Strengthening the security sector: Why politicians and the industry now need a genuine security alliance
The criticism levelled by the Federal Association of the Security Industry is far more than an industry-specific observation – it highlights a structural problem in German security policy. Whilst political strategy papers regularly focus on the police, intelligence services, cyber security, civil protection and critical infrastructure, a significant part of the actual security landscape is still given too little consideration: the private security sector.
Yet security service providers already perform indispensable tasks today. They protect industrial and commercial sites, energy facilities, airports, logistics centres, public institutions, events and sensitive areas of daily life. They relieve the burden on government agencies, establish a visible presence, support prevention and contribute significantly to the stability of complex operational and supply structures. Security in Germany has long been organised on the basis of a division of labour – yet this reality is not yet reflected consistently enough in policy.
Particularly in view of growing threats from extremism, organised crime, sabotage, hybrid attacks and increasing vulnerabilities in critical supply systems, Germany needs a modern approach to security. This must systematically involve all relevant stakeholders: the state, operators of critical infrastructure, technology partners and the private security sector.
From an operational role to strategic integration
A key shortcoming is that the sector is frequently involved at an operational level but does not receive the same strategic priority. Security firms are only considered when there is a shortage of personnel or short-term protective measures are required. However, their expertise is often insufficiently utilised when it comes to long-term security strategies, regulatory decisions or future policy issues.
Yet it is precisely this practical perspective that would be valuable. Security service providers are familiar with local threat situations, operational vulnerabilities, implementation challenges and the real-world requirements of security concepts. This practical knowledge should be incorporated much more heavily into political decision-making processes.
Another important aspect: physical security as part of holistic resilience
Alongside cybersecurity and digital resilience, physical security must also be considered as an integral part of modern security strategies. This includes, for example, access management, perimeter protection, intervention concepts, site surveillance, hazard detection technology, crisis response, and the safeguarding of sensitive operational processes.
This is not a matter of pitting cyber and physical security against one another, but rather of ensuring they work in tandem. Many of today’s risks are hybrid: digital attacks can have physical consequences – and vice versa. This is why integrated protection concepts are needed, involving operational security service providers as well as technology providers, operators and public authorities.
Legislation and standards can only be effectively shaped through collaboration
Another crucial point concerns regulation, standardisation and technical standards. Whether regarding KRITIS requirements, resilience requirements, frequency usage, alarm transmission, communication systems or interface standards: such framework conditions are only effective if they are designed with practicality in mind.
These specifications should therefore not be determined in isolation through administrative channels, but should be developed in close collaboration with the entire security sector – that is, with security service providers, manufacturers, integrators, operators and other specialist stakeholders. Only in this way can technical realities, economic feasibility, investment cycles and operational requirements be taken into account in a meaningful way.
It is precisely on issues such as frequency adjustments, new communication technologies or KRITIS regulations that the importance of early involvement becomes apparent. If guidelines are formulated without sufficient industry perspective, this leads to unnecessary friction, uncertainty regarding investments or requirements that are difficult to implement.
The sector must be understood as an integrated system
A common mistake in political debates is focusing too narrowly on individual market segments. However, security does not arise solely from surveillance, nor solely from technology, nor solely from regulation. It arises from the interaction of many stakeholders.
That is why the influence of the security industry should be understood as a whole ecosystem: service providers, control centres, specialist installers, manufacturers, software providers, consultancy firms, training providers and operators together form a significant part of national security and resilience structures. This holistic view is still too often lacking.
How to strengthen the industry’s position vis-à-vis policymakers
Convincing with facts and figures: The sector should demonstrate its importance even more clearly: employment figures, protected sites, operational hours, the relief provided to public authorities, investment in training and technology, and economic significance.
Present a united front: associations, suppliers, service providers and manufacturers should jointly address key future issues: skills shortages, procurement quality, the KRITIS role, innovation, standardisation and strategic integration.
Be involved in political processes at an early stage: The sector should be institutionally involved not just in consultations, but already in the early conceptual phases of new regulations and security strategies.
Quality over the lowest price: Security is a critical service. Public procurement should be geared more towards quality, competence, reliability and innovative capacity.
Making innovation more visible: The sector is developing dynamically – from intelligent control centres and AI-supported processes to integrated protection concepts. This innovative strength should be communicated more effectively.
Conclusion
The private security sector is a central component of the security landscape in Germany. It protects people, infrastructure, businesses and public spaces – day in, day out. At the same time, its strategic contribution is not yet sufficiently taken into account in politics and regulation.
Anyone wishing to organise security effectively in the future must view the entire security sector as a partner. Legislation, standards and security strategies become particularly robust when developed in collaboration with market practitioners. This is precisely where the opportunity lies for a modern security alliance between the state, the economy and the sector.
