The evolution of security industry regulation in the European Union

ABSTRACT

The European private security sector has grown from a handful of small companies at the end of the Second World War into a multibillion Euro industry with thousands of firms and millions of security staff. In Europe, the demands for security is not just expressed notionally but also officially in The European Agenda on Security stating the European Union (EU) aims to ensure that people live in an area of freedom, security, and justice. This article will begin by exploring the role of private security in society. It will then move on to consider the main phases in the development of private security regulation in Europe. Following on from this, some of the main areas of policy development will be considered, such as European bodies, initiatives, and standards. Finally, the article will explore some of the potential options for the future in better regulating the European private security sector. From a historical perspective, the evolution of private security regulation can be divided into three phases: the laissez-faire, the centrifugal, and the centripetal era – each with its own distinct characteristics and impact on the concurrent industry. In the EU where there is the legal framework for the development of a single market in services, the key social partners have been at the forefront of developing a series of standards and guidance documents which promote standards across borders at the European level. However, the institutions of the EU have been reluctant to intervene at a European level in setting minimum standards of private security regulation. Thus, the changing terrain of the EU relating to security, regulation, and the private security industry means the current trajectory may be in need of an injection of more radical thought and consideration.

KEYWORDS:

• Private security
• regulation
• European Union
• security industry
• security directive

Notes

1. Centrifugal denotes a force directed outwards from an orbital centre as opposed to centripetal force directed inwards. The nomenclature is used to conceptualise, and no distinction is made insofar that in reality centripetal force is an actual force and centrifugal force is an apparent force.

2. Serbia, Hungary, Belgium, Sweden, Portugal, Spain, Luxembourg.

3. Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, Romania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Italy, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Malta.

4. Ireland, UK, France, Germany, Bulgaria, Latvia,
Cyprus.

5. Austria, Czech Republic, Poland.

6. Belgium, Spain, Slovenia, Greece, Portugal, Sweden.

7. Ireland, Finland, Romania, Luxembourg, Germany, Malta, France, The Netherlands, Estonia, Poland, Denmark, Latvia, Bulgaria, UK, Slovakia.

8. Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, Austria.

9. Czech Republic.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Mark Button

Mark Button is Director of the Centre for Counter Fraud Studies at the Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, University of Portsmouth. Mark has written extensively on counter fraud and private policing issues, publishing many articles, chapters and completing eight books. Mark has also acted as a consultant for the United Nations Offices on Drugs and Crime on developing international standards for Civilian Private Security Services and the United Nations Development Programme/European Union on enhancing civilian oversight of the Turkish private security industry. Mark also holds the position of Head of Secretariat of the Counter Fraud Professional Accreditation Board. He is also a former Director of the Security Institute. Before joining the University of Portsmouth he was a Research Assistant to the Rt Hon Bruce George MP specialising in policing, security and home affairs issues. Mark completed his undergraduate studies at the University of Exeter, his Masters at the University of Warwick and his Doctorate at the London School of Economics.

Peter Stiernstedt

Peter Stiernstedt is pursuing a PhD in Social Sciences on the Perception of Corruption with a fully funded bursary from the University of Portsmouth. Previous academic achievements are a BSc in Physics from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, followed by an MSc in Security Management from the University of Portsmouth. Prior to the current academic career Peter was working as a consultant providing Strategic Solutions within the realms of risk, security and crisis. During a over a decade of providing high-quality advice, support and solutions, Peter has worked mostly in Europe, and Spain in particular, as well as the US, Russia and China. Both work and education have provided experience, knowledge and insight into Risk Management, Anti-Fraud and Corruption strategies, Business Continuity and Crisis Management. Peter is an active member of ISACA, the Security Institute and ASIS International. Personal interests include international politics, particularly the internal and foreign policies of the EU. Primarily issues that relate to societal security, such as Anti-Fraud and Corruption efforts as well as the development and results of Crisis Management instruments.