Introduction
The privatization of security has become a global phenomenon with private security companies (PSCs) playing a prominent role in security provision. By definition, Private Security Companies are privately held or publicly traded companies that provide security or protection services to private and public clients (Elms & Phillips, 2009). PSCs sell their services to a wide range of clients including to the government where they serve as private contractors, and to corporations where they protect personnel and facilities. Governments acknowledge that the private security sector is essential globally (Abrahamsen & Williams, 2011). The demand for security services by private actors and the reduction of national law enforcement capacities have created a significant opportunity for the growth of the private security industry. This growth has created some challenges as the PSCs hold significant power due to the important services they provide. It would therefore be desirable for the government to have greater control over the PSC industry. This paper will argue that stricter regulations should be imposed on the Private Security Industry to ensure that its impact on society remains positive even as the industry continues to experience significant growth globally.
Security Guards Licensing
Considering the sensitive nature of the services provided by security guards, the government must regulate the private security industry. One of the ways through which this is achieved is by requiring security guards to obtain licenses. Most states require guards to be licensed and this license is valid for a given period of time after which it must be renewed. Stricter regulations about licensing would be beneficial to the industry. Stringent licensing policies can lead to a uniformity of standards across PSCs. As it currently stands, the training of PSC recruits varies significantly across companies and it is often limited (Abrahamsen & Williams, 2011). This means that most of the security guards utilized by PSCs are undertrained and might not be capable of providing the best services to the various PSC consumers. Focus on uniform standards would ensure that licenses are only issued to guards who have demonstrated a high level of proficiency.
Licensing can also ensure that private security guards are well vetted before being employed in the industry. This is of significant importance since a lack of effective vetting procedures by PSCs can lead to disastrous outcomes. The danger presented by a lack of vetting is best elaborated by the incident involving a former UK soldier. In this incident, the UK security company ArmorGroup employed a former British Army paratrooper who had been diagnosed with PTSD after being discharged from the British Army (Gomez, 2011). This mentally unstable former soldier shot dead two of his colleagues while working in Iraq for ArmorGroup. With stringent vetting procedures, the consumers of private security and the society can be guaranteed that all private security personnel is competent.
The level of professionalism in the industry can also be enhanced through licensing. As it currently stands, most PSCs do not offer adequate training to their employees. This is mostly because PSCs recruit heavily from the former military populations. They, therefore, assume that the recruits have been trained in some standards and will continue to comply with them in the new work environment. This is a wrong assumption since security guards are recruited from varied backgrounds. Data provided by the US Department of Defence demonstrates that PSCs are global since most of these companies operate throughout the world and hire from all over the world (Elms & Phillips, 2009). Gomez (2011) reports that partly because of a lack of professional standards, PSCs have been involved in grave human rights violations in many countries experiencing conflicts. It would be desirable for the government to come up with professional standards and require PSCs to train their employees to adhere to these standards.
Weapons Training
Weapons are an important component of many PSCs. A significant level of criticism to PSCs is with regard to their access to weapons. Elms and Phillips (2009) document how the availability of weapons has led to some PSCs to be provocatively referred to as “private military companies”. However, access to guns is important for the delivery of effective protection. Brownyard (2013) elaborates that security guards working with government organizations, power plants and other high-risk organizations require firearms to provide adequate security. In recognition of this need for weapons on one hand and the need for weapon regulations, the government should keep tight control of the number and type of weapons available to PSCs.
Due to the significant role that weapons play, the security industry moves significant quantities of weapons that are needed to carry out the protective services (Gomez, 2011). Private security personnel requires knowledge on how to use the weapons available effectively. Gomez (2011) laments that in their search for greater profits, many PSCs often neglect to properly train their employees, therefore, exposing them to physical danger when they are in dangerous or vulnerable situations. Poor training also harms the PSC consumers since they are provided with low-quality security services.
Already, several agencies have emerged to regulate firearms use by security guards. To begin with, Private security personnel require additional licensing (armed private security guard license) to carry firearms while engaged in their work. However, this is not adequate and PSCs need to perform more training for their armed guards. Brownyard (2013) asserts that quality training is essential for security guards to be effective in their work. These security guards should be trained on how to effectively use the particular firearms issued to them. With proper firearm training, guards will experience fewer accidents and handle incidents better.
Accountability Measures
For decades, the PSC industry maintained a low public profile due to its small size. This led to limited transparency and insufficient accountability mechanisms. However, the industry’s recent growth in size and prominence has led to the need for greater transparency. The out-of-date or insufficient accountability mechanisms employed by the industry cannot be tolerated anymore. There is little information disclosed about the transactions between corporations and PSCs. This limited transparency has led to the low accountability associated with modern transactions between corporations and PSCs.
A number of possible dangers arise from the lack of transparency by PSCs as they provide services to their consumers. Lack of transparency presents a significant threat since PSCs might provide their services to illegitimate entities since knowledge of such activities is kept hidden from the government and the public. For example, between 1997 and 2004, the US PSC Chiquita Brands International provided security services for the United Self-Defence Forces of Columbia. This consumer was not only a non-corporate actor but the group had also been labeled a terrorist organization by the US State Department. Lack of transparency made it possible for the Chiquita Brands International PSC to engage in transactions with these terrorists. The lack of external transparency might also lead to PSCs being used for illegitimate purposes by the clients. Corporations should be required to explicitly report their transactions with PSCs. This will provide external transparency of relationships between security firms and their consumers. This will ensure that the activities carried out by PSCs on behalf of the client are open to scrutiny by the government. This will ensure that PSCs and their consumers act responsibly. PSCs will avoid taking up contracts from illegitimate entities or carrying out illegitimate tasks for legitimate consumers.
There is the need for the establishment of a system that encourages responsibility within the PSC industry. Most PSCs claim that secrecy is integral to maintaining security. Elms and Phillips (2009) contend that while this might be the case, the balance must be maintained between the value of secrecy and the need for accountability. The legitimacy of PSCs is greatly damaged by their lack of accountability. Elms and Phillips (2009) declare that the lack of professional accountability by most PSCs limits their legitimacy as providers of force relative to law enforcement services and national military organizations. State authorities should therefore require PSCs to keep records of their activities and carry out regular audits to these companies to promote accountability and transparency.
Conclusion
As increasing emphasis continues to be placed on safety and security, the role of private security can be expected to increase even further. As the privatization of security gains momentum, it would be beneficial to society if more strict regulations were placed on some aspects of the Private Security Industry. This will ensure that society reaps the benefits of enhanced security from PSCs without incurring the disadvantages of incompetent security guards or lack of accountability.
References
Abrahamsen, R., & Williams, M.C. (2011). Security Privatization and Global Security Assemblages. Brown Journal of World Affairs, 18(1), 171-180
Brownyard, T. (2013). Arming Security Officers – An Insurance Perspective. Security: Solutions for Enterprise Security Leaders, 50(3), 28-32.
Elms, H., & Phillips, R. (2009). Private Security Companies and Institutional Legitimacy: Corporate and Stakeholder Responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(3), 403-432.
Gomez, P. (2011). Impact on Human Rights of a New Non-State Actor: Private Military and Security Companies. Brown Journal of World Affairs, 18(1), 151-169.