What does gender got to do with it? PMSCs and privatization of security revisited

ABSTRACT

While war and the military have been recognized as being gendered sites, Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) are only rarely studied through a gender lens. Compared to functional, political-instrumental or ideational explanations with respect to the privatization of security, such a lens captures, however, the micro-dynamic and political processes of PMSCs’ boom. We show that gender is, first, constitutive of companies’ corporate identities as hero warriors and professional security experts. Second, it is relational, (re-)producing hierarchical power relations among and within PMSCs and with state security actors. Third, gender is a legitimizing factor helping PMSCs to establish themselves as acceptable security actors vis-à-vis others.

KEYWORDS:

• PMSCs
• gender
• privatization of security
• corporate identity

Introduction

While war has, for a long time, been recognized as a site where gendering occurs,¹ Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) have only more recently been studied through a gendered lens.² This is surprising since gender pervades the societal fabric and structures social and political relationships³ as well as domestic and international orders,⁴ in general. Therefore, it also can be expected to ‘shape and enable contemporary security practices’, in particular.⁵ Gender is comparable to what Cynthia Weber deems as an ‘unconscious ideology’ which forms ‘the common sense foundation of our world views that is beyond debate’⁶ and which is constitutive of security institutions as well.⁷ The predominant focus of scholarly attention thus far has, however, been state militaries which persist ‘primarily because of myths and stereotypes associated with female and male capabilities and the military’s “band of brothers” culture’.⁸

In this article, we show how these myths and stereotypes extend to private security actors. Based on a content analysis of the web pages of 38 PMSCs located in the US and the UK, we illustrate how particular hegemonic masculinities are not only constitutive of PMSCs’ corporate identity, but also structure the relations companies maintain with their employees, their clients and competitors. Furthermore, the analysis highlights that in the case of PMSCs, gender serves as a basis for legitimization. Independent of the services they offer, companies establish themselves as acceptable and superior security actor by simultaneously constructing themselves as ‘hero warrior’ and ‘professional security experts’.

The article is structured as follows: We, first, discuss the importance of masculinities in military and security institutions and delineate the constitutive, relational and legitimizing dimensions of these gender constructs. Following a brief discussion of the methods, we then present the findings of the content analysis of PMSCs’ web pages and conclude with a discussion of their implications for existing studies on PMSCs and gender.

Gender(ed) perspectives on security

War and related security institutions are sites where gendering occurs. Identified as ‘[i]nstitutions largely governed by men’, gender scholars have amply illustrated how these sites have especially ‘produced and recreated norms and practices associated with masculinity’,⁹ but also have, in turn, been co-constitutive of femininities.¹⁰ We draw on this body of research to conceptualize the gendering practices of PMSCs. We work from the presumption that similar as institutions related to war and security, gendered identities which are socially constructed, plural and fluid in character,¹¹ also give rise to masculine and feminine stereotypes in PMSCs where they have a constitutive, relational, and legitimizing function.

The constitutive dimension of gendered identities is perhaps by far the most acknowledged in the literature. Pioneering works in this respect, such as those of Elshtain, already drew attention to the ways in which war ‘brings into being men and women as particular identities through promoting certain understandings of manhood and womanhood’¹² which are sustained and reinforced through ongoing practices.¹³ This set of assumptions has been carried over into and remains a steadfast in contemporary research on gender and security. Nonetheless, what femininity and masculinity connote specifically, has differed and changed across time and space. Within the context of war, Elshtain as well as others writing in the 1990s, found military masculinity to still be constructed in predominant ‘warrior’ and dichotomous terms. Soldiers were expected to be ‘brave, physically strong, emotionally tough’¹⁴ and defined against the feminine other, that is, the ‘beautiful soul’.¹⁵ The latter has not only to be protected, but also allows men ‘to “other” women and understand themselves as masculine’.¹⁶ While still present today,¹⁷ the ‘warrior’ is no longer exclusively constitutive of military masculinity. Instead, it has experienced a ‘slight feminization through the construction of a tough and aggressive, yet tenderhearted, masculinity’.¹⁸ ‘Rather than bravado or stern invincibility’, it admitted ‘manly vulnerability and human compassion’.¹⁹ While manifesting itself during the first Gulf War,²⁰ military masculinity continues to be refurbished, in the eyes of Duncanson,²¹ through the involvement of Western militaries in increasingly complex peacekeeping missions and the concomitant growing importance of ‘non-combat skills’. Instead of ‘bravery and effective soldiering’, i.e. traditionally masculine traits, alone, this ‘peacekeeping masculinity’ is also constructed through attributes otherwise associated with femininity, including ‘the everyday practices of peacekeeping such as building friendships, drinking coffee and chatting’.²²

Furthermore, changes in military masculinity have been induced by the so-called revolution in military affairs. With ‘a move towards “smarter” armed forces, equipped with technologically sophisticated weapons and intelligence systems’,²³ ‘the possession of professional skills and expertise [became] a marker of military identity’.²⁴ Yet this recent reconstruction is not exclusive to the military, but, following Scott,²⁵ is reflective of a more general reshaping of masculinity. According to this line of thinking, masculinity – reinforced through an increased reference to corporate approaches within the context of the global economy – exhibits increasingly ‘managerial heroism’ among others as central marker. It also allows the military to convey the impression that a war is ‘manageable and under control’.²⁶

While gendered identities are constituted through stereotypical, context-dependent attributes, they also are relational in character. They always are constructed against a gender(ed) ‘other’. Acknowledging this dimension, draws attention to the hierarchies that exist between different masculinities and femininities and the plurality of gender identities.²⁷ Hegemonic masculinities are exemplary in this respect not least because the ‘[m]ilitary and security institutions have been historic sites of [it]’.²⁸ However, they are only ‘one type of identity construct, at the top of a hierarchy’.²⁹ As Hooper³⁰ illustrates in the case of its Anglo-Saxon variant, hegemonic masculinity relies on an eclectic mix of competing and partially overlapping masculinities and historical archetypes though also includes as Heeg points out, ‘subordinate masculinities and femininities’.³¹ This particular mix of attributes, so Hooper, in reference to Connell,³² resulted from ‘ideological ascendancy’ in form of ‘moral persuasion and consent rather than brute force (although such ascendancy may be backed up by force)’. Given the widespread acceptance of hegemonic masculinity, on the one hand, and the staffing of PMSCs with former military personnel, on the other hand, we also expect hegemonic masculinity to play a role within PMSCs and shape how these companies relate to their clients, especially the military. Furthermore, we would expect a further assumption of Hooper’s to apply to these companies. According to her, the valorization of particular masculinities creates a norm or standard to which individuals aspire and through which they can be policed.³³ Hence, similar to individual men who ‘[w]hen [… they] publicly identify with hegemonic masculinity or otherwise collaborate with such public images, […] boost their own position’,³⁴ we anticipate PMSCs to behave in this manner as they vie for legitimacy and acceptance.

Quite a number of scholars have drawn attention to this legitimization dimension of gendered identities, in general, and masculinity, in particular. According to Niva,³⁵ it constitutes an important component ‘of complex struggles to define and control individual and collective identities as well as domestic and international political orders’. The legitimization dimension stems from what Butler termed the ‘performative’ quality of gendered identities. The latter always presume what she refers to as a ‘doer’ – a subject – who ‘variously [is] constructed in and through the [gendered] deed’.³⁶ While being a gender performance, the deed – at the same time – is ‘a recognizable expression of agency or act’.³⁷ By being (un)continuously discursively invoked and reinforced, these identities take on a life of their own. They become, as Foucault would argue, powerfully productive, naturalized and normalized, that is, taken for granted. They demarcate what is regarded as (in-)acceptable through the classification and categorization of gendered identities and their attributes. Individuals or, as in our case, corporate actors, which exhibit and enact these identities, gain in status and legitimacy. Hence, we assume that what Kronsell observes with respect to the armed forces to also be the case for PMSCs: ‘[o]nce a particular set of behaviors has been established as the norm for appropriate conduct within any institution, it becomes difficult to critique, in part, because normativity makes certain practices appear “natural”, beyond discussion’.³⁸ Such a norm extends beyond military institutions and into society as Van Gilder,³⁹ referring to Hopton,⁴⁰ notes: ‘Performances’ associated with the norm ‘serve as a public endorsement of these masculine values and the institutionalization of hegemonic masculinity in national culture’.⁴¹

As perhaps already apparent from the discussion, the legitimizing, relational and constitutive dimensions concerning gendered identities are not exclusive but are rather inter-related. By constructing their identity on the basis of certain attributes as opposed to others and by relying on hegemonic rather than subordinate masculinities or femininities, actors are seen as more or less legitimate though also are likely to enjoy more or less privileges. In the following sections, we illustrate how these different gender dimensions apply to PMSCs and shed light on a crucial, though underexposed, dimension of their growing acceptance as security actors.

Sample and methodology

The following analysis is based on a sample of the content of web pages of 38 US- and UK-based PMSCs (names as of February 2016 and data collected between 2013–2016). Although by far not the only markets in which these companies operate, we selected the US and the UK because they are two of the biggest ones for transnational private security in the OECD world. Moreover, the selection of the sample was also guided by pragmatic reasons as the homepages of the PMSCs comprising it are in English. The companies include: Academi (formerly called Blackwater and now part of Constellis), AECOM, Aegis, AKE Group, AYR Group, BH Defense, Blue Hackle, Britam Defence, CACI, Centerra (now part of Constellis), Centurion, Citadel Maritime, Control Risks, Cubic Global Defense, DynCorp International, EOS, FSI Worldwide, G4S, Greystone, Hawki, Dynasafe Group (formerly MineTech International), Engility (formerly L3-MPRI), Pacific Architects and Engineers (PAE), Patriot Group International, Pax Mondial, Pilgrims Group, Reed, Relyant, Rhodius, SOC, SOS International (SOSi), Spartent, Sterling Global Operations (now Caliburn), Tactical Solutions International, Threat Management Group, Triple Canopy, Veritas, and VXL. This sample of PMSCs we examined, contained a diverse and representative mix of companies. It includes PMSCs that offer a large variety of services (ranging from providing support or offering humanitarian and development aid to offering combat activities) as well as companies that offer only one of these services. The sample also is comprised of companies which provide services for different types of clients among which are next to states and their armed forces also intergovernmental organizations, commercial companies, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Even if ‘the construction of a Web site is only a partial indicator of what a group values and how it operates’,⁴² the internet presentation of PMSCs is nevertheless an important source of information. As Pudrovska and Marx Ferree aptly formulate:

[The] analysis of Web sites provides a new and useful form of data about an organization’s identity and priorities, because, unlike media representations of the group, it is self-directed and, unlike many structural features of the organization, it is relatively resource-neutral. Thus, a Web site provides an open space for self-representation to the rest of the world.⁴³

Moreover, due to the amount of visual content, digital sources allow their users ‘to tell their story in a powerfully, emotionally connecting way that enables them to build on their identity and strengthen their relationship with external stakeholders’.⁴⁴ Web pages create ‘a strong mental impression of the organization in the public’s mind’ and also ‘put a human face on the organization and ultimately build on the brand’.⁴⁵ Moreover, and as international relations scholars assert, they have political effects insofar as they help to constitute actors and influence how they are perceived.⁴⁶ Based on the assumption that the web sites of PMSCs ‘have the potential to shape what can and cannot be seen, and thus what can and cannot be thought, said and done in politics’,⁴⁷ we conducted a discourse analysis of the companies’ web sites, examining text as well as photos and symbols.

We proceeded deductively as well as inductively with respect to the analysis. Based on the literature on gendered identities related to war and security we formulated categories corresponding to different masculine identities as well as expectations as to how, on the basis of their different characteristics, they are likely to manifest themselves. Subsequently, we identified and coded text, symbols, and images found on the web pages and determined whether they were reflective of, first, particular masculinities, and, second, if they were constitutive, relational or legitimizing, or perhaps fit with all three dimensions in the case of PMSCs. Acknowledging that identities are fluid, it is however important to note that the findings are a snapshot as these categories may change over time. Furthermore, we employ gender first and foremost as an analytical lens to make visible what is otherwise concealed. Based on the representative sample of PMSCs, the aim of this study is to offer a better understanding of how masculinities and femininities give rise to corporate identities, inequalities and hierarchies.

Gender and PMSCs: constitutive, relational and legitimizing

In the existing literature, the boom of PMSCs and the growing acceptance and reliance of armed forces on their services has been explained with different theoretical approaches ranging from functionalist to political-instrumentalist and ideational.⁴⁸ However, they only provide partial explanations⁴⁹ for the boom of these companies and their character. According to functionalist approaches, PMSCs are contracted by states based on a cost-benefit logic⁵⁰ in light of, on the one hand, shrinking defense budgets and the recruitment crisis which especially professional state armies are faced with, and, on the other hand, the technological revolution in military affairs and increasing military commitments.⁵¹ In line with political-instrumentalist approaches, PMSCs are conceived of as ‘service providers’ or ‘force multipliers’ for democratic governments’ armed forces and allow their political leaders to reduce political costs, shift the blame in case of unpopular and/or unsuccessful missions and to regain power from the legislative branch.⁵² Ideational and governmentality approaches, by comparison, suggest that the enlistment of PMSCs follows the same neo-liberal logic which meanwhile also governs other public sectors such as telecommunications or health and which contributes to the depoliticization and, in turn, the normalization of private security.⁵³ While each of these approaches offers an important piece of the puzzle regarding the privatization of security, they do not account for the crucial role that gender plays in the construction of PMSCs’ corporate identity and their self-legitimization. Exposing this dimension is, however, important as it contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of these companies. A gender lens makes apparent that PMSCs are neither just neutral agents contracted by states nor only transmission-belts of neo-liberal values and ideas, but are political actors in their own right which shape how they are perceived through their reliance on gender identities.

The constitutive dimensions of gender: constructing PMSCs as hero warriors and professional security experts

Gender is constitutive of the corporate identities that PMSCs project. The traits that, according to scholars, define hegemonic military masculinity today, we also find reflected on the companies’ the web pages: At the same time as these PMSCs present themselves as hero warriors, they stress to be professional security experts. This observation lends support to scholars who argue that the line between the public and private sector becomes increasingly blurred, but also adds to their line of thinking.⁵⁴ It shows that these previously existing boundaries are not only obfuscated because of the services that PMSCs perform for state militaries or the neo-liberal rationale for security provision that extends from the private to the public sector. Instead, our analysis illustrates that this growing ambivalence between sectoral lines is also reinforced through gendered identities, which were formerly characteristic of only the public security sector, but are now reproduced in the private security sector.

Many companies in the sample we analyzed, aspire to the heroic version of hegemonic military masculinity – that is, the brave, and morally-inclined civilian soldier. The names as well as the logos of these PMSCs are telling in this respect as, for example, with the company Citadel Maritime. The corporate name brings to mind a fortress or bastion that in ancient times was conceived of as the strongest part of a city and the last line of defense. Centurion is not only the name of a PMSC, but also synonymous for a Roman officer in command of 100 legionaries and more generally associated with the persona of a ‘dependable defender’ and ‘loyal soldier’.⁵⁵ In addition to their names, the logos of some PMSCs allude to military masculinity using martial imagery.⁵⁶ That of Spartent, for example, includes a helmet with a plume⁵⁷ while that of Centurion is a laurel wreath.⁵⁸ The logo of FSI Worldwide shows two knives with inwardly curved blades, similar to the blade of a machete, which is said to be the traditional weapon of Gurkha regiments.⁵⁹

The hero warrior variant of hegemonic military masculinity of PMSCs is even more readily apparent in the ways in which these companies address military veterans. For many of the companies veterans form the backbone of their workforce. Hence, veterans, according to Chisholm and Tidy,⁶⁰ are an important group of people to study in order ‘to understand military masculinities and war’.⁶¹ While it is also common for other industry branches to hire veterans, their skill set makes them a nearly perfect match for PMSCs, because the security sector ‘demands many of the qualities military veterans are known for, including their battle-tested real world experience, trainability, adaptability, dependability, and ability to deliver quality work in pressure cooker situations’.⁶² In addition to their know-how, veterans are, however, in demand by PMSCs for other reasons. As Bulmer and Eichler point out, veterans ‘inhabit a privileged, typically masculine, subjectivity and are often held up as model citizens who have made sacrifices for the state, a position that they can leverage in diverse ways’.⁶³ Although PMSCs claim that they value the veterans’ experience, these companies make it unequivocally clear that the stories and myths that surround veterans are of equal importance. Based on an article published in Military Times in 2013, there are, as the title suggests, ‘10 Ways Military Veterans are Ideal for Physical Security Sector’.⁶⁴ Among them are ‘leadership qualities’, ‘commitment to service’, or ‘dependability’ that ex-militaries have acquired during their time in service.⁶⁵ Such qualities, according to Citadel Maritime, are not only ‘hard to find in the civilian world’.⁶⁶ Through these qualities veterans also ‘elevate our business by working with us’.⁶⁷ Comparing the ‘perceived qualities of service members to non-service members’ is, as Hinojosa⁶⁸ posits, a common strategy for constructing an identity that is in line with military masculinity. With respect to PMSCs, not only do veterans epitomize what army life (as opposed to civilian life) is all about, but they are also romanticized.

In this sense, one element of hero warrior variant of the hegemonic military masculinity embraced by PMSCs is patriotism. For example, CACI takes ‘great pride in service to our country and to those who have served in the military, recognizing that you have the talent, character, and commitment to duty that will help make our clients’ missions successful’.⁶⁹ It also identifies with US foreign policy: ‘America’s missions are our missions. For more than 50 years we have been driven by a company-wide commitment to our nation’.⁷⁰ Although CACI is an outlier with respect to patriotism, other US-based PMSCs as well pay tribute to and evoke patriotic sentiments by displaying symbols, such as the American flag,⁷¹ or the Capitol building.⁷² However, they for the most part convey this in a more subtle manner as, for example, through the company’s name, which is the case with Patriot Group International. Moreover, many companies stress that their employees exhibit a sense of commitment beyond the call of duty, as well as the selflessness typically expected of soldiers. PMSCs, for example pride themselves of the bravery and sacrifice considered to be constitutive of the hero-warrior model, such as Sterling Global that ‘honor[s] [its] employees who have made the ultimate sacrifice while protecting the safety of our military members and communities around the world’.⁷³ Similarly, CACI submits that ‘[W]e never forget that warfighting remains the duty of the brave men and women in uniform. […] They are the ones, in the end, who do the fighting. They are the ones, ultimately, who risk their lives, so that the rest of us can live in a free nation. They are our country’s newest generation of heroes’.⁷⁴ Although proponents of especially ideational approaches have suggested that PMSCs introduce a corporate logic into the military sector,⁷⁵ the gender perspective we apply here suggests that the relationship between PMSCs and the armed forces is not as uni-directional. Instead, veterans who are increasingly employed by these companies and who ‘ … are well steeped in American military professionalism and appeal to the same values that their public counterparts would’,⁷⁶ contribute to a militarization of the private sector through the values they introduce and recreate within.

Similar to Western armed forces today, PMSCs present themselves as professional security experts. The language and imagery they use aligns with what Hooper refers to as the bourgeois-rationalist model of masculinity which ‘idealizes competitive individualism, reason, and self-control’ and values ‘superior intellect and personal integrity […] over physical strength’.⁷⁷ It also reverberates with the new kind of masculinity which ‘the advent of new technology has produced’ and of which ‘professionalized calculative rationality’ is a distinct characteristic.⁷⁸

In the case of the PMSCs in our sample, this professional security expert masculinity finds expression in companies presenting themselves as reasoned enterprises complying with objective standards. Not only do seven of the PMSCs in our sample (as of 2016) claim that they are certified under internationally recognized standards such as ISO. Companies also pride themselves for the scientific approach on which their work is based. Rhodius, for example, ‘allows for richer analysis where an array of sources and methods of capture help remove bias, corroborate and assess the credibility of source information and provide incisive analysis’,⁷⁹ while Cubic is ‘[d]esigning solutions that incorporate advanced learning science’.⁸⁰ Statements such as these lend force to Shim and Stengel who argue that ‘technology and science are not gender-neutral’,⁸¹ but ‘closely associated with masculinity’⁸² and notions of control. Two other often stressed characteristics reflective of bourgeois-rationalist masculinity are efficiency and reliability, which 11 companies in our sample asserted in 2016 is central to what they do.

In addition to the ‘professionalized calculative rationality’,⁸³ that scholars consider indicative of the professional security expert today and which we also found reflected in the online presentations of PMSCs, we also found evidence that this identity incorporates a softened version of military masculinity. When describing themselves, PMSCs make references to what are considered feminine attributes. These include, for example, flexibility, adaptability, openness, curiosity, and cultural sensitivity. Such attributes, according to Franke, are increasingly asked of actors in the traditionally masculine security sector, since ‘[g]lobal security after the Cold War requires flexible and versatile strategies’.⁸⁴ Following Connell, such attributes are now no longer associated as less desirable or less worth, but instead today are ‘being marketed as macho power machines’.⁸⁵

Almost all PMSCs across our sample make references to their flexible solutions or pride themselves of their adaptability as, for example, Cubic which is ‘adapting to a new era in defense priorities’.⁸⁶ Less frequently did we find references to the ´companies’ cultural understanding. Pax Mondial, for example, considers ‘[c]ultural awareness and a deep understanding of local nuance and political and economic context’ a cornerstone of its work,⁸⁷ while Blue Hackle even ‘strive[s] to integrate seamlessly into local cultures’.⁸⁸ Furthermore, over 50% of the PMSCs in our sample value their employees because of the ‘extensive experience’ they bring to the job, including their ‘on the ground’ experience.⁸⁹ The company Dynasafe explicitly stresses that ‘[We] base all of our operational concepts on experience, not research. We apply what works’.⁹⁰ Statements such as these make apparent the multiple layers of the masculinity that PMSCs aspire to and how it revolves around previously lesser valued but now upgraded and masculinized feminine traits, including flexibility, understanding or empathy.

16 of the companies we examined, stated, similar to Greystone,⁹¹ that they provide ‘turn-key solutions that are tailored to meet each customer’s unique requirements and circumstances’ and that they subordinate their own needs to that of their clients. For Academi, the successor of Blackwater and associated with rather offensive services, for example, it is important to ‘work with our clients to understand their objectives and operational environment so that we may provide them with a tailored, comprehensive management strategy’.⁹² Few companies even present themselves similar to a nurturing caregiver who is available around the clock for his or her children. One example is the company Blue Hackle that ‘delivers timely and affordable solutions due to our global presence and experienced former special forces/military staff who understand your mission and culture, and management and supervisory personnel who are available 24-hours a day and responsive to all contract and operational needs’.⁹³ All of these statements of PMSCs contain references to what have otherwise been associated with feminine attributes, such as understanding, listening, or empathy⁹⁴ and a related posture of devotion, caring, or selflessness, but which now are constitutive of companies’ masculinity, which consider them essential to meet their clients’ needs.⁹⁵

Relational gendered dimensions: PMSCs as superior security providers

Scholars who study masculinities⁹⁶ not only consider these to be plural in character, but also emphasize their relational dimensions as they give rise to hierarchies, ex- and inclusion. Hegemonic masculinity serves as means to legitimize societal privileges and power, but also functions as a mark of distinction and to set oneself apart from subordinate and lesser valued masculinities.⁹⁷ Moreover, masculinity variants relate to each other through competition and rivalry, whereby the hegemonic version is depicted as the norm which other masculinities aspire and strive toward.⁹⁸ We find these relational dynamics also at work in the case of PMSCs and reflected in how the companies in our sample relate to, first, competitors, i.e. other PMSCs, second, state security actors, and, third, their employees.

With respect to their competitors, PMSCs frequently claim of themselves to be better, superior and unique drawing on attributes of both hero warrior and the professional security expert variants of hegemonic masculinity. While almost all companies in our sample refer to the traits constituting these two types of masculinities, for 17 PMSCs in our sample they also serve as a sign of proof that they are distinct from their competitors. 13 of the PMSCs in our sample use the expression ‘unique’ when promoting their services. Relyant, for example, claims to be ‘uniquely qualified to implement world-class solutions in the types of environments that our competition finds too remote, dangerous, or high-risk for their operations’.⁹⁹ While such assertions regarding PMSCs’ superiority constitute an important part of companies’ branding and marketing strategies, they also are reflective of rivalries over masculine identities¹⁰⁰ which in some, but few, cases are also culturally coded. The company FSI Worldwide sets itself apart from and ‘stands in stark contrast to the vast majority of manpower companies who recruit from the Asian Sub Continent, whose corrupt practices result in a workforce that is not fit for purpose and is significantly more expensive for the client in the medium and long term’. FSI Worldwide,¹⁰¹ by comparison and according to the company differs from its rivals through the ‘provision of a properly trained, well-motivated workforce’. A similar jockeying for masculinities, we can observe with respect to state security forces.

Although and as illustrated above PMSCs align themselves with the armed forces of states and appropriate their masculinities, they at the same time generate themselves as different and superior compared to them. While other approaches generally locate the reason for the PMSC boom outside of the companies and consider the economic, political or ideational interests of especially state actors to be responsible, a gender perspective, by comparison, takes into account the supply-side as well. It makes apparent that PMSCs construct their corporate identity not only on the basis of what they can do, but also with respect to what they consider state actors’ weaknesses and flaws. While providing ‘critical services and support to the U.S. Department of Defense, Federal civilian agencies and allied foreign governments’,¹⁰² Engility asserts that it’s ‘solutions help the Army fight better, train better, buy better and operate better’¹⁰³ and allows it to “solve their most complex needs and requirements”.¹⁰⁴ As in the case of rival companies, PMSCs assert their superiority over state security actors through hegemonic masculinity, combining traits from the military and the business world. The following statement of Britam is indicative: “Our management team has a background in UK Special Forces. This ethos defines our culture. […] Operationally, we combine our experience and expertise in counter-terrorism, insurgency and other public security situations with keen commercial awareness and discretion”.¹⁰⁵ This quote also already indicates that veterans as well form an integral part of PMSCs’ masculinization.

Compared to militaries, which are often criticized for neglecting veterans and their families, first, many of the PMSCs in our sample pride themselves of valuing veterans for whom they are, their skills as well as their past. Second, several of them (CACI, Citadel Maritime, SOC LLC, Triple Canopy) even promise to boost the masculinity of the ex-militaries they employ, many of whom suffer from the physical and psychological injuries they incurred during deployment and who therefore had trouble finding jobs. These PMSCs, for example, pride themselves for raising money for ‘rehabilitation centers’¹⁰⁶ for veterans and for providing ‘many resources to support [veterans] in finding a challenging and rewarding career’.¹⁰⁷ Such self-representation resonates well with neo-liberal ideas and the alleged superiority of the market over the public sector.

In addition to downgrading the masculinity of their competitors or state militaries, PMSCs also establish internal organizational hierarchies on the basis of gendered identities. The ways in which PMSCs speak about and relate to particular types of employees is illustrative. This concerns, on the one hand, locals of the countries where these companies do business in, and, on the other hand, Third-Country Nationals (TCNs), i.e. individuals who come neither from the country where PMSCs operate nor from the country where the company has its headquarters or for whom it works. Contrary to the claims of many PMSCs that former members of elite forces make up the majority of their staff, figures based on a survey conducted by the industry association International Peace Operations Association (IPOA, renamed in 2010 into International Stability Operations Association, ISOA) in 2005 nevertheless suggest that ‘93% of the respondent companies hire local staff during their international operations’.¹⁰⁸

Although locals as well as TCNs are generally silenced by the PMSCs, a gender perspective when informed by postcolonial and political economy approaches draws attention to their positionality. It makes apparent that TCNs, if they appear at all on companies’ webpages, are displayed in subordinate positions. For example, five PMSC homepages showed people of color who seemed to be trained or taught by a white man. One of these was the homepage of Blue Hackle where we found a photo titled ‘Our People’, which depicts three white males, two of them in combat fatigues, who look directly into the camera, next to nine men of color, most of them with black beards who hold a certificate in their hands and who mostly have their faces lowered or have their eyes covered by a cap.¹⁰⁹ The representations and very few statements that we found on the homepages of four companies remind one of a colonial division of labor, with the superior Western white, educated men in control and enlightening, civilizing the local, savage, brown and subordinate men as in the case of Blue Hackle. The company declares that ‘our trained and expert teams of drivers are always local, [,,,] and always have the proper licenses and registrations. They are deployed with expatriate management and trained medics’.¹¹⁰ These quotes from the homepages of PMSCs are in line with findings of masculinity scholars such as Jester¹¹¹ who in reference to Prividera and Howard¹¹², observes that ‘[h]egemonic military masculinity is not only coded as male but also white in western states’.¹¹³

Compared to the ex-military which companies employ and who are praised for the expertise, training and values they bring with, locals or TCNs, by comparison, are perceived of as being less qualified, i.e. of a lesser manhood. This is openly admitted by industry representatives, for example in an article in the Journal of International Peace Operations: ‘The teams with rescue missions vary in quality from those with world class training from Western countries to ad hoc teams with little to no training in third world countries’.¹¹⁴ PMSCs nonetheless hire them because locals and TCNs are an essential and cheap source of labor for the companies. Many of the local or TCN employees earn significantly less than employees from the Global North.¹¹⁵ According to the former president of the IPOA/ISOA, Brooks, ‘TCNs come from all over the world and they add enormous capability and value to contingent operations. No international stability policy could succeed without the cost-effective labor, expertise and off-the-shelf experience TCNs bring to the field’.¹¹⁶ These statements put arguments of masculinity scholar such as Connell into perspective who asserts that ‘masculinities are involved in the cultural meaning of gender meanings and globalization’¹¹⁷ and underline that ‘hierarchies of race, gender, and sexuality […] are central to the political economy of imperialism’.¹¹⁸ In the case of PMSCs, locals and TNCs help the companies to construct and maintain their hegemonic masculinity whereby ‘Northern employees define the norm, possess superior skills and resources, and therefore manliness while those in the South are the “different other”, subordinates who are controlled by the norm, have lesser abilities, and are less masculine’.¹¹⁹ Similar to colonialists who considered it the ‘white man’s burden’ and obligation to civilize the colonized men, PMSCs present their hiring practices in a paternalistic manner as a good and necessary deed. According to Brooks: ‘[f]or many, these jobs are a path out of abject poverty and misery […] TCNs are able to contribute substantially more support to their families than had they stayed at home’.¹²⁰ Such exclusive material-based explanations for their employment hide, however, not only the productive power of such employment arrangements and the way in which they reproduce particular masculinities which are at the very base of societal hierarchies and inequalities. Instead, they also make invisible the miserable working conditions many locals and TCNs are confronted with and that reinforce these hierarchies.¹²¹ With respect to working for PMSCs in Iraq, a report by CorpWatch states: ‘Many [TCNs] are said to lack adequate medical care and put in hard labor seven days a week, 10 hours or more a day, for little or no overtime pay. Few receive proper workplace safety equipment or adequate protection from incoming mortars and rockets’.¹²²

The legitimizing dimensions of gender: PMSCs as accepted security providers

Next to the constitutive and relational dimension of gender, we also found evidence for the legitimizing dimension when analyzing the web pages of PMSCs. By drawing on accepted forms of masculinity and constructing themselves as superior hero warriors and professional experts, PMSCs establish themselves as legitimate security provider.

As demonstrated above, many PMSCs present themselves as highly trained professionals who possess excellent personnel and exceptional technocratic expertise, who are innovative and flexible, and who profess to have cultural competence. From this perspective, they do not appear to be as unaccountable and out of control or mercenary-like as they are quite frequently portrayed by the media. Instead, they appear as serious business partners who sell services just like any other corporate service provider. The perfection and confidence that PMSCs exert is reflective of the bourgeois-rationalist masculinity model which scholars consider as being valued to be hegemonic today. However, according to Leander and van Munster, these attributes also resonate with the ‘neo-liberal governmentality’ logic characteristic of security nowadays and which ‘constitute[s] contractors as a caste of new security experts’.¹²³ Apart from discursive claims, the PMSCs which we examined, establish themselves as legitimate and ordinary businesses, akin to insurance companies or banks, through images. 13 of the web pages that we analyzed show photos of (shiny) high-rise buildings or display men and sometimes women dressed in business suits and grouped around a conference table, engaged in conversations, or sitting in front of computer screens or maps. Self-presentations such as these are nearly identical to those of, for example, Deutsche Bank,¹²⁴ PricewaterhouseCoopers,¹²⁵ and Zurich Insurance Group.¹²⁶ Such imagery contributes to normalization and has a sanitizing effect. It suggests that selling security and military services is not any different from selling bonds or other merchandise and glosses over the fact that the products of PMSCs are often intimately related to armed conflicts.

The legitimacy that PMSCs claim for themselves is reinforced through the legitimacy they borrow from other actors, especially the military. As to veterans, the companies profit from the reputation the former military staff enjoy and the ‘significant status’ that society still attaches ‘to those who have served (honorably)’.¹²⁷ In addition, PMSCs establish themselves as legitimate security actors through claims about the practices they engage in and which are perceived as being constitutive and characteristic of a reputable business today, including corporate social responsibility.¹²⁸ AKE Group, for example, prides itself to ‘have practiced corporate social responsibility globally over 20 years of operational experience. We have proven that a positive and interactive relationship with the local community is tantamount to success and can provide an additional layer of security’.¹²⁹ Similar to the conventional companies for whom declarations related to corporate responsibility is nowadays a normative prerequisite, PMSCs for image purposes ‘publicly trumpet […] the organization’s good deeds’.¹³⁰ Others, like Academi, stress that they are ‘an equal opportunity employer’ and that their ‘[a]pplicants receive consideration without regard to race, age, ethnicity, religion, gender, national origin, disability or any other basis prohibited by law’.¹³¹ In a few cases such an image is also conveyed through pictures as, for example, on the homepage of FSI which draws attention to the company’s diversity policies by depicting a female instructor,¹³² or that of G4S which shows a non-white man who is smiling and wearing a suit,¹³³ and an older white woman.¹³⁴

Some PMSCs in our sample also use gendering and racialization in order to justify their existence. PMSCs such as Cubic Global Defense portray the world as dark and threatening. According to this company, ‘[t]he world, the enemy and the battleground are more complex than ever before. The challenges posed by aggression and terrorism remain an ongoing threat. The concern for worldwide stability is real’.¹³⁵ Because of these complexities, according to Centurion, it might sometimes be difficult to tell who is ‘friend or foe’¹³⁶ when confronted, as is evoked on the company’s homepage through imagery, with someone who is hooded, wearing clothes like those worn by some people in the desert, and who is armed with a bazooka.¹³⁷ Although not employed by many PMSCs in our sample, such images highlight that these companies establish their military masculinity also through racialization. By alluding to (Muslim) men from the ‘Global South’ as being potentially dangerous and aberrant, the protection these PMSCs claim to offer and which affords both extreme measures as well as a superior masculinity only appears sensible and legitimate. Like many companies, Cubic Global Defense claims that ‘the concern for worldwide stability is at the core of Cubic’s mission of Enabling a Safer World’.¹³⁸ PMSCs assume the role of the classic hero warrior who is both selfless and self-sacrificing but also courageous in facing today’s security threats such as Sterling Global,¹³⁹ which is there ‘[w]hen disaster strikes and citizens are in need’. Statements such as these are always accompanied by an air of omnipotence. Compared to other actors, companies assure their customers, that they can do the impossible. Although such aggrandizing statements are typical of conventional businesses as well, in the case of PMSCs, the help these companies to establish themselves as legitimate security providers.

Conclusion

Gender is a useful lens through which to comprehend more fully PMSCs and adds to the knowledge already fostered on the basis of more conventionally applied approaches. Compared to rationalist and functional theoretical perspectives, which attribute the past boom of the companies to their cost-efficiency and effectiveness, a gender-based analysis sheds light on the political dimensions of this trend. PMSCs not only respond to the demands and material preferences of their clients or are solely profit-driven, but as we have shown in the analysis, also follow socially accepted gendered scripts. Independent of their size, the services they offer, their origin, or their clients, these companies construct their corporate identities in an isomorphic manner and on the basis of hegemonic masculinities, presenting themselves as both ‘hero warriors’ and ‘professional security experts’.

In addition, a gendered analysis captures what have until now been rather unacknowledged dimensions of the private security sector. First, while hegemonic masculinity traits constitute PMSCs as same to and quasi-military, they also are productive of hierarchies and differences. They allow companies to establish themselves as distinct and superior to the ‘other’ security actors, be they state militaries or other PMSCs and which are constructed with reference to lesser valued masculinity traits. Second, a gendered analysis draws attention to the unequal power relations on which PMSCs’ boom rests. Highly skilled and honorable white ex-military men make up the public face of these companies while the colored TCNs and local, lesser skilled men are marginalized and silenced. Third, our analysis adds to governmentality approaches which stress that through PMSCs, the formerly military tasks they perform, and the neo-liberal logic these companies fashion in states’ armed forces, the lines between the public and private sector become increasingly blurred. Instead, we show that the boundaries are obfuscated as well through the militarization of the private sector as PMSCs appropriate the hegemonic military masculinity which thus far had been considered exclusively constitutive of state armed forces and their soldiers. The veterans who PMSCs employ are indicative in this respect. At the same time as companies consider them a valuable workforce, they borrow from the legitimacy and military masculinity of these ex-militaries to bolster their own legitimacy.

The constitutive, relational and legitimizing dimensions of gender deserve further scholarly attention since they shed light on how hegemonic masculinities are not only sustained and reproduced by state militaries, but increasingly also by other security actors, including PMSCs. Future research projects should investigate the types of dynamics this sets in motion between the different actors, examining whether we can observe, for example, a tendency toward masculine isomorphism or rather one of differentiation, or whether we can see both of these dynamics at play as our analysis of UK and US PMSCs suggests. It also would be of interest to examine how the gendered attributes that PMSCs claim for themselves affect and are reflected in actual practices as to how security is provided and for whom or how these masculinities are perceived by their clients. Regardless of the venue pursued, future research will help to determine whether and to what extent gender is equally foundational for other dimensions of the private security industry as we found it to be the case for the corporate identities and self-legitimization of PMSCs.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the The Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet) [VR dnr 340-2012-5990]; Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet) [VR dnr 340-2012-5990].

Notes on contributors

Jutta Joachim

Jutta Joachim is a senior lecturer of International Relations at Radboud University. She received her PhD in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and her MA in International Studies from the University of South Carolina. She is the author of Agenda Setting, the UN, and NGOs: Gender Violence and Reproductive Rights (Georgetown University Press, 2007), co-author of Private Security and Identity Politics: Ethical Hero Warriors, Professional Managers and New Humanitarians (Routledge, 2018), and co-editor of International Organizations and Implementation: Enforcers, Managers, Authorities (Routledge, 2007) and Transnational Activism in the UN and the EU: A Comparative Study (Routledge, 2008). Numerous articles of hers have appeared in international peer-reviewed journals and edited volumes.

Andrea Schneiker

Andrea Schneiker is Chair of Global Governance at the Zeppelin University, Germany. She received her PhD in Political Science from the University of Münster, after which she worked as an assistant professor at the Leibniz University of Hannover and the University of Bremen. She was also visiting scholar at New York University, Radboud University Nijmegen and the Graduate Institute in Geneva. Andrea Schneiker is the author of Humanitarian NGOs, (In)Security and Identity (Routledge, 2015) and co-editor of Researching Non-state Actors in International Security (with Andreas Kruck; Routledge, 2017). Her articles have been published in numerous journals, including International Studies Review, International Studies Perspectives, Comparative European Politics, Millennium, Security Dialogue, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Contemporary Security Policy, European Policy, and Global Policy.

Notes

1. Bethke Elsthain, “Women and War.”

2. Eichler, “Gender and the Privatization of Military Security”; Joachim and Schneiker, Private Security and Identity Politics Ethical Hero Warriors, Professional Managers and New Humanitarians; Joachim and Schneiker, “The License to Exploit”; Joachim and Schneiker, “Of ‘True Professionals’ and ‘Ethical Hero Warriors’”; Higate, “In the Business of (in)Security?”; Chisholm, “The Silenced and Indispensible”; and Stachowitsch, “The Reconstruction of Masculinities in Global Politics.”

3. Peterson, “Security and Sovereign States.”

4. Connell, Gender and Power; and Connell, “Change among the Gatekeepers.”

5. Chisholm and Eichler, “Reproductions of Global Security,” 564.

6. Weber, International Relations Theory, 2nd Ed., 5.

7. Tickner, Gender in International Relations; Blanchard, “Gender, International Relations, and the Development of Feminist Security Theory”; Sjoberg, Gendering Global Conflict; and Åhäll and Shepherd, Gender, Agency and Political Violence.

8. MacKenzie, Beyond the Band of Brothers, 1; Sjoberg and Gentry, Mothers, Monsters, Whores; and Belkin, Bring Me Men.

9. Kronsell, “Gendered Practices in Institutions of Hegemonic Masculinity,” 281; and Woodward, “Warrior Heroes and Little Green Men,” 643.

10. Kronsell, “Gendered Practices in Institutions of Hegemonic Masculinity.”

11. Cornwall and Lindisfarne, “Dislocating Masculinity,” 12; Higate and Henry, “Engendering (In)Security in Peace Support Operations,” 483; and Petersen, “Research on Men and Masculinities,” 57–58.

12. Bethke Elsthain, “Women and War,” 166.

13. See note 10 above.

14. Woodward and Winter, “Discourses of Gender in the Contemporary British Army,” 289.

15. Bethke Elsthain, Women and War.

16. Jeffreys, “Double Jeopardy,” 18.

17. Millar and Tidy, “Combat as a Moving Target”; Strand and Berndtsson, “Recruiting the ‘Enterprising Soldier’”; Duncanson, “Forces for Good?”; and Van Gilder, “Femininity as Perceived Threat to Military Effectiveness.”

18. Niva, “Tough and Tender,” 118.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. Duncanson, “Forces for Good?” 66.

22. Ibid.

23. Woodward and Winter, “Discourses of Gender in the Contemporary British Army,” 295.

24. Woodward and Jenkings, “Military Identities in the Situated Accounts of British Military Personnel,” 258.

25. Scott, “‘Rescue in the Age of Empire,” 99.

26. Shim and Stengel, “Social Media, Gender and the Mediatization of War,” 341.

27. Hooper, “Masculinist Practices and Gender Politics,” 35; Kaufman, “Men, Feminism, and Men’s Contradictory Experiences of Power,” 144; Kimmel, “Masculinity as Homophobia”; Millar and Tidy, “Combat as a Moving Target”; and Wadley, “Gendering the State.”

28. Kronsell, “Gendered Practices in Institutions of Hegemonic Masculinity,” 282.

29. Heeg, “When Are States Hypermasculine,” 238.

30. Hooper, “Masculinities, IR and the ‘Gender Variable’.”

31. See note 29 above.

32. Hooper, “Masculinist Practices and Gender Politics,” 34.

33. Hooper, Manly States, 30.

34. Hooper, “Masculinist Practices and Gender Politics,” 34.

35. Niva, “Tough and Tender,” 111.

36. Butler, Gender Trouble, 181.

37. Shepherd, “Introduction,” 4.

38. Kronsell, “Gendered Practices in Institutions of Hegemonic Masculinity,” 283; Millar and Tidy, “Combat as a Moving Target”; and Woodward, “Warrior Heroes and Little Green Men,” 643.

39. Van Gilder, “Femininity as Perceived Threat to Military Effectiveness.”

40. Hopton, “The State and Military Masculinity.”

41. Van Gilder, “Femininity as Perceived Threat to Military Effectiveness,” 153.

42. Pudrovska and Ferree, “Global Activism in ‘Virtual Space’,” 118.

43. Ibid.; and Warkentin, Reshaping World Politics NGOs, the Internet, and Global Civil Society, 36–37.

44. Waters and Jones, “Using Video to Build an Organization’s Identity and Brand,” 253; and Bryan and Levine, “Web 2.0 Storytelling.”

45. Waters and Jones, “Using Video to Build an Organization’s Identity and Brand,” 249.

46. Campbell, “Geopolitics and Visuality”; Campbell, “The Iconography of Famine”; Hansen, “Theorizing the Image for Security Studies”; Hansen, “How Images Make World Politics”; Shepherd, “Visualising Violence”; and Hutchison, “A Global Politics of Pity?.”

47. Bleiker, “Pluralist Methods for Visual Global Politics,” 884.

48. Kruck, “Theorising the Use of Private Military and Security Companies.”

49. Kruck, “Theorising the Use of Private Military and Security Companies”; and Krahmann, States, Citizens and the Privatisation of Security, 16–18.

50. Singer, Corporate Warriors.

51. Avant, The Market for Force; and Singer, “Corporate Warriors,” 195–97.

52. Avant, “The Implications of Marketized Security for IR Theory”; and Binder, “Private Sicherheits- Und Militäranbieter Im Dienste Westlicher Demokratien.”

53. Singer, “Corporate Warriors,” 197–98; and Avant, The Market for Force, 35.

54. e.g. Abrahamsen and Williams, “Security Beyond the State”; and Berndtsson, “Security Professionals for Hire.”

55. Centurion, “Centurion.”

56. Cusumano, “Private Military and Security Companies’ Logos.”

57. Spartent, “About Us.”

58. See note 55 above.

59. FSI Worldwide, “History.”

60. Chisholm and Tidy, “Beyond the Hegemonic in the Study of Militaries, Masculinities, and War.”

61. Ibid., 100.

62. Ramos, “10 Ways Military Veterans Are Ideal for Physical Security Sector.”

63. Bulmer and Eichler, “Unmaking Militarized Masculinity,” 2.

64. See note 62 above.

65. Ibid.

66. Citadel Maritime, “Social Responsibility.”

67. Ibid.

68. Hinojosa, “Doing Hegemony,” 183.

69. CACI, “Great Pride.”

70. CACI, “CACI’s Missions.”

71. e.g. Engility, “Specialized Technical Consulting.”

72. e.g. AECOM, “Government”; and Centerra, “Governance.”

73. Sterling Global, “Supports.”

74. See note 70 above.

75. Krahmann, “Germany. Civilian Power Revisited.”

76. Avant, The Market for Force, 133.

77. Hooper, Manly States, 98.

78. Barrett, “The Organizational Construction of Masculinity,” 92; and see also Hooper, Manly States, 152.

79. Rhodius, “Intelligence and Investigations.”

80. Cubic, “About Cubic Global Defense.”

81. Shim and Stengel, “Social Media, Gender and the Mediatization of War,” 332.

82. Ibid.

83. Barrett, “The Organizational Construction of Masculinity,” 92.

84. Franke, Preparing for Peace, 39.

85. Connell, Masculinities cited in; and Hooper, Manly States, 156.

86. Cubic, “2011 Annual Report,” 4.

87. Pax Mondial, “Conflict Mitigation.”

88. Blue Hackle, “Services.”

89. BH Defense, “Why Choose Us.”

90. Dynsafe, “Our Values.”

91. Greystone, “Ground Support.”

92. Academi, “Careers.”

93. Blue Hackle, “Blue Hackle.”

94. Werhane et al., “Management, Gender, and Ethnicity in the United States.”

95. See note 90 above.

96. e.g. Hinojosa, “Doing Hegemony”; Hooper, Manly States; and Van Gilder, “Femininity as Perceived Threat to Military Effectiveness.”

97. Hinojosa, “Doing Hegemony.”

98. Hooper, Manly States.

99. Relyant Global, “Overview.”

100. Hinojosa, “Doing Hegemony,” 185.

101. See note 59 above.

102. Engility, “History.”

103. Engility, “U.S. Army.”

104. Engility, “Business Support Services.”

105. Britam Defence, “Company Overview.”

106. SOC, “Latest News.”

107. CACI, “Veterans.”

108. IPOA, “State of the Peace & Stability Operations Industry.”

109. Blue Hackle, “Our People.”

110. Blue Hackle, “U.S. Government.”

111. Jester, “Army Recruitment Video Advertisements in the US and UK since 2002.”

112. Prividera and Howard, “Masculinity, Whiteness, and the Warrior Hero.”

113. Jester, “Army Recruitment Video Advertisements in the US and UK since 2002,” 7.

114. Grespin, “Anatomy of a Kidnapping.”

115. Chatterjee, “Doing the Dirty Work”; and Chatterjee, “Not Necessarily a Glamorous Existence,” 19–20.

116. Brooks, “‘Stopping Traffick’,” 6; and Brooks, “Attention,” 5.

117. Connell, The Men and the Boys, 44.

118. Pratt, “Reconceptualizing Gender, Reinscribing Racial–Sexual Boundaries in International Security,” 774.

119. Joachim and Schneiker, “The License to Exploit,” 122.

120. Brooks, “‘Stopping Traffick’,” 6.

121. Chatterjee, “Doing the Dirty Work”; CorpWatch, “Houston, We Still Have a Problem,” 2004; CorpWatch, “Houston, We Still Have a Problem,” 2005; and CorpWatch, “Hurricane Halliburton.”

122. CorpWatch, “Hurricane Halliburton.”

123. Leander and van Munster, “Private Security Contractors in the Debate about Darfur,” 202.

124. Deutsche Bank, “Kommunales Vermögen.”

125. PricewaterhouseCoopers, “PWC.”

126. Zurich Insurance, “Zurich.”

127. Dandeker et al., “What’s in a Name?,” 164.

128. Kompella, “Branding with a Cause.”

129. AKE, “About AKE.”

130. Esrock and Leichty, “Social Responsibility and Corporate Web Pages,” 307.

131. Academi, “Careers”; G4S, “With Employees”; and PAE, “Doing Business with PAE.”

132. FSI Worldwide, “Consultancy.”

133. G4S, “Services.”

134. G4S, “Our Priorities.”

135. Cubic, “National Security Solutions.”

136. See note 55 above.

137. Ibid.

138. Cubic, “Global Defense.”

139. Sterling Global, “Our Ethics.”