Security and the business agenda

Given that such crime costs the UK economy no less than £19 billion per annum it's not surprising that this issue is dominating the minds of many Boards of Directors and security companies alike.

A survey conducted by the Chamber has shown that London businesses view security second only to transport as the greatest factor affecting them in the Capital. Their basic concern is really on two levels: the corporate equation and asset protection.

Corporate security centres on protection from any attack on the company's brand, business objectives, finances and executives. An attack on any one of which may precipitate a crisis that could threaten the existence of the company. Asset protection, on the other hand, involves securing staff, buildings and property, data, product and equipment where attacks may be extremely disadvantageous and disruptive, but not necessarily threaten the existence of the business as a whole.

In some companies, corporate and asset protection are combined. The corporate security risk may have greater significance in larger organisations, which are more vulnerable mainly by virtue of their size and range of activities.

How many firms have carried out realistic threat and risk assessments, and put adequate crisis management plans in place?

Targeting the wealth generators
Why should companies be targets for crime and/or terrorist activity? In terms of terrorism, the answer is usually simple. Companies represent the wealth of the country, and are therefore an attractive target to bring pressure to bear for political ends. They may also be involved in activities of which terrorists disapprove, ranging from Third World exploitation to animal testing (see 'Legitimate protest... or terrorism?' on pages 26-29 of this month's SMT). It's all too easy for a company to be portrayed as heartless, interested solely in profits founded on exploitation.

As targets for crime, businesses are also easy to define. Again, they're sources of wealth and, as such, are vulnerable to the need for transferring some of that wealth from the 'haves' to the 'have-nots'. Companies may also be vulnerable by dint of their size and/or methods of operation. Attracting and retaining the right staff means providing an open and pleasant environment in which to work. Their products are often in the public domain, and places where the public is allowed easy access for those products to be traded.

Seen in this light, providing protection can be a balancing act. From the protection point of view, while the ideal workplace would probably be a concrete box with no windows and only one entrance, no-one would work there! Protection in the workplace is thus a balance between the lightest possible touch and the need to deter and protect.

As there will be a significant cost attached to supplying good quality security staff – who will inevitably be restricted to a 48-hour week (or less) – this may well lead to the appearance of a two-tiered approach to private sector security

Cost will always be at the heart of this particular topic (with regulation set to push staffing costs up for security companies and their clients, while at the same time electronic countermeasures provide some form of counterbalance). However, those rising costs come at a time when we are reminded on a daily basis of rising instability in the world. In combination with the predicted economic downturn, these variables are themselves the motivation for more crime. Guns on the streets are the latest example of the escalating threat.

At this juncture, is it really sensible not to adequately protect our businesses?

A new breed of officer?
The Private Security Industry Act 2001 established the Security Industry Authority (SIA), of course, with the Government granting this particular branch of the Home Office powers to regulate the industry. More specifically, this entails the licensing of employees, managers and staff of contract security companies, wheel clampers, security consultants, private investigators and keyholders. The SIA is also presently conducting research with the aim of defining basic standards and training needs.

While this will all take time (the licensing of security officers, for example, is not scheduled to begin until 2004), the effects are going to be both far-reaching and fundamental. They can only lead to higher quality security staff in terms of training, competence and motivation.

As there will be a significant cost attached to supplying good quality security staff – who will inevitably be restricted to a 48-hour week (or less) on either legislative or quality of life grounds – this may lead to the appearance of a two-tiered approach to security. 'Standard' security officers and a new breed of 'super' security officers working on an altogether different plane could well emerge. Who knows?

In whichever way it all works out, there will be an attendant cost to the client. That being so, clients will want reassurance that they're receiving added value for the additional cost, and will want to employ less security staff. These aspects on their own will transform the face of manned guarding on home shores, as there will be an increased need to rely on electronic and physical security.

Simply reducing numbers of security officers employed may well not be an option for many companies. Instead, the answer may lie in making better use of resources – including all outsourced and in-house business support services. Such is the nature of internal barriers within businesses that the benefits of integrating job functions and technology to maximum effect will need action at Board (or at least executive) level.

Embracing the security culture
End user organisations that embrace a strong and effective security culture – and include in that culture a determination to make the best use of all business support resources– will be the ones to gain commercial advantage over those who view security as merely an additional drain on the bottom line.

These are not simple matters that we have been reviewing, but neither are they particularly complex.