Thanks for posting.
Sadly, it's not surprising. I imagine BS 25999 surveys say something similar.
Experienced quality managers know that their management teams are often poor at looking ahead and avoiding quality problems. It's often easier to wait for a quality problem to occur and then, in the crisis (when they're more amenable to change because it might hurt less than the disaster they're in) show them how to use the QMS to avoid future problems as well as deal with the current one.
Unfortunately, when disaster hits, it can take out the entire business, whereas when quality problems arise, there's usually time to recover.
In my limited experience of BS 25999, even a government mandate doesn't help as much as it might. Some real work gets done, of course, by committed individuals grabbing the opportunity. But for many it's just another audit hoop to crawl through with as little real work as possible.
I believe the reason lies in our deep-seated attitudes to risk. We tend to believe that, while intellectually we see the risks, they won't happen to us. Only when something bad happens do we react - or, sometimes, over-react.
I think the keys lie in proactive leadership that looks ahead, coupled with finding the upside to business continuity planning - enhancing reputation by being dependable when all else has failed, reduced insurance costs, reduced risk of missing deadlines and incurring penalties, even profit in selling what people want when there's a disaster (supermarkets in Florida stock up with batteries, beer and comfort food when hurricanes approach).
Just my 2c,
Pat