Key Points

• Europe’s security labor market scored a median 40—the lowest of all regions—reflecting severe workforce shortages driven by the sector’s undervaluation.
• Consultation on technology regulation in Europe rated just 50, as well-meaning legislation often creates legal uncertainties and stifles security innovation.
• While Europe excels in risk awareness with a median score of 70, its underdeveloped security culture calls for stronger communication of security’s business value to boost investment and accountability.

The Global Security Barometer features regional ratings on key security issues by the top executives at the world's leading security firms.

How did Europe do?

The labor market for security services in Europe is regarded as especially problematic, with a median score of just 40 (46.4 average). This marks the lowest score in Europe for the six questions that were asked about security industry challenges.

As in many parts of the world, demand for security officers in Europe outstrips supply, as technology cannot fully replace the human element required for complex and high-stakes tasks. The labor shortage in security services is exacerbated by low wages and the industry's misunderstood and unappreciated nature, which should compel governments to establish a level playing field and fair base wages. The human element in security remains irreplaceable, and a well-trained, diverse, and motivated workforce is crucial for maintaining public safety and addressing evolving threats.

The second lowest rating in Europe was for industry consultation on technology regulation, which had a median score of 50.

“The integration of technology into security services is transforming the industry in Europe; however, while European tech regulations address critical gaps, they frequently introduce legal uncertainties and pose unnecessary barriers to innovation in security,” explains Alexander Frank, Deputy Director General for the Confederation of European Security Services (CoESS) and one of the GSB’s 17 expert co-authors.

Tech legislation must accurately reflect the realities of our sector and address the security needs of our economies and societies in an increasingly volatile world. Alexander Frank, CoESS Deputy Director General

On a More Positive Note

Risk awareness is perceived as fairly mature in Europe, which received a median score of 70 and an average rating of 68.4.

Adequate protection hinges on a complete and accurate understanding about security risks, their potential, and the steps required to prevent and mitigate them. Organizations in Europe do this better than organizations in most other parts of the world (only North America rated higher on this issue).

In today's fast-paced and complex business environment, organizations must adopt nimbler risk mitigation processes to address evolving security threats arising from rapid technological adoption and strategic decisions like layoffs, expansions, or mergers, which can compound risks and create "perfect storms." Accurate, detailed, and frequently updated risk assessments—including thorough threat and vulnerability analyses—are crucial for aligning security measures with changing risks.

More Mature View of Security is Needed

Europe’s score was relatively low, however, on the level of security culture at the typical business. This, as well as scores on other issues, suggest that physical protection on the continent is stronger than appreciation of security as a business enabler.

Driving a more mature security culture requires operational leaders to make a dedicated effort to communicate security as a business benefit beyond risk avoidance. Explaining security’s true value is made easier by highlighting security’s value through a balance of input, output, and outcome performance measures. Thoughtfully developed, security performance measures help ensure accountability, prioritize security needs, and justify investment decisions.

It may also help to advocate for security programs and resources through business-case justifications. While not always easy (it can be hard to tally all of security’s merits into a business-case calculation), security leaders must endeavor to creatively capture all of security’s business benefits—both direct and indirect. Functional managers can strive to articulate the collateral value from security activities, like improving workers’ sense of security, employee morale, productivity, and retention, and draw connections between security investment and lower operating and insurance costs. Companies shouldn’t just aggregate security data and tally statistics but also recognize how those numbers translate into potential dollar losses.

Finally, security leaders should devise a communication plan to improve recognition for the value of security in everyday business operations. Rather than being fear-based, communications should emphasize the positive aspects of security through metrics, multiple communication channels, and clear messaging.