International Journal on Criminology Volume 4, Number 2, Winter 2016 | Page 106

International Journal on Criminology
Essentially, this research has enabled us to establish that all these organizations
have security or safety management. We then questioned those responsible for these
services about their areas of responsibility. The response chart was drawn up from an
in-depth review of the professional literature on the subject. To the question “Does
your role cover…?” 14 possible answers were offered. The positive responses are
presented as follows:
So, although there is a centering of responsibilities around asset protection,
personal security and crisis management, we have attempted to measure the level of
crossover of the safety and security functions by posing the question of Hygiene and
Safety at Work (Health and Safety) and fire safety. 31.5% of respondents (N=23) say
they are responsible for fire safety and 20.5% (N=15) say they are responsible for
Health and Safety. These two responsibilities overlap considerably since almost all
the respondents responsible for Health and Safety (13 out of 15) are also responsible
for fire safety. This is an important point, both in defining the range of skills in security
management and in determining the characteristics of the professional identity of those
involved. Although the security function as defined at the beginning of this article is
the one which protects organizations against all malicious acts apart from attacks
with accidental origins, we must accept that security management is undertaken in an
exclusive manner in almost 70% of cases.
Beyond skills and responsibilities, we were interested in the real place of
these managers as we tried to establish their positioning in the organization and their
effective links with the managing bodies of their companies. Our first observation was
that security management is normally located at the heart of general management and
the general administration of companies. To the question on which department they
were attached to, the professionals concerned gave the following responses.
The fact remains that, even if it is an important point, hierarchical positioning is
not a determining factor in the real influence of such a service within an organization.
To pursue this idea further, we tried to measure the ability of security managers to get
them heard by the Executive Committee (COMEX) of their companies.
To the question “Are you members of the COMEX?”, 6 respondents out of
73 replied “yes”, that is, 8.6% of the total. This proportion remains low, especially
if we compare it to the situation in the United States where the situation of security
management is much more mature. An ASIS study indeed shows that the person
with ultimate responsibility for matters of security has the status of vice president
(or executive vice president) in 27.5% of cases and in 23.1% of cases the status of
Chief Security Officer (CSO) which, according to the definition provided implies that
the post-holder is a “member of the board”. 8 We can therefore say that in over 50%
of cases, those responsible for security in large American groups are members of the
COMEX.
8
ASIS International “CSO Roundtable: Survey Security Department Organizational Structure” August
2012.
105