Policing Organisations: The Role of the Corporate Security Function and the Implications for Suppliers
| Author | Charlotte Howell,Martin Gill |
| Published date | 01 March 2014 |
| Date | 01 March 2014 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1350/ijps.2014.16.1.328 |
| Subject Matter | Paper |
International Journal of Police Science & Management Volume 16 Number 1
Page 65
International Journal of Police
Science and Management,
Vol. 16 No. 1, 2014, pp. 65–75.
DOI: 10.1350/ijps.2014.16.1.328
Policing organisations: the role of the
corporate security function and the
implications for suppliers
Martin Gill and Charlotte Howell
Perpetuity Research & Consultancy International (PRCI) Ltd, 11a High Street, Tunbridge Wells TN1
1UL, UK. Email: m.gill@perpetuityresearch.com
Submitted 20 September 2013; accepted 28 January 2014
Keywords: security sector, security managers, security companies, security
suppliers, security value
Professor Martin Gill is a criminologist and
Director of Perpetuity Research and Consultancy
International. Martin has been actively involved
in a range of studies relating to different aspects
of private policing and business crime. He has
published widely, including 13 books, and has
just completed the second edition of the Hand-
book of Security to be published in the summer
of 2014.
Charlotte Howell has a first degree in law and
a MSc in criminology, and has been involved in
a range of studies on crime and security issues,
including drug misuse and, more recently, the
impact of police investigation techniques.
AbstrAct
The enthusiasm to drive up standards in private
security has generally been sought via various
forms of statutory regulation. Important as these
are, there are other drivers of standards that have
received less attention. This article reports on the
crucial role played by buyers of security in deter-
mining the quality of private security provision.
Via an online survey of 151 security specialists
employed by companies, and 509 directors/manag-
ers of security, suppliers’ attitudes towards current
practices in security are discussed. It emerges that
although buyers of security see in-house as higher
quality, they recognise that contractors offer more
value, because they are cheaper. It is suggested
that a key driver for the focus on cost rather than
quality is the low status of security within organi-
sations. Indeed, despite aspirations for security in
organisations to be viewed as business-enhancing,
it is all too often an unwelcome purchase. The
implications are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
There are different types of corporate secu-
rity personnel, fulfilling different types of
roles, reflecting the very diverse parts played
by corporate security units in both the public
and private sectors (Lippert, Walby, & Steckle,
2013). Cavanagh (2004b) argues that the
security function can, in general, be viewed
in terms of three silos: physical security peo-
ple, who are typically recruited from the
military and ‘respect an authoritarian com-
mand structure’; IT security personnel, who
are often part of the information technology
community, where ‘a libertarian value system
often prevails’; and risk managers from the
world of business, ‘where the primary objec-
tives are to maximise returns, minimise costs,
and avoid losses’.
Gill, Burns-Howell, Keats, and Taylor
(2007) have distinguished two ‘ideal types’,
the ‘traditionalists’ and the ‘modern entrepre-
neurs’. ‘Traditionalists’ are typically recruited
from a military and law enforcement type
background, hold the view that security
is a service function and, as such, can only
To continue reading
Request your trial