Feral Jundi

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Industry Talk: So What Is Going On With The ICoC?

Filed under: Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 4:30 PM

Ever since the news of all of these companies signing on to this International Code of Conduct, there hasn’t been much else reported. So I figured I would do a little research and see where they are at.

Low and behold, there is actually some interesting movement going on with the group. First, they have a website.  Excellent move and it sounds like they are getting organized. Below, I listed all of the members of the steering committee, and these are the folks that will decide how this thing is to work.

I thought it was interesting that they found representatives from all over. Here is a quote:

Michael Clarke, G4S
Mark DeWitt, Triple Canopy
Estelle Meyer, Saracen International
Sylvia White, Aegis

Yep, that list says it all. G4S is the largest security company in the world. Triple Canopy is a large US based company. Aegis is another huge company with offices all over. But Saracen International….Now that is interesting. I guess they are the largest company representing Africa?

The other news with the ICoC is that there are now 211 members!  Up top, I even started a page dedicated to ICoC members, and as more folks sign on, I will update. The list is in a Scribd format, and I think that makes very easy to scroll through and use.

But the real story here that I wanted to talk about, was the discussion in their latest minutes about the grievance process. My number one concern with groups like SAMI, ISOA, and now this ICoC group….as always….is what will they do about members who violate the standards? What is the crime, and what is the punishment?

It is one thing to get everyone to sign on to these codes of conduct, but if you have no disciplinary policy with teeth to back them up, then what’s the point? lol Seriously. Why make laws, if you plan not to enforcement or punish folks for doing bad things?

Now I am not saying that the ICoC is not going to punish members that screw up, but according to these minutes, it sounds like they are going to put the onus of punishment on the companies themselves first. Which is fine, but what if the company does not want to clean house, or maybe they just want to drag it out until everyone forgets about the grievance.

Of course companies should all strive to take care of business so that they are in accordance to the ICoC, as well as doing all they can to take care of their people and clients.  But if they have no fear of punishment, because the ICoC is not aggressive or is unwilling to get tough with members that pay dues, then you can kind of see the potential problems here. Which really boils down the question to this. Is the ICoC just words, or do those words actually mean something?

As you read through the minutes, the ICoC committee also mentioned the good offices concept and creating an incentive of some type for companies to actually do something about this stuff.  I had to look up good offices in the dictionary, and here is a quote:

Third-party influence that facilitates one party’s dealings with another.

So basically they will act as a mediator between the aggrieved and that company?  Interesting, and yet again, what interest would this office have to fight for the aggrieved?  Isn’t it a conflict of interest if a mediator is getting payment by one group in the form of dues/membership fees, and then claiming to help out the other side (the aggrieved) who does not pay dues?

Finally, I would really like to see the incentive(s) that the committee comes up with in future discussions, that will actually get companies to abide by the standards. Are we talking fines, or membership loss or suspension. How about a black list of bad companies?  What are we talking about here?

The big picture is pretty simple to spell out. Members get value when they sign on to this document, by enjoying the benefits of a gold seal of approval. Clients want to believe in that standard, and trust that they are actually doing business with a good company. Contractors want to believe that they are working for a company that actually cares about treating them properly, and this ICoC is a symbol of a companies desire to do good.

But with weak to non-existent enforcement of those standards, that gold seal of approval will turn into lead and clients, the public, and contractors will have no respect for what it stands for. Those are my thoughts on the matter…. –Matt

Edit: 10/12/2011- Here is a snippet from a recent article on the ICoC:

Motzouris says the ICoC does not dismiss the efforts of the Montreux Document, rather it builds upon the base developed by the Montreux Document in order to develop a more comprehensive regulatory mechanism. While the Montreux Document was primarily aimed at states, the ICoC takes on a multi-stakeholder approach that includes governments, PMSC, industry associations, experts and academics and civil society. The ICoC outlines principles for the conduct of PMSC personnel, including rules on the use of force, detainee treatment, prohibition of sexual misconduct, etcetera.

“The reason the ICoC is different from any other regulatory mechanisms is that it appeals to governments and non-state clients to adhere to the Code whilst drawing up contracts with PMSCs. If a PMSC is a signatory of the Code, and the government or non-state actor whom they are contracting to has also committed to implementing the Code, then it moves from a voluntary regulatory standard, to one that can be upheld in a court of law. The British Government has already expressed its commitment to making adherence to the ICoC a requirement for any of its contracted PMSCs, and the US Government is contemplating a move in the same direction,” Motzouris added.

 

International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers

There was consensus that if a complaint is made it should be dealt with by the company first. In some circumstance that won’t be appropriate (internal grievance mechanism exhaustion requirement, with well defined exceptions). There was consensus that the grievance mechanism should include something like a referral function.
A summary of the grievance mechanism functions would be:
A  complaint triggers two avenues:
1. Compliance review,
2. Notice advisory/referral with options for the claimants. Afterwards facilitation of the IGOM for remedy.

(more…)

Monday, August 8, 2011

Industry Talk: Security Firms Hustle To Get Noticed In Kenya

Companies that specialise in one or select number of services have come up, intensifying competition with those that dominated before. KKLogit for example specialises in provision of cash-in-transit services, challenging industry leaders like G4S, Wells Fargo and BM Security Services.

I am always interested in PSC or PMC news in other parts of the world, so here is a story about the market in Kenya of all places. What is really neat about this particular story is the idea of the small companies competing and taking market share from the big companies. That these smaller companies are focusing on a particular niche, and marketing themselves as the best at that particular niche–like cash transits.  The larger companies might provide the same service, but maybe not at the same level of quality or cost as a small company can. The larger companies also might not have the support of the local populations, because they might seem like one of those evil ‘foreigner mega-corporations’ coming to take business from the little guy.

This also reminds me of classic Sun Tzu or military strategy where you attack weakness with strength. Another way to look at it is guerrilla warfare for business, and these smaller companies in Nairobi are figuring this out. That they may not be able to compete against a G4S type company directly, but they certainly can compete against G4S in a very specific market.  But that smaller company has to be able to prove that they are the better company for these specific deals.

And to be able to prove that they are the better company requires an excellent strategic communications plan, and quality control for services rendered. So with smaller companies that can more easily monitor all aspects of their business, and can be more personal online in places like Facebook, might have an advantage here.

A smaller business might also be more appealing to a client if they are opposed to supporting large foreign corporations.  So Walmart might sell watches, but if you can buy the same watch at the same price at a small mom and pop watch shop, that might have even more of a selection of watches than Walmart–then why support that foreign mega-corporation with your business? Or, if that mom and pop watch store is better able to connect with the local population than the mega-corporation, then that will help too. These are the kinds of ‘small guy versus the big guy’ communications and strategies a small company can do in a market like this.

A final note for this article, is that it is filled with the names of some interesting PSC players in Kenya. G4S, KKLogit, Wells Fargo, BM Security Services, Salama Fikira, and Senaca to name a few. Check it out. –Matt

 

Training at Senaca Security Services in Nairobi. Intense competition in the private security market is pushing service providers to turn to marketing and public relations to boost their visibility in the marketplace. File

Security firms hustle to get noticed
By STEVE MBOGO
August 8  2011
Intense competition in the private security market is pushing service providers to turn to marketing and public relations to boost their visibility in the marketplace.
Previously, firms such as G4S Security, KK Security and Wells Fargo seldom bothered about publicity and often relied on walk-in clients and recommendation from their clients to net in new clients, especially corporate customers.
But competition from the top players and new entrants such as Senaca and more visible Brinks Security has forced a change in strategy and the market leaders are racing to grow and defend their marketshare.
As a result, the firms have set up or an in the process of setting up fully fledged communication departments as arsenal for market growth.

(more…)

Saturday, July 9, 2011

Company Spotlight: G4S, The World’s Largest Private Security Company

These two deals I posted below are separate interviews, but they give you a good idea where G4S is standing right now. This company is amazingly large and successful. Not only is it the largest PSC in the world, but this company is the world’s second largest employer, right behind Walmart. That is impressive.

The thing I clued into is their business in the Middle East. That Saudi Arabia and the UAE were their top customers. The trend here, is these countries are serious about their security, and threats against oil and business are what drives this interest in security.

Mr. Buckles, whom used to work for Avon as an analyst, also mentioned in the interview the key to success for the company and why he stuck around:

‘The sensible one is that Securicor had a policy of developing internal talent and offering prospects for rapid promotion. But there was also the offer of a Ford Escort. A company car for a young guy was very attractive,’ he says. By 2005, he headed G4S. ‘The rules of best practice are the same for all businesses, including supplying security,’ he says.
‘Take staff with you by rewarding achievement, identify new markets, manage risk while taking up opportunities, understand your customers and have a strong culture of ethical dealing. Applying these principles has been key for me.’

That is an interesting list, and many of these ideas are just another way of saying ‘take care of your people’ and ‘customer service and satisfaction’. But he also focused on managing risk, which is cool. G4S has certainly gobbled up many companies in a short period of time, and because of the current global chaos and government austerity moves, their timing has been excellent. In other words, they positioned themselves with enough services to take advantage of increased security related opportunities. They have also been profitable during a time when many companies in the world are hurting.

And to further the theme of taking care of your people. When G4S goes into a new region, like Latin America, and they become the best paying gig in town, then of course that company becomes the popular choice of the locals. I guess they have learned the lesson of ‘pay better than the next guy, if you want to attract the best’. Which is great, because if you pay peanuts, you will get monkeys. Paying better and good training are both key aspects of keeping your folks happy, along with providing excellent leadership. Here is the quote:

Unlike most FTSE 100 chief executives, Buckles, 50, has responsibility for staff working in high-risk situations, so how does he handle the stress?
Looking relaxed at G4S’s headquarters in Crawley, West Sussex, he says: ‘The best training is provided and every assignment is assessed for risk and ways of minimising it. Pressure comes with the job, but I’ve been in the security business long enough to know the importance of teamwork and good communication to ensure we are on top of every contract.’
G4S revenues rose by 4.7 per cent in the first three months of the year, driven by the emerging markets of Africa, Asia and South America, where demand is rising for expertise in areas such as moving cash, guarding airports and providing personal protection.
In some developing countries we are seen as a stronger force in terms of training and pay than local police and a better option for providing security,’

The mention of South America also coincides with what the Small Arms Survey mentioned about Latin America. That PSC’s there are the most armed in the world, outside of the conflict zones. Security is huge business in Latin America, and especially because of the drug wars and poor economy. Speaking of which, G4S is also active in Iraq and Afghanistan. So they are definitely intertwined in many aspects of the industry.

Of course there are also incidents where G4S has had some hiccups. This is the extreme challenge of the ‘head knowing what the tale is doing’ within such a large company.  For a smaller security company, the ability to manage and watch each contract is a little easier than for a large mega-corporation to do so. Given that set of circumstance, G4S has done remarkably well. That doesn’t mean they haven’t had their share of issues come up, but still, for it’s size and exposure to risk, it has navigated those issues very well. Ask yourself how much negative news you hear in the media about G4S, compared to other much smaller companies, and you can see what I mean?

Finally, the one thing that I think is really important to emphasize, and some companies have a hard time understanding this. You can assemble a great team, pay them well, be an outstanding leader for them, etc., but if you don’t have some kick ass marketing and sales personnel hunting around for new contracts and actually winning them, then the company will not expand and get more revenue. Why is that important? Well, in order to pay those great salaries, offer good training, and attract kick ass leaders, then you need some cash coming in. Malcolm Gladwell identified these folks as the ‘salesmen’ in his book the Tipping Point:

Chapter 2: The Law of the Few: Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen
The attainment of the tipping point that transforms a phenomenon into an influential trend usually requires the intervention of a number of influential types of people. In the disease epidemic model Gladwell introduced in Chapter 1, he demonstrated that many outbreaks could be traced back to a small group of infectors. Likewise, on the path toward the tipping point, many trends are ushered into popularity by small groups of individuals that can be classified as Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen.
Connectors are individuals who have ties in many different realms and act as conduits between them, helping to engender connections, relationships, and “cross-fertilization” that otherwise might not have ever occurred. Mavens are people who have a strong compulsion to help other consumers by helping them make informed decisions. Salesmen are people whose unusual charisma allows them to be extremely persuasive in inducing others’ buying decisions and behaviors. Gladwell identifies a number of examples of past trends and events that hinged on the influence and involvement of Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen at key moments in their development.(from wikisummaries)

 These salesmen are a vital component of any company. To put a former security contractor or a military guy in such an important position is a nice gesture, but if they do not have the talent to do the job, then you will not get the contracts. What you really need is a professional with a gift, who can ‘sell snow to an Eskimo’ as they say. (like maybe an Avon salesman? lol) It also reminds me of a quote that Donald Trump made recently about negotiators. Here it is:

“You know, I can send two executives into a room. They can say the same thing. One guy comes home with the bacon and the other one doesn’t. And I’ve seen it a thousand times. It’s the messenger.”

The question a company should ask is do they have the right messenger, negotiator, or salesman to win that contract for the company and increase that company’s standing in the market? And to bring this back to G4S, they obviously have some very talented people working on this for them. –Matt

NICK BUCKLES INTERVIEW: I deal with trouble in Kabul, Baghdad …and Wimbledon
By David White
18th June 2011
As the world’s top tennis players and half a million fans prepare for the glamour and glory of the 125th Wimbledon tournament starting tomorrow, their safety will be in the hands of Nick Buckles.
‘There will be 700 uniformed staff to search vehicles and bags, check tickets and provide on-court protection and escorts for players,’ says the boss of G4S, the world’s biggest private security company.

(more…)

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Industry Talk: War, Fickle Clients, A Corrupt Government… And PSCs In Afghanistan Press Forward

     It looks like this government is doing all they can to make life very difficult for these companies to operate. It is so bad, it looks like the very air that companies breath will be regulated and taxed, and if not, the companies will be fined for even thinking about breathing. Ridiculous.

     The other thing here that is important to note is that even under all of this pressure by such a corrupt government, or the constant media and congressional pressure, or fickle clients, or the toils of an active war zone, that these durable companies are still operating and overcoming adversity. Imagine an Apple or Toyota operating in such an environment?

     Private security companies like these not only have to protect a client’s life and reputation, but must also work hard to protect their own operations and people.  Talk about pressure and adverse operating conditions?  Either way, this industry will overcome all and any obstacles, just like it always has, and continue to provide vital security services in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Just as long as governments like Karzai’s do such a terrible job of governing or providing adequate security for locals and foreigners, the services of my industry will still be in high demand. –Matt

Security firms face possible fines in Afghanistan

Afghan government accuses 16 security firms of violations

Security firms face possible fines in Afghanistan

Feb 10, 2011

Private security firms operating in Afghanistan will in future face fines for breaking their operating rules, President Hamid Karzai’s office said Thursday, the latest tightening of measures against them.

In August, Karzai ordered that all private security firms — many of which are foreign-owned and provide guards for embassies, NGOs and businesses in violence-hit Afghanistan — be banned.

But he later rowed back on this under pressure from his Western allies, who said the firms were necessary to provide adequate security in the country, whose own police and military are still being built up.

“The interior minister presented a plan regarding fining private security companies that unlawfully recruit foreign staff, unlawfully import armoured vehicles from outside the country, or distribute illegal weapons,” a statement from Karzai’s office said, after a meeting of the National Security Council.

(more…)

Monday, January 24, 2011

Industry Talk: Security Firms Are The Target Of A Corrupt Afghan Government Once Again

“The lack of transparency makes it very difficult to operate effectively: The rules change every day depending on which department you are talking to,” said a second executive with one of the security firms, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “We’ve heard of companies being pulled up on everything from taxes to vehicle registrations to visas.”

     What can I say? This Afghan government is corrupt and greedy, and is doing all they can to juice this industry and the US.  From the taxation game to this crap, what’s next?

     One funny side note is that Xe was not on this latest list.  I guess they win for the moment. lol –Matt

Security firms are accused of breaking Afghan laws

By Joshua Partlow and Rajiv ChandrasekaranSunday, January 23, 2011

KABUL – The Afghan government has accused several prominent private security companies, including some that work with the U.S. government, of committing “major offenses,” a move that U.S. officials fear could hasten their departure from the country.

A list compiled by Afghan officials cites 16 companies, including several American and British firms, for unspecified serious violations and seven others for having links to high-ranking Afghan officials, according to a copy obtained by The Washington Post.

A decision to ban the major violators and those that have relationships with senior Afghan officials would affect firms that provide about 800 guards for the U.S. Agency for International Development projects and about 3,000 who work on military construction projects for the coalition, said a senior U.S. official.

“We’re wringing our hands over this,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. “We’re waiting to hear which companies will get disbandment notices and when they will have to disband.”

Among those listed as major offenders are Triple Canopy, based in Reston; Washington-based Blue Hackle; and the British firm G4S, the parent company of ArmorGroup North America, which provides security for the U.S. Embassy in Kabul.

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress