At the OSAC MENA Regional Summit 2026 in Egypt, security and business leaders explored a question that is becoming increasingly important for organizations operating in complex environments: when is it the right time to return to a market after disruption or conflict?
Market re-entry is often framed as a security question: Is it safe to go back?
But, as Scott Wilcox, Founder and Senior Advisor at Sicuro Group, argued during the “Market Re-entry Indicators” panel, that may be the wrong question.
The more useful question is whether the risk facing an organization is proportionate to its exposure, and whether the business has the capacity to absorb that risk.
Two companies can look at the same city, during the same week, and reach completely different conclusions. Both decisions can be correct.
That is because re-entry is ultimately a business decision with risk inside it.
The discussion, moderated by Mehrab Karim of Marriott International, Vice Chair of OSAC MENA, brought together Wilcox alongside Simon Howse of Marriott International and Kevin Murphy of Gallagher to examine the practical considerations organizations should weigh when deciding whether to enter, remain in, suspend or re-enter a market.
Moving Beyond the Question: “Is It Safe?”
There is rarely a simple point at which a complex market becomes “safe.”
For organizations operating internationally, risk exists on a spectrum. A location may be suitable for limited travel but unsuitable for a permanent workforce. It may support a reduced operating footprint but not full-scale commercial activity. Or it may present risks that exceed what a particular organization is prepared or able to absorb.
The OSAC panel discussion highlighted this distinction, emphasizing that there is no universal definition of “too risky.” Risk tolerance varies according to an organization’s industry, business model, objectives and exposure.
This makes re-entry less about finding an objective declaration that a market is safe and more about understanding the relationship between threat, exposure, mitigation and business resilience.
For one organization, elevated security risk may be manageable with additional resources, protective measures and contingency planning. For another, the same environment may be commercially or operationally unacceptable.
Neither decision necessarily reflects a different understanding of the threat.
They reflect different businesses.
What Has Actually Changed?
A key challenge in market re-entry is separating perception from the conditions that actually matter to the business.
Following a period of conflict or instability, organizations need to look beyond headlines and ask what has changed on the ground.
Has the security environment genuinely improved?
Are critical transport routes functioning?
Can employees and guests move safely?
Are local security providers capable of supporting operations?
Are communications and emergency response mechanisms reliable?
Has political or civil instability reduced, or simply changed form?
And perhaps most importantly: have the conditions that originally forced the organization to suspend operations actually been addressed?
The panel’s discussion focused on precisely this challenge: identifying the conditions, indicators and thresholds that can give an organization confidence that returning to a market is viable.
Re-Entry Requires More Than a Security Assessment
A traditional security assessment can identify threats and vulnerabilities. But market re-entry requires organizations to connect that analysis directly to their operating model.
This means understanding not only what could happen, but also:
- What is our actual exposure?
- What assets, people and operations are we putting at risk?
- What can the business tolerate?
- What mitigation measures are realistically available?
- What resources would be required to operate effectively?
- How quickly could we respond if conditions deteriorated again?
- What would trigger a further reduction or suspension of operations?
These questions turn a security assessment into a business decision framework.
They also help avoid a common mistake: assuming that the decision to re-enter must be binary.
In reality, organizations can often choose from a range of operating models.
A company might begin with limited personnel, restricted travel or reduced operations before gradually restoring its full footprint. Another organization may decide that the market remains unsuitable for its particular exposure, even though other businesses have already returned.
The Importance of Local Capability
Re-entry also depends heavily on what an organization can actually support on the ground.
Local security providers, partners and relationships can become critical components of the operating model, particularly when an organization has limited existing infrastructure.
The question is not simply whether a provider can support normal operations. It is whether that provider can deliver when conditions deteriorate.
As explored during the panel, organizations should consider the reliability of local security forces and external partners, their crisis-response capabilities and their ability to protect employees, guests and VIPs during a major incident.
For sectors such as hospitality and travel, these considerations become even more important. A business may be responsible not only for its own employees but also for guests, properties, transportation and a broader network of stakeholders.
Re-Entry Is Not the End of Crisis Management
Returning to a market does not mean returning to the old normal.
Organizations re-entering a recently disrupted environment need to assume that conditions can change again.
That means crisis management and business continuity should remain integral to the operating model after re-entry, not treated as plans that can be put away once personnel return.
Clear escalation triggers are particularly important.
Organizations should understand in advance what developments would cause them to reassess the decision, reduce their footprint, suspend operations or evacuate personnel.
The OSAC panel specifically addressed these decisions, including the indicators that could signal when it is time to suspend operations and evacuate, as well as the circumstances that might lead a commercial or hospitality organization to temporarily downsize or suspend its presence.
Security as an Enabler of Growth
Perhaps the most important shift is the role security should play in executive decision-making.
Security leaders are often brought into conversations once a market has already been selected. Increasingly, they have an opportunity to influence the decision much earlier, helping organizations determine where they can operate, under what conditions and with what safeguards.
That requires security leaders to communicate in business terms.
Rather than simply presenting a list of threats, they need to explain how those threats could affect revenue, operations, people, continuity and reputation, and what investment would change the equation.
The panel discussion highlighted this broader role, asking how security leaders can demonstrate that security investments are enabling growth rather than slowing it down.
That contribution can be measured.
Examples include markets opening on schedule because required assessments and mitigation plans were completed; reduced operational downtime following incidents; faster crisis response and recovery; stronger employee and traveler confidence; and improved insurance outcomes.
Making Better Decisions Under Uncertainty
There will rarely be a moment when every risk disappears.
The challenge for organizations operating in MENA and other complex environments is therefore not to wait for perfect certainty. It is to develop the information, capabilities and decision-making structures required to operate responsibly amid uncertainty.
That is ultimately what makes Scott Wilcox’s central point so important.
The question is not simply whether a market is safe. It is whether the risk aligns with the organization’s exposure, capabilities and ability to absorb disruption.
That creates a more useful framework for market re-entry, one that recognizes that different organizations may legitimately make different decisions based on the same environment.
For business leaders, the objective is not to eliminate risk.
It is to understand it well enough to decide when to return, how to operate, what safeguards are required, and when conditions have changed enough to demand a different decision.
Market re-entry, in other words, is not simply a return to business. It is a business decision shaped by risk.