Setting a Standard in the Safety, Security & Risk Management Market

Constant discussion fills social media channels about standards across the Safety, Security & Risk Management market, how they might be raised, and the “race to the bottom”.

Companies notoriously operate at low margin. The ability to be competitive and maintain standards can conflict. Compliance and the maintenance of standards presents an ongoing but necessary burden. It is a painful, resource-intensive experience, not helped by the lack of supporting systems to simplify, speed up or reduce the costs of the process. Corners are cut and incentives to increase standards remain low when the competition operates within the same limitations. Rather than delivering a largely undifferentiated product, then, being better able to manage risk, specifically the risk they expose their clients to, can really set great (ie, standards-driven) companies apart from the “also rans”.

As a benchmark to managing risk, examine the International Code of Conduct, and the following excerpt in particular relating to Specific Commitments Regarding Management and Governance (clauses 44 to 51):

Incorporation of the Code into Company Policies

44. Signatory Companies will incorporate this Code into Company policies and internal control and compliance systems and integrate it into all relevant elements of their operations.

Selection and Vetting of Personnel

45. Signatory Companies will exercise due diligence in the selection of Personnel, including verifiable vetting and ongoing performance review of their Personnel. Signatory Companies will only hire individuals with the requisite qualifications as defined by the applicable contract, applicable national law and industry standards, and the principles contained in this Code.

46. Signatory Companies will not hire individuals under the age of 18 years to carry out Security Services.

47. Signatory Companies will assess and ensure the continued ability of Personnel to perform their duties in accordance with the principles of this Code and will regularly evaluate Personnel to ensure that they meet appropriate physical and mental fitness standards to perform their contracted duties.

48. Signatory Companies will establish and maintain internal policies and procedures to determine the suitability of applicants, or Personnel, to carry weapons as part of their duties. At a minimum, this will include checks that they have not:

a) been convicted of a crime that would indicate that the individual lacks the character and fitness to perform security services pursuant to the principles of this Code;

b) been dishonourably discharged;

c) had other employment or engagement contracts terminated for documented violations of one or more of the principles contained in this Code; or

d) had a history of other conduct that, according to an objectively reasonable standard, brings into question their fitness to carry a weapon.

For the purposes of this paragraph, disqualifying crimes may include, but are not limited to, battery, murder, arson, fraud, rape, sexual abuse, organized crime, bribery, corruption, perjury, torture, kidnapping, drug trafficking or trafficking in persons. This provision shall not override any law restricting whether a crime may be considered in evaluating an applicant. Nothing in this section would prohibit a Company from utilizing more stringent criteria.

49. Signatory Companies will require all applicants to authorize access to prior employment records and available Government records as a condition for employment or engagement. This includes records relating to posts held with the military, police or public or Private Security Providers. Moreover, Signatory Companies will, consistent with applicable national law, require all Personnel to agree to participate in internal investigations and disciplinary procedures as well as in any public investigations conducted by competent authorities, except where prohibited by law.

Selection and Vetting of Subcontractors

50. Signatory Companies will exercise due diligence in the selection, vetting and ongoing performance review of all subcontractors performing Security Services.

51. In accordance with principle 13 of this Code, Signatory Companies will require that their Personnel and all subcontractors and other parties carrying out Security Services under the contract, operate in accordance with the principles contained in this Code and the standards derived from the Code. If a Company contracts with an individual or any other group or entity to perform Security Services, and that individual or group is not able to fulfil the selection, vetting and training principles contained in this Code and the standards derived from the Code, the contracting Company will take reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure that all selection, vetting and training of subcontractor’s Personnel is conducted in accordance with the principles contained in this Code and the standards derived from the Code.

With growing investor sensitivities – ESG (Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance) and its sub set of mandatory HRDD (Human Rights Due Diligence)* – it is not just voluntary codes that will set benchmark standards. Germany, for example, is shortly to introduce fines for companies procuring goods and services from suppliers who fail to meet minimum human rights and environmental standards. The EU is not far behind. Soon companies won’t have a choice but to be more thorough (ie, transparent) in their supply chain risk management. Until then, lip service continues to be paid and corners cut where it arguably matters most, and standards suffer as a result.

Marshal helps organisations manage the burden of compliance, regulation, and risk in the Safety, Security & Risk Management talent supply chain, in order to adhere to international standards, and codes of practice. It makes commercial sense for them to do so, whether a formal signatory to a specific code or not.

*1. investESG.eu blogpost: “ESG goes towards Human Rights and the Social becomes Concrete. Finally.”