If Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, walked into a UK security roundtable today, he would listen to every complaint about standards, training and “unfit for purpose” courses. He would hear employers, awarding bodies, consultants, and directors talk about regulations, top-ups, PI, misconduct and malpractice.
And he would ask one question: What do the buyers value?
Because once you answer that, everything else in this industry becomes predictable. Smith would not blame the SIA.
He would not blame the training providers.
He would not blame the officers.
He would not blame subcontractors.
He would say something very simple:“Markets deliver the quality that buyers are willing to pay for.”
This single idea, more than any operational detail, explains why the UK security industry is the way it is. This article is my attempt to explain that truth clearly, without emotion, ego or blame.
Who I Am, And Why I Care
My perspective comes from lived experience. I am not writing this from an abstract policy position.
My career in UK security began in 2001, while studying for a Master’s in Information Security at Royal Holloway. I walked from Liverpool Street to Shoreditch and entered the old Security Corps office. I met Rasheed Ali, who interviewed me and booked me onto their induction. Security Corps would later merge with Group 4 in 2004 to become G4S.
My first assignment was Tesco Portslade in Brighton. I would lock up at 9 pm, sprint to the station for the last train, and travel back to North London exhausted but grateful for the income that helped me pay my tuition.
I have stood on the shop floor.
I have taken the calls.
I have felt the loneliness of the lone worker.
I have lived the frontline reality.
I have delivered training courses.
And I now run a company that sits at the intersection of training, staffing and screening. This experience shapes how I view the system today.
The Problem Is Not Training, The Problem Is Economics
Every industry roundtable I attend eventually circles back to the same conclusion: The SIA licence-linked course is not fit for purpose.
But when you strip away the emotion, the PowerPoints and the anecdotes, one thing becomes clear: The root cause of our industry’s challenges is not the SIA course. It is the incentive structure created by the buyer.
Let us walk through this step by step.
The Buyer Buys the Cheapest Acceptable Option
In most sectors, the client’s procurement team awards the contract to the lowest-priced credible provider. From the buyer’s perspective, this is rational.
A trained officer does not increase their revenue.
A highly skilled officer does not improve their margins.
A better-trained officer does not show up on their balance sheet.
If a cheaper alternative exists and still “ticks the box”, most buyers will choose it. Security is seen as a cost, not a capability. A guard is a line item, not a value driver. Once you accept this, the entire structure of the industry makes perfect sense.
Low Price Creates Thin Margins
If buyers push the price down, providers must deliver at that price.
Thin margins mean:
- Limited budgets for training
- Limited workforce development
- Limited pay rises
- Limited supervision
- Limited culture building
- Limited retention
- Limited career pathways
And when margins are thin at the top, subcontracting pushes them even thinner at the bottom.
By the time a contract passes through two or three tiers, there is often so little margin left that:
- PAYE weakens
- VAT becomes difficult
- Training is minimised
- Turnover increases
- Quality declines
This is not because people do not care. It is because the economics make anything else impossible.
Wages Determine the Talent Pool
This is a basic principle of labour economics. Wages shape the workforce.
If a role offers near-minimum pay, the talent pool will naturally be:
- Entry-level workers
- Migrant workers
- Workers looking for immediate income
- Individuals without long-term career anchors
This is not a moral judgement. It is simply how labour markets function.
You cannot expect “high-quality talent” when the wage level does not attract that segment of the labour market. Buyers want frontline officers to behave like emergency responders, yet they are paid the same as warehouse operatives.
The expectation does not match the incentive.
Recommended Read: Labour Exploitation in Security
Ongoing Training Becomes Impossible
Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, employers must train officers according to site risks. That includes:
- Site inductions
- Refreshers
- Scenario drills
- Reinforcement of conflict skills
- First aid refreshers
- Regular updates
Very few companies have the margin to do this consistently. So the industry does something predictable: It blames the SIA course for everything that happens after the course.
But the SIA course was never designed to carry the full weight of site-specific and ongoing training. It is the entry gate, not the entire journey.
Skills fade is normal. Expecting a one-time SIA licence course to override wage incentives, turnover, and lack of reinforcement is unrealistic.
Respect and Status Do Not Match the Role
Security officers carry responsibility, but they do not carry status. They are asked to:
- Manage conflict
- Handle emergencies
- Support the police
- De-escalate aggression
- Protect property
- Manage public safety
But they are not treated with the same cultural recognition as:
- Firefighters
- Nurses
- Paramedics
- Teachers
During the first phase of COVID-19, ONS data showed that male security guards had one of the highest death rates of any occupation in England and Wales, yet there was no public recognition.
Low status reinforces low pay.
Low pay reinforces a limited talent pool.
Limited talent pool reinforces limited training outcomes.
It is a loop.
Recommended Read: UK Security Salaries
Subcontracting Magnifies the Incentive Problem
The supply chain typically works like this:
- A large company wins the contract
- It passes some or most of it to a smaller company
- That company passes it further
- Margins fall with each step
What remains at the end of the chain is an officer paid very little, trained very little and supported very little because the system is structured around price, not quality.
Illegal Shortcuts Arise When Economic Pressure Rises
Whenever the cost to enter a regulated industry rises and the buyer still purchases on price, some individuals will naturally seek faster, cheaper routes. This is predictable market behaviour. Economists expect it. Enforcement reduces it, but cannot eliminate it entirely.
Again, this is not a training issue. It is an incentives issue.
The Workforce Has Changed. The Industry Has Not.
Today’s workforce is:
- Younger
- More diverse
- More digital
- More socially aware
- More values-driven
They expect:
- Respect
- Belonging
- Career pathways
- Communication
- Professional identity
But the industry still operates with:
- Legacy structures
- Closed networks
- Outdated perceptions
- Fragmented identity
There is a cultural disconnect between the leadership and the workforce.
Recommended Read: Diversity in the UK Security Industry
The Root Cause: Buyers Do Not Value High-Quality Security Enough to Pay for It
Every road in this industry leads back to one central truth: The buyer sets the standard.
If buyers paid premium rates for highly trained officers, the industry would transform overnight.
Training quality would rise.
Wages would rise.
Talent would rise.
Retention would rise.
But buyers do not pay more because:
- They can find it cheaper elsewhere
- Quality does not directly increase their revenue
- “Adequate” is acceptable in most organisational contexts
Security is a cost centre, not a profit centre.
That is the root cause.
Could the System Change?
Yes, but change will only come from shifting incentives. There are three real paths:
Buyers Value and Pay for Quality
This is the most direct and elegant solution, but it requires cultural and economic change at the client level.
Make ACS Mandatory For All Suppliers and Subcontractors
This would clean up the supply chain and raise the baseline.
Build a National Brand Around the Profession
If the public respects and values security officers, wages rise. Higher wages attract stronger talent. Stronger talent justifies greater investment in training.
Brand, status and economics form a tight loop.
What Adam Smith Would Tell Us Today
If Adam Smith looked at our industry today, he would say:
“The system is not broken. It is doing exactly what the incentives tell it to do. If you want a different outcome, redesign the incentives.”
He would not point at the SIA course.
He would point at the buyer.
He would point at wages.
He would point at margins.
He would point at the supply chain.
Training quality is not the root cause. Training quality is the predictable outcome of the market’s value system.
Final Thought: From Noise to Signal
None of this is about blame. It is about clarity.
The security industry is doing what it is economically designed to do. If we are serious about improving standards, safety, professionalism and workforce pride, we must stop pretending that the SIA course is the problem.
We must look at:
- Incentives
- Pricing
- Margins
- Status
- Branding
- Contracting
- Workforce culture
- Subcontracting structure
The signal is clear. Everything else is noise.
If the buyer values quality, the industry will deliver quality.
If the buyer values price, the industry will deliver price.
Economics cannot be ignored. And that is the truth we must all confront.
