EDI Is Not a Side Issue: Why Private Security Cannot Professionalise Without Equity
The Industry’s Professionalisation Problem
For decades now, the private security industry has tried to define itself as a proper profession. The discussion on the licensing, regulation, competency, accreditation, quality of training, and performance of this industry has been a common topic in relation to its future. However, despite these advancements, there still exists one problem that is not widely understood – diversity, equity, and inclusion (EDI) cannot be seen as an entity different from professionalization, but rather, it is an integral part of its structure.
For far too long, EDI in the private security sector was considered a side matter. It would usually be treated like a human resource issue or a public relations practice, and more often than not, would be discussed as something completely separate from the practicalities of being a security guard. It is common knowledge that in a lot of organizations, while there would be policies on diversity, equity, and inclusion, discriminatory systems would still continue to prevail.
The False Separation Between Professional Standards and Equity Standards
This distinction between “professional standards” and “equity standards” may be considered to be the most significant conceptual mistake within modern private security governance.
An industry cannot maintain professionalism when large proportions of its personnel encounter inequity, limited mobility, lack of management accountability, or marginalization in its governance structure. Professionalism cannot be achieved through technical prowess alone; it must be achieved through governance frameworks that provide for equity, accountability, dignity, and institutional trust.
The data collected within the UK private security industry provides increasing evidence of this systemic issue rather than sporadic incidents. According to the SIF DEI Framework Architecture, there are results that completely undermine the professionalism of the industry. Seventy percent of respondents claimed that they have faced discrimination at work. Eighty-two percent admitted seeing discrimination among their colleagues. Perhaps most importantly, thirty-eight percent named their managers as sources of discrimination.
This is important because professionalism in an industry can be judged not just based on the nature of the work, but also through the way in which power, progress, accountability, and standards are organized inside the industry.
The connection between EDI and professional standards cannot be separated from each other in such a way.
Professionalisation Requires Institutional Legitimacy
Firstly, because professionalization needs to establish legitimacy. If there is no trust that the professional industry is run in an ethical manner, governed fairly, and its authorities are accountable, then people will lose trust. It will become very difficult for workers to trust the system when it has normalized the idea that their treatment is discriminatory. The finding in the SIF survey that seventy-seven percent of the respondents have experienced discrimination as part of the private security shows a huge legitimacy problem.
An industry that expects such a high level of discrimination among its employees cannot be considered as professionally run.
The Frontline Ceiling: Diversity Without Progression
Second, professionalisation requires a clear system of progressions. In a developed profession, it is assumed that there will be some sort of standard for progressing through stages of competence, experience, education, and performance. However, in the case of private security, it would seem that such progressions remain informal, relational, or discretionary, leading to a situation where minority employees may be present in significant numbers in the workforce but are under-represented in management and strategy-making roles.
This could be termed as the frontline ceiling, which is the idea of having diversity in practice but not in structure.
The result is dramatic. While the benefits of having diversity in its workforce are reaped by the industry, no proper pathway to influence, governance, and management roles is cultivated. In other words, representation becomes concentrated in the lower tiers of organisational structure while upper tiers continue to be closed-off decision-making structures.
This problem is not just about the workforce; it is about the profession itself.
For any profession, pathways of progressions need to be clear and accessible.
Why Accountability Matters More Than Policy Language
Third, professionalization entails having accountability processes to regulate behavior. Security organizations have equality policies, grievance procedures, and awareness training programs. However, merely having these policies is insufficient. The crucial question remains how discriminatory behavior affects the organization. In too many cases, it does not.
If the complaint process is long, inconsistent, or even seen as dangerous, workers will refrain from using the system altogether. What happens here is not that there is no discrimination. Instead, workers lack faith in governance itself. And that makes a big difference.
Professionalization is dependent on more than merely symbolic commitments. Instead, a concrete structure of accountability must exist with explicit guidelines, an official report system, an investigation procedure, and consequences for malpractice.
Symbolic EDI vs Structural EDI
That is why the distinction between symbolic EDI and structural EDI is so crucial.
Symbolic EDI is about optics, awareness programs, or linguistic reputation. Symbolic EDI tends to prioritize appearances over actual governance. Organizations might put out a statement, celebrate awareness days, or hold a single training program while doing nothing else.
Structure-based EDI is different.
Structure-based EDI looks at how power plays out within organizations. It looks at recruitment processes, promotion levels, outcome management, management accountability, representation, psychological safety, and access to developmental opportunities. Instead of asking if companies are talking about inclusion, it questions if their systems are delivering equitable results.
The divergence between these two approaches can be compared to the difference between aspiration and governance.
Why Private Security Requires Structural EDI
This is especially relevant for the private security industry, given the pressures of its operations. Shift work, subcontracting relationships, insecure employment, and career fragmentation are prevalent in the industry, which creates situations where power structures take precedence over policy frameworks. Within such contexts, EDI initiatives are impossible without operationalizing governance structures. This makes training and licensing the focus of the debate.
Training, Licensing and Professional Pathways
Traditionally, licensing in private security revolves around operational competence. Although necessary, licensing alone does not guarantee professionalism. A profession needs systems that transcend basic training into developmental systems.
It is crucial that equality of access to those pathways be incorporated into the architecture itself.
If training is biased toward more privileged groups, professional disparity continues to replicate itself over time. When management training programs lack accountability criteria, discriminatory managerial practices continue to prevail. Informal promotion policies ensure that diversity representation gaps are perpetually structural.
This is why EDI should not be outside the architecture of professionalisation but should rather be incorporated within the architecture of professionalisation.
SSPM and the Governance Architecture of Equity
The Security Science Professionalisation Matrix (SSPM) tries to solve this problem by recognizing professionalisation not just as a training process but as a complete governance ecosystem. In the context of SSPM, professionalism is not only about competency, but it is also about the combination of competency, ethics, governance, accountability, and progression.
Within this model, EDI is not an organizational choice but a fundamental component of professionalization.
This is an important conceptual leap.
Organisations which cannot prove their fairness through progressive systems, responsible supervision, complaint handling mechanisms, or inclusion impacts cannot merely be said to be neglecting their duty ethically; rather, they are failing to function according to the standard of a professional industry.
Why does this matter?
It means the issue moves from one of individual employer conduct to that of meeting professional governance criteria.
Why This Matters to Clients, Regulators and Industry Leadership
Not only does this have implications on the level of individual companies, but also for their clients, who demand objective indicators of professionalism in workforce management. Regulatory bodies are under increasing pressure to factor workplace dynamics into assessments of competence.
Expectations about institutional responsibility continue to develop in all sectors.
Nor can private security be immune to these challenges indefinitely.
Quite the contrary, the sectors which do not incorporate principles of equity within their respective standards of professionalism experience increasing instability, retention challenges, recruitment difficulties, internal inconsistencies, and eroding trust within their workforces.
The Future of Professionalisation Depends on Structural Equity
The future of private security professionalisation will thus hinge on whether the industry is willing to abandon its reliance on symbolism and begin the process of structural redesign.
This entails setting standards.
This entails holding leaders accountable.
This entails showing progression.
This entails collecting data.
This entails integrating governance.
It also entails understanding that the dignity of workers is intrinsically linked to professionalism.
Above all, this entails abandoning the idea that EDI is somehow peripheral to the practice of security.
The truth is quite the contrary.
Conclusion: EDI as Professional Infrastructure
EDI informs recruitment, retention, stability, legitimacy, respect, and professionalism. It determines who joins the industry, who stays in the industry, who moves up within the industry, and who will eventually lead it.
A profession cannot claim maturity when such inequity is baked into its operational structures.
The reason why EDI is not just a side issue is that it forms the very infrastructure of professionalization.
As long as equity, dignity, and inclusion have yet to be incorporated into the very foundations of private security itself, then the profession of security will remain unfinished.