A good example would be the current international terrorist threat. Due to the way in which terror incidents are now reported, a high number of people and organisations believe that there's a potential risk of terrorism that will affect them or their interests. In fact, the risk is limited to a very small percentage of organisations – the key economic points – and what's actually being experienced is wide-scale uncertainty in relation to the future security of the country, its property and people.
Such uncertainty – and the resultant fear – can paralyse organisations, and will then naturally become an actual risk to future business activity.
Forward planning is essential
Effective risk management is about forward planning, scanning areas of business activity that could generate potential risks and creating a balance between those activities and other external influences (no matter how insignificant they may initially appear). In doing so, organisations mustn't lose sight of the bigger picture by dwelling on 'sole subject uncertainty' – concentrating only, for example, on the Security Industry Authority (SIA) and private sector regulation.
Of course, the prospect of regulation has created uncertainty in the industry, but increasingly the certainties (ie the licence fee, the application process, the training and qualification specifications and costs) are beginning to emerge. This allows for forward planning and the setting of objectives that are unlikely to be adversely affected. For many this means change, which some will fear, but it also means that suppliers can now work with customers to engage them in the process.
OK. That's one positive message, but what about other risks to organisations across all sectors of the security industry? Is the industry as proactive as it should be in responding to market trends, the foibles of customers, quality initiatives or even legislation?
In other words, how effective is corporate governance across the industry?
The Health and Safety equation
Starting with legislative examples, recently an alarming number of incidents have come to light that show a complete lack of governance (or in some cases pure care) in relation to Health and Safety.
According to the Health and Safety Commission (HSC): "In the context of effective corporate governance, managing risk is a key issue for all directors and senior managers". The key risk area that the HSC is concerned with is the Health and Safety of an organisation's workers, and of others – including members of the public – who may be affected by its ongoing business activities.
Is the industry as proactive as it should be in responding to market trends, the foibles of customers, quality initiatives or even legislation ? In other words, how effective is corporate governance across the industry?
Historically, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) hasn't shown much interest in the security industry, particularly the guarding sector. However, the indications are that this could soon change. Lone working, unsociable working patterns, increased exposure to violent crime and lack of welfare support by some unscrupulous companies – in combination with joint initiatives between the HSE and local council regulatory services – could result in some organisations and their senior managers being found wanting in terms of knowledge of their own responsibilities.
The assessment and management of Health and Safety risks should be at the heart of any organisation, and will help to:
- maximise the well-being and productivity of all people working for an organisation;
- stop people being injured, made ill or even being killed in the workplace;
- improve the organisation's reputation in the eyes of customers, suppliers, competitors and the wider security community alike;
- avoid the damaging effects on turnover and profitability;
- minimise the likelihood of prosecution and consequent penalties.
In spite of this, reports of security officers being deployed with inadequate training (or no training at all), not being issued with personal protection equipment and not receiving regular welfare visits continue to dog the industry, while similar reports in relation to the lack of safe working and welfare issues can be found among the unprincipled minority end of the systems sector.
How long is it going to be before we bear witness to a high profile case of death in service as a direct result of such negligence?
A breakdown in communication
In many cases, these tragic tales of neglect can only be outdone by the increase in industrial tribunals, which in most cases are the direct consequence of a total breakdown in communication between employers and their most valuable asset – their employees.
The employee could be driven to despair over a poorly handled TUPE transfer, a mismanaged disciplinary procedure, a lack of understanding of cultural differences or beliefs and/or other forms of discrimination. Many organisations remain blissfully unaware that the penalties which may be placed upon them for breaches of Health and Safety and employment legislation could make the SIA's penalties pale into insignificance.
Many blue chip customers are now moving towards 'green' environmental policies. Most report that they will also require their providers to adopt these policies, which in most cases are based on ISO 14001. To date, only a small number of suppliers report compliance with this standard, and there's a general lack of understanding of environmental issues (particularly among the SMEs).
In discussions, many suppliers report that they've previously implemented ISO 9002, the quality management system, as a result of competitive pressures or customer demand. Consequently, they're reluctant to impose an additional layer of costs – but how long before the same supply chain pressure makes ISO 14001 an essential for the tendering process?
Source
SMT
No comments yet