recover and time-to-restore service.

3. Construct service, financial, capability and maturity indicators.

4. Develop a business case for resilience investment.

5. Analyse trade-offs among cost, speed, flexibility, sustainability and service.

6. Apply resilience frameworks to a supply chain case.

7. Evaluate the implications of automation, artificial intelligence, regulation and regenerative design for future readiness.

8. Identify governance, ethical and implementation risks in resilience programmes.

Resilience as a Measurable Strategic Capability

Resilience may be defined as the capability of a supply chain to prepare for disruption, absorb its effects, adapt during disturbance and recover or transform while maintaining acceptable performance. This definition contains four distinct ideas. Preparation concerns exposure reduction and readiness. Absorption concerns the ability to continue operating when a disruption occurs. Recovery concerns the restoration of capability. Adaptation concerns learning and changing the system so that future performance improves.

A useful measurement system begins by specifying the object being measured. Resilience can be assessed at the level of a facility, product, supplier, logistics lane, business unit, enterprise or extended ecosystem. The appropriate boundary matters because a firm may appear resilient internally while depending on a highly vulnerable tier-two supplier or infrastructure provider.

The second requirement is a performance baseline. Without a baseline, a reported recovery time has little meaning. Performance may be represented by output, order fulfilment, revenue, delivery reliability, inventory availability, production capacity or customer service. Resilience indicators should compare actual performance with a defined normal or target level and should identify the duration and depth of deviation.

A simple performance-loss representation is the disruption-performance curve. Let normal performance be represented by 1.0. When disruption occurs, performance falls, reaches a minimum and then improves. The area between the normal-performance line and the actual-performance curve represents cumulative performance loss. Two supply chains can have the same recovery time but different resilience: one may experience a sharp collapse and rapid recovery, while another may experience a smaller decline lasting much longer.

Resilience measurement should therefore answer five questions:

• What event or scenario is being considered?
• What level of performance must be maintained?
• How long can the system operate below normal performance?
• What resources and decisions enable recovery?
• What is the financial, customer, social and environmental consequence of failure?

Time-Based Measures: Survival, Recovery and Restoration

Time-to-Survive

Time-to-survive (TTS) is the period for which a supply chain can continue meeting a specified performance requirement after a disruption, before its buffers or alternatives are exhausted. TTS is not necessarily the time until complete operational failure. It is usually measured against a critical threshold, such as the minimum production rate required to serve priority customers.

For example, if a manufacturer can continue production for ten days using available inventory after a critical component supply interruption, its TTS for that component is ten days. TTS can be increased through safety stock, substitute materials, alternative suppliers, postponement, flexible production, reserved capacity or customer prioritisation.

TTS is scenario-specific. A firm may have a high TTS for a short port closure but a low TTS for a cyberattack that disables planning and warehouse systems. It is also dependent on demand assumptions. High demand during a disruption consumes buffers faster than normal demand.

Time-to-Recover

Time-to-recover (TTR) is the time required to restore a disrupted node, process, lane or capability to a defined level of functionality. The definition must identify the starting point and the recovery threshold. TTR may refer to physical repair, restoration of information systems, supplier requalification, replenishment of inventory or return to planned output.

A distribution centre may have a TTR of three days for a temporary equipment failure but several months for a fire requiring reconstruction. Supplier TTR may include the time to arrange tooling, approve quality samples and reach stable production, not merely the time to restart a machine.

The relationship between TTS and TTR is strategically important. If TTS exceeds TTR, the organisation can bridge the disruption with its existing capabilities. If TTR exceeds TTS, a resilience gap exists. The gap may be addressed by increasing TTS, reducing TTR or changing the performance requirement through prioritisation and substitution.

Time-to-Return and Service Restoration

Time-to-recover should not be confused with time-to-return to normal supply chain performance. A facility may restart quickly but operate at reduced efficiency, with quality problems, overtime and unreliable delivery. Time-to-restore service measures the time required to return customer service to an agreed target. Time-to-full-recovery measures the return to normal capacity, cost and quality.

These distinctions prevent misleading claims. A company that restores 70 percent of output in two weeks has not necessarily recovered if customers require 95 percent service. Recovery metrics must specify the target, not merely the date of restart.

Time-to-Detect and Time-to-Respond

Time-to-detect measures the time between the beginning of a disruption and reliable recognition of its significance. Time-to-respond measures the time between recognition and implementation of an effective action. Slow detection can consume the very buffer that would have enabled recovery. These indicators are especially important for cyber incidents, demand shocks, quality failures and geopolitical events, where early action can prevent escalation.

A Balanced Resilience Measurement Architecture

A mature measurement architecture combines several indicator families rather than relying on a single index.

Service and Customer Indicators

Service indicators measure whether the supply chain continues to meet customer commitments. They include order fill rate, on-time-in-full delivery, perfect-order performance, backorder duration, customer prioritisation effectiveness and recovery of critical service levels. During a disruption, average service may conceal severe consequences for hospitals, emergency customers or strategic accounts. Segmented service indicators are therefore preferable.

A useful measure is the service recovery gap: the difference between target service and actual service over time. A related indicator is the proportion of critical demand fulfilled during the disruption. Service measures should distinguish prevention of stockout, substitution, delayed fulfilment and cancellation, since these have different customer consequences.

Financial Indicators

Financial resilience concerns the ability to absorb loss and continue funding operations. Relevant indicators include disruption-related revenue loss, margin erosion, emergency logistics cost, working-capital requirements, inventory carrying cost, cash-flow-at-risk and recovery expenditure. A resilience investment may reduce operational risk while increasing fixed cost, so both expected loss and cash-flow timing should be examined.

Expected annual disruption loss can be estimated as:

Expected loss = probability of disruption × financial consequence of disruption.

This simple calculation is only a starting point. Scenario analysis should include multiple disruption frequencies, severity levels, interdependencies and recovery paths. Management should also assess liquidity, because a profitable investment may still create a short-term cash constraint.

Structural and Capability Indicators

Structural indicators describe the options available to the supply chain. Examples include the percentage of critical spend with qualified alternative suppliers, geographic concentration of supply, capacity flexibility, inventory coverage, transport-mode diversity, modular product design and the proportion of critical processes with tested continuity plans.

Capability indicators examine whether options can actually be activated. A second supplier listed in a database is not equivalent to a qualified supplier with available capacity. Indicators should therefore include supplier activation time, successful completion of disruption exercises, data quality, visibility across supply tiers, decision rights and availability of trained personnel.

Sustainability and Stakeholder Indicators

Resilience cannot be assessed only through financial survival. An organisation may transfer disruption costs to workers, communities, suppliers or the environment. Measures may include emissions caused by emergency transport, labour exposure, supplier payment delays, waste from redundant inventory, environmental recovery time and continuity of essential services. These indicators support a broader view of responsible resilience.

Measuring Maturity Rather Than Merely Counting Assets

Resilience maturity describes how systematically an organisation manages disruption risk. A maturity model should not be treated as a ranking exercise; its purpose is to identify capability gaps and guide improvement.

A five-stage model may be used:

1. Fragile: risk is addressed reactively, data are fragmented and continuity depends on individual experience.

2. Aware: major risks are documented, but assessment remains periodic and silo-based.

3. Managed: critical scenarios, owners, indicators and response plans are formally established.

4. Integrated: resilience is embedded in network design, sourcing, finance, technology and executive governance.

5. Adaptive: the organisation continuously senses change, tests options, learns from events and redesigns its ecosystem.

Assessment should examine governance, risk intelligence, network design, supplier management, inventory policy, logistics, technology, workforce capability, financial planning and learning. Evidence is more reliable than self-description. A business unit claiming to have a tested recovery plan should be able to demonstrate exercise results, decision thresholds, contact validity, resource availability and post-exercise improvements.

Maturity must also be judged relative to risk. A highly mature process in a low-risk area may be less valuable than a moderately mature capability protecting a critical product. The objective is not uniform maturity but risk-adjusted capability.

Building the Business Case for Resilience Investment

Resilience investments are difficult to justify because their benefits are often realised through avoided losses. They may also support strategic flexibility, reputation, regulatory compliance and social obligations that are not fully captured in conventional return-on-investment calculations.

The business case should begin with a defined decision. Examples include adding a qualified supplier, holding strategic inventory, relocating production, implementing control-tower visibility, investing in cyber resilience or redesigning a product for substitution. The decision must specify the disruption scenarios, performance objectives and alternatives.

A practical business case includes:

• baseline exposure and current performance;
• disruption scenarios and probability ranges;
• consequences under current and proposed capabilities;
• investment, operating and opportunity costs;
• implementation time and dependencies;
• financial and non-financial benefits;
• residual risk after investment; and
• indicators for monitoring results.

The expected value of an investment may be expressed as avoided expected loss minus total cost of ownership. However, decision-makers should add the value of flexibility. A dual-source arrangement may be expensive if no disruption occurs, but it may also create bargaining power, support growth or enable rapid response to future demand.

Real-options reasoning is especially useful. An option to expand, switch supplier, activate a contract manufacturer or access reserved transport capacity has value even when it is not exercised. The value depends on uncertainty, the speed of activation and the irreversibility of the alternative. Investments that preserve future choices can be preferable to investments that optimise only the most likely scenario.

Trade-Off Analysis and Strategic Choices

Resilience involves trade-offs rather than universally correct solutions. More inventory can improve TTS but increase obsolescence and working capital. Regional sourcing can reduce geopolitical and transport exposure but raise unit cost and reduce scale economies. Redundant capacity can improve recovery but increase emissions and fixed costs. Automation can accelerate response but create dependence on digital infrastructure and specialised skills.

Trade-off analysis should compare alternatives using a common set of criteria. A weighted decision matrix may include total cost, service protection, TTS, TTR, scalability, sustainability, regulatory compliance, implementation risk and strategic flexibility. Weights should be agreed by relevant stakeholders and tested through sensitivity analysis.

Scenario analysis is more robust than a single forecast. For each alternative, managers should examine moderate, severe and extreme disruptions, as well as combinations such as supplier failure accompanied by transport restriction. Correlation matters: diversification by supplier is less effective if all suppliers depend on the same region, raw material or sub-tier producer.

A useful managerial question is not “Which option is cheapest?” but “Which configuration provides acceptable performance across the range of plausible futures at an acceptable total cost?” This shifts decision-making from point optimisation toward robust design.

Illustrative Case: Resilience Investment at Meridian Medical Devices

Background

Meridian Medical Devices, an illustrative multinational manufacturer, produces infusion pumps for hospitals. Its final assembly plants are located in two regions, but both depend on a specialised sensor supplied by one certified producer. The sensor represents a small proportion of product cost but is essential to regulatory approval and cannot be replaced immediately.

Situation and Problem

The sensor supplier experiences a six-week production interruption after a flood damages its facility. Meridian has twelve days of sensor inventory. Historically, management had measured supplier performance mainly through price, quality and delivery reliability. It had not measured TTS or the time required to qualify a new sensor source.

The supply chain team identifies a TTS of twelve days and an estimated TTR of sixteen weeks for qualification and ramp-up of an alternative supplier. Customer service would fall from 96 percent on-time delivery to approximately 55 percent if no action were taken. Emergency airfreight of finished products could not solve the sensor shortage.

Analysis

The disruption-performance analysis shows a large service loss because inventory is exhausted before alternative capacity becomes available. The immediate response is to prioritise hospital orders, allocate available sensors to critical products, and negotiate with customers regarding delivery sequencing. Meridian also explores recovering sensors from returned equipment, subject to quality and regulatory controls.

For the strategic decision, three alternatives are assessed:

• increase sensor inventory from twelve to forty days;
• qualify a second supplier in another geographic region; or
• redesign the product so that two approved sensor models can be used.

The inventory option improves TTS but does not reduce TTR. The second-source option reduces structural dependence but requires qualification expenditure and minimum purchase commitments. The redesign has the highest initial cost but may reduce future switching time and create design flexibility.

Strategy and Solution

Meridian adopts a staged portfolio. It holds a targeted buffer for the most critical sensor variants, qualifies a second supplier and begins a modular redesign. It also introduces quarterly disruption exercises, supplier financial and geographic monitoring, and an executive threshold requiring action when TTS falls below expected TTR.

The business case is not justified solely by the probability of another flood. It includes exposure to fire, political restrictions, cyber disruption and supplier insolvency. The redesign is evaluated as a real option because it permits future substitution and reduces dependence on a single technical specification.

Outcome

In the first year, carrying costs increase and the redesign programme places additional demands on engineering and regulatory teams. However, Meridian reduces single-source exposure, improves visibility of sub-tier dependencies and establishes a measurable recovery plan. During a later regional transport disruption, the firm activates the second source and maintains critical hospital service above its emergency threshold.

Learning Points

The case demonstrates that low-cost components can create high-consequence bottlenecks. TTS and TTR expose the gap that conventional supplier scorecards miss. It also shows why resilience should be designed as a portfolio of inventory, sourcing, product and governance measures rather than as a single intervention. Finally, the most valuable investment may be one that improves future options rather than merely protecting against one predicted event.

Digital, Autonomous and Regenerative Supply Chains

Digital technologies can improve resilience when they provide timely, trustworthy information and support disciplined decisions. Control towers integrate data from suppliers, transport providers, inventory systems, weather services and external risk feeds. Predictive analytics can identify unusual lead-time patterns, demand shifts or supplier distress. Digital twins can test network alternatives before decisions are implemented. Artificial intelligence can support scenario generation, prioritisation and recommendation, although human accountability remains essential.

Autonomous supply chains use automated sensing and decision execution in areas such as replenishment, warehouse movement, route selection and exception management. Autonomy should be graduated. Low-risk decisions may be automated, while decisions affecting safety, legal compliance, customer allocation or major supplier changes require human approval. Poor-quality data, model drift, cyberattack and automation bias can convert speed into systemic fragility.

A regenerative supply chain goes beyond reducing harm. It seeks to restore natural, social and economic systems through circular materials, renewable inputs, ecosystem stewardship, fair supplier relationships, local capability development and product-life extension. Regeneration can enhance resilience by reducing dependence on scarce virgin resources and by strengthening community and supplier relationships. It may also introduce transition costs and new operational complexity.

Future readiness requires testing not only whether a system can recover from disruption, but whether it can change its operating model. Relevant questions include whether products can be redesigned, whether data can be shared securely across ecosystems, whether workers can operate new technologies, and whether the organisation can meet emerging climate, human-rights, traceability and due-diligence requirements.

Governance, Regulation and Ethical Considerations

Resilience decisions distribute benefits and burdens. Expedited shipments may protect major customers while disadvantaging smaller ones. Supplier diversification may shift demand away from vulnerable communities. Inventory write-offs may be financially acceptable but environmentally wasteful. Automated allocation may embed historical bias or conceal responsibility.

Governance should define risk ownership, escalation thresholds, decision rights, assurance processes and documentation requirements. Boards and senior executives should receive indicators that connect operational exposure to strategic objectives, rather than large volumes of unprioritised data.

Regulation increasingly affects resilience through requirements concerning cybersecurity, critical infrastructure, product safety, environmental reporting, supply-chain due diligence, forced labour, data protection and business continuity. Compliance should not be treated as a separate paperwork activity. Regulatory requirements can reveal weaknesses in supplier visibility, data lineage, incident reporting and accountability.

Ethical resilience requires proportionality and transparency. Organisations should avoid claiming resilience based only on financial continuity while ignoring worker safety, public health or environmental damage. When artificial intelligence supports resilience decisions, firms should maintain explainability, access controls, audit trails, human oversight and procedures for challenging an automated recommendation.

Common Measurement Errors and Implementation Challenges

A frequent error is treating resilience as a single score. Aggregation can conceal a catastrophic weakness in one critical component. Dashboards should preserve visibility of bottlenecks and confidence levels.

Another error is measuring capacity without testing activation. A contract, supplier listing or emergency plan has little value if it cannot be executed under pressure. Exercises, simulations and real-event reviews are necessary.

Organisations also confuse efficiency with resilience. Lean processes are not inherently fragile, but eliminating every buffer without considering TTS and TTR can create unacceptable exposure. Conversely, excessive buffers may conceal poor process design and create financial or environmental waste.

Data quality presents a further challenge. Lead times, inventory records, supplier ownership and sub-tier relationships may be inaccurate. Measurement systems should record data origin, frequency, uncertainty and responsible owner. Metrics should be limited to those that support decisions; excessive indicators encourage reporting rather than learning.

Finally, resilience programmes often fail because incentives remain local. Procurement may be rewarded for price reduction, operations for utilisation and finance for working-capital reduction, even when these objectives increase enterprise risk. Resilience requires cross-functional targets and executive sponsorship.

Best-Practice Principles for Future Readiness

A credible resilience programme should:

1. Define critical products, customers, processes and services.

2. Measure TTS, TTR and service restoration for material scenarios.

3. Combine operational, financial, sustainability and maturity indicators.

4. Map dependencies beyond first-tier suppliers and logistics providers.

5. Test plans through simulations and post-event learning.

6. Compare investment alternatives using scenarios and sensitivity analysis.

7. Preserve strategic options through modular design, qualified alternatives and flexible contracts.

8. Integrate resilience with cybersecurity, sustainability, compliance and business continuity.

9. Use automation with clear limits, human oversight and auditability.

10. Review measures as threats, technologies, regulations and business models change.

Chapter Summary

Resilience measurement converts an abstract capability into evidence for strategic action. Time-to-survive indicates how long performance can be maintained; time-to-recover indicates how quickly capability can be restored; and service-restoration measures show whether customers actually receive acceptable performance. Financial, structural, capability, sustainability and maturity indicators provide complementary perspectives.

Investment decisions should compare current exposure with alternative configurations, including direct cost, avoided loss, flexibility, sustainability and residual risk. Scenario analysis is superior to reliance on a single forecast because disruptions vary in severity and may be correlated. The illustrative medical-device case shows how a small bottleneck component can create a major resilience gap when TTS is shorter than TTR.

Future-ready supply chains combine digital visibility, carefully governed automation, modularity, ecosystem collaboration and regenerative practices. Regulation and ethics require organisations to consider workers, communities, customers and the environment, not merely financial continuity. Resilience is ultimately a dynamic, risk-adjusted capability that must be tested, governed and renewed.

Key Terms

Time-to-survive (TTS): The period for which a supply chain can maintain a defined performance level after disruption.

Time-to-recover (TTR): The time required to restore a disrupted capability to a specified functional level.

Time-to-restore service: The time required to return customer service to an agreed target.

Disruption-performance curve: A representation of performance decline and recovery over the course of a disruption.

Resilience gap: The exposure created when recovery time exceeds available survival time.

Service recovery gap: The difference between target service and actual service during recovery.

Cash-flow-at-risk: The potential adverse effect of disruption on cash generation or liquidity.

Capability indicator: A measure of the organisation’s ability to execute a resilience response.

Structural indicator: A measure of network characteristics such as redundancy, inventory or geographic concentration.

Resilience maturity: The degree to which resilience is systematically governed, integrated and continuously improved.

Risk-adjusted capability: Resilience capability evaluated in relation to the significance and likelihood of exposure.

Expected disruption loss: The probability-weighted financial consequence of disruption.

Real option: The value of preserving a future operational choice under uncertainty.

Robust design: A configuration that performs acceptably across a range of plausible conditions.

Control tower: A digital coordination capability that integrates supply-chain data and exceptions.

Digital twin: A digital representation used to analyse or simulate a physical supply-chain system.

Autonomous supply chain: A supply chain in which selected sensing, analysis and execution activities are automated.

Regenerative supply chain: A supply chain designed to restore or improve ecological, social and economic systems.

Residual risk: Risk that remains after controls or resilience investments are implemented.

Decision rights: Defined authority to make and escalate decisions during normal and disrupted operations.

Review Questions

Short Answer Questions

1. What is the difference between time-to-survive and time-to-recover?

2. Why should service-restoration time be distinguished from physical restart time?

3. Identify four categories of resilience indicators.

4. What is meant by resilience maturity?

5. Why is a second supplier not automatically evidence of resilience?

Long Answer Questions

1. Explain how TTS and TTR can be used together to identify resilience gaps.

2. Discuss the role of financial, service and sustainability indicators in a balanced resilience measurement system.

3. Describe the principal stages in building a business case for resilience investment.

4. Analyse the advantages and limitations of inventory, dual sourcing and product modularity as resilience strategies.

5. Explain how autonomous and regenerative supply chains may improve future readiness while creating new risks.

Analytical / Application Questions

1. A firm has a TTS of ten days and an estimated TTR of six weeks for a critical packaging material. Develop a measurement and investment approach that could close the gap.

2. Compare two alternatives: a 30-day strategic inventory buffer and qualification of a second supplier. Specify the financial, service, sustainability and flexibility criteria you would use.

3. Using the Meridian Medical Devices case, explain why redesigning the product may have greater strategic value than simply increasing inventory.

22. Multiple Choice Questions with Answers

Question 1

Which statement best describes time-to-survive?

A. The time required to repair a disrupted facility

B. The period during which a defined performance level can be maintained after disruption

C. The time required to return to normal profit

D. The time between detecting and reporting a disruption

Correct Answer: B. The period during which a defined performance level can be maintained after disruption

Question 2

A supply chain has a TTS of 14 days and a TTR of 30 days for a critical supplier. What does this primarily indicate?

A. The supply chain has excess resilience

B. The supplier has no operational risk

C. A resilience gap exists because recovery exceeds available survival time

D. Service performance cannot be measured

Correct Answer: C. A resilience gap exists because recovery exceeds available survival time

Question 3

Why is time-to-restore service different from time-to-restart operations?

A. Restart may occur before customer service reaches its required target

B. Service restoration measures only financial performance

C. Restart always takes longer than service restoration

D. Service restoration excludes customer requirements

Correct Answer: A. Restart may occur before customer service reaches its required target

Question 4

Which measure best captures the cumulative effect of performance falling below normal during a disruption?

A. Supplier price variance

B. Disruption-performance curve area

C. Employee turnover rate

D. Purchase-order accuracy

Correct Answer: B. Disruption-performance curve area

Question 5

What is the main weakness of relying on a single resilience score?

A. It prevents all financial analysis

B. It can conceal a critical bottleneck within an acceptable aggregate result

C. It cannot be used by senior management

D. It measures only supplier quality

Correct Answer: B. It can conceal a critical bottleneck within an acceptable aggregate result

Question 6

Which investment most directly increases time-to-survive?

A. Increasing critical-component inventory

B. Reducing incident documentation

C. Delaying supplier qualification

D. Removing alternative transport contracts

Correct Answer: A. Increasing critical-component inventory

Question 7

Why can a qualified second supplier still fail to provide resilience?

A. Qualification always increases customer demand

B. The supplier may lack available capacity or activation readiness during disruption

C. Multiple suppliers eliminate the need for testing

D. Second suppliers cannot be used for critical products

Correct Answer: B. The supplier may lack available capacity or activation readiness during disruption

Question 8

Which concept captures the value of preserving the ability to switch suppliers or expand capacity in the future?

A. Perfect-order rate

B. Real option

C. Service recovery gap

D. Inventory obsolescence

Correct Answer: B. Real option

Question 9

In an autonomous supply chain, which decision most appropriately requires human oversight?

A. Routine warehouse location assignment

B. Automatic replenishment within approved limits

C. A major customer allocation decision affecting safety and regulatory obligations

D. Routine barcode scanning

Correct Answer: C. A major customer allocation decision affecting safety and regulatory obligations

Question 10

What is a defining feature of a regenerative supply chain?

A. It focuses exclusively on reducing purchase price

B. It seeks to restore or improve ecological, social and economic systems

C. It eliminates all inventory buffers

D. It replaces governance with automation

Correct Answer: B. It seeks to restore or improve ecological, social and economic systems