A new Economist Impact study supported by Telstra International found that organizations in the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany are materially underprepared for large-scale digital disruption.
The research suggests failures are driven less by technology gaps, than by weak governance, limited coordination and poor visibility beyond organizational boundaries.
“Our research shows organizations understand the risks they face, but many have yet to translate that awareness into sustained capability. Digital resilience must be treated as a core business discipline with clear ownership and dedicated resources, not as a periodic IT initiative. That means integrating ecosystem partners into stress testing, shifting from episodic risk reviews to continuous preparedness and ensuring governance keeps pace as technologies such as AI scale,” says Charles Ross, head of policy and insights, Asia-Pacific at Economist Impact.
“What stands out in this research is not a lack of intent, but a gap between ambition and execution. Many organizations believe they are prepared, yet disruption continues to expose weaknesses in governance, coordination and decision‑making, particularly beyond their own walls. In a highly connected digital economy, digital resilience can’t be built in silos. It has to be owned at the top, tested across ecosystems and treated as a core business capability,” adds Roary Stasko, CEO of Telstra International. “As digital disruption grows in frequency and complexity, strengthening resilience amid operational or cyber risks is becoming a differentiator for organizational stability and competitiveness.”
Key takeaways:
· Just 25% of organizations across all surveyed markets say their responses to digital disruption largely go to plan, while only 21% have a dedicated team responsible for delivering digital resilience initiatives.
· While organizations report progress in modernizing systems and strengthening cybersecurity policy, the research shows digital resilience breaking down when disruption extends beyond enterprise suppliers, partners and critical infrastructure.
· Fewer than one in five executives in the United States (19%) and UK (20%) express confidence in cross-sector collaboration with suppliers and partners during disruption events. Access to skilled talent is similarly constrained, with just 22% of U.S. and 18% of UK respondents citing it as a strength.
· By contrast, executives report higher confidence in internal foundations such as cybersecurity planning and regulatory frameworks. Germany leads on policy confidence (70%), while the United States (54%) and UK (51%) show solid but less mature confidence levels.
· The findings point to a widening gap between internal preparedness and ecosystem-level digital resilience, with siloed information sharing, limited joint testing and weak partner governance undermining response efforts when incidents escalate.
· Across all the surveyed markets, just 27% of organizations say digital resilience plans and strategies are reviewed regularly by boards, and only 38% say those discussions lead to follow-up action. Monitoring is also inconsistent, with more than half of organisations tracking digital risks infrequently or on an ad hoc basis.
· Around 60% of U.S. and UK organizations, and 54% in Germany, say legacy technology still forms a significant part of their operations, constraining efforts to design digital resilience into systems from the outset.
· Just over one-third of financial services and IT and technology organizations (36% each) report having modernized most or all of their core systems, compared with 12% in the public sector and 19% among industrial organizations, where deeper legacy dependence and rigid investment models continue to slow progress.
· Just 14% of organisations integrate climate-related risks into digital resilience planning, despite the direct impact of environmental events on power supply, data centres and recovery timelines.
