Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Contributions of private businesses to the provision of security in the EU: beyond public-private partnerships

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article makes a threefold contribution to the literature on security pluralization in the European Union (EU). Firstly, it maps the existing EU level security strategies, their accompanying action plans and implementation reports in order to identify and critically asses the prevailing conceptual frameworks – public-private partnerships and resilience – evoked by EU policy-makers when it comes to the contributions of the private sector in the provision of security. Secondly, it explores a hitherto overlooked conceptual framework for analyzing the contributions of private businesses in the provision of security in the EU (and beyond): political corporate social responsibility. Thirdly, it surveys the key challenges of the growing role of private businesses in the provision of security (responsibilization, depoliticization, and commodification) which are important reminders that no matter what conceptual framework one prefers, the engagement of private businesses in the provision of security is always bound to raise a number of profound dilemmas. This in turn implies the need for (re-)consideration of the more traditional regulatory frameworks in order to safeguard important public goods and/or values.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. They considered only contributions by companies that are 1.) political (in the sense that they involve activities that “work towards the creation and implementation of collectively binding rules and norms related to the provision of collective goods”); 2.) intentional (e.g. not mere by-products of other business activities); 3.) voluntary; and that 4.) “directly and/or indirectly address the level of violence in an environment characterized by imminent, on-going or only very recently terminated interactions of physical violence.” ([87], pp. 11–13)

References

  1. European Council (2010). Internal security strategy for the European Union. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/librairie/PDF/QC3010313ENC.pdf. Accessed 14 April 2014.

  2. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: towards a new modernity. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Abrahamsen, R., & Williams, M. C. (2011). Security beyond the state: private security in international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Shearing, C., & Wood, J. (2003). Nodal governance, democracy, and the new “denizens”. Journal of Law and Society, 30(3), 400–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wood, J., & Dupont, B. (2006). Democracy, society and the governance of security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Krahmann, E. (2004). Security governance and networks: new theoretical perspectives in transatlantic security. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 18(1), 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Webber, M., Croft, S., Howorth, J., Terriff, T., & Krahmann, E. (2004). The governance of European security. Review of International Studies, 30(1), 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Boerzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2006). Public-private partnerships: effective and legitimate tools of transnational governance. In E. Grande & L. W. Pauly (Eds.), Complex sovereignty (pp. 195–216). Toronto: Toronto University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gill, P. (2006). Not just joining the dots but crossing the borders and bridging the voids: constructing security networks after 11 September 2001. Policing & Society, 16(1), 27–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Den Boer, M., Hillerbrand, C., & Nölke, A. (2008). Legitimacy under pressure: the European web of counter-terrorism networks. Journal of Common Market Studies, 46(1), 101–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ballentine, K., & Sherman, J. (2003). The political economy of armed conflict: beyond greed and grievance. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Berdal, M., & Malone, D. M. (2000). Greed and grievance: economic agendas in civil wars. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Klare, M. T. (2001). Resource wars: the new landscape of global conflict. New York: Owl Books.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Musah, A.-F. (2002). Privatization of security, arms proliferation and the process of state collapse in Africa. Development and Change, 33(5), 911–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Avant, D. (2004). The market for force: the consequences of privatizing security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chesterman, S., & Lehnardt, C. (2007). From mercenaries to market: the rise and regulation of private military companies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Jäger, T., & Kümmel, G. (2007). Private military and security companies: chances, problems, pitfalls and prospects. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

  19. Ortiz, C. (2010). Private armed forces and global security: a guide to the issues. Santa Barbara, Denver, Oxford: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Percy, S. (2007). Morality and regulation. In S. Chesterman & C. Lehnard (Eds.), From mercenaries to market: the rise and regulation of private military companies (pp. 11–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Singer, P. W. (2003). Corporate warriors: the rise of the privatized military industry. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Loader, I., & Walker, N. (2007). Civilizing security: policing and political community in a global era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Verhage, A. (2008). Between the hammer and the anvil? The anti-money laundering-complex and its interactions with the compliance industry. Crime, Law and Social Change, 52, 9–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Verkuil, P. R. (2007). Outsourcing sovereignty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Krahmann, E. (2008). Security: collective good or commodity? European Journal of International Relations, 14(3), 379–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Eriksen, E. O. (2011). Governance between expertise and democracy: the case of European security. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(8), 1169–1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bigo, D., Bonelli, L., Guittet, E., Olsson, C., & Tsoukala, A. (2006). Illiberal practices of liberal regimes: the (in)security games. Paris: L’Harmattan.

    Google Scholar 

  28. European Council (2008). Revised strategy on terrorist financing. http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2011778%202008%20REV%201. 11778/1/08. Accessed 14 April 2014.

  29. European Council (2011). EU action plan on combating terrorism. http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2015893%202010%20REV%201. 15893/1/10. Accessed 14 April 2014.

  30. European Commission (2014). For an open and secure global maritime domain: elements for a European Union maritime security strategy. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014JC0009&from=EN. JOIN(2014) 9 final. Accessed 14 April 2014.

  31. European Council (2007). Specific programme: Preventing and combating crime (2007–2013). http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32007D0125:EN:NOT. Accessed 14 April 2014.

  32. Council of the European Union (2009). The Stockholm programme - An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens. http://www.se2009.eu/polopoly_fs/1.26419!menu/standard/file/Klar_Stockholmsprogram.pdf. Accessed 1 February 2010.

  33. European Council (2004). EU drugs strategy (2005–2012). .http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/combating_drugs/c22569_en.htm. Accessed 14 April 2014

  34. European Commission (2012). Security industrial policy. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0417:FIN:EN:PDF. COM(2012) 417 final. Accessed 14 April 2014.

  35. European Commission (2013a). Cybersecurity strategy of the European Union. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/documents/policies/organized-crime-and-human-trafficking/cybercrime/docs/join_2013_1_en.pdf. JOIN(2013) 1 final. Accessed 14 April 2014.

  36. European Council (2003a). European security strategy. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf. Accessed 14 April 2014.

  37. European Commission (2008). Report on the implementation of the European Security Strategy. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/reports/104630.pdf. S407/08. Accessed 14 April 2014.

  38. European Council (2003b). Strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/03/st15/st15708.en03.pdf. 15708/03. Accessed 14 April 2014.

  39. European Council (2005). Strategy for the external dimension of JHA: global freedom, security and justice. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52005DC0491&from=EN. COM/2005/0491 final. Accessed 14 April 2014.

  40. Council of the European Union (2005). European counter-terrorism strategy. http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/05/st14/st14469-re04.en05.pdf (European Union). Accessed 27 January 2007.

  41. Parsons, W. (1995). Public policy: an introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Bossong, R. (2008). The action plan on combating terrorism: a flawed instrument of EU security governance. Journal of Common Market Studies, 46(1), 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. European Commission (2005). The Hague Programme: Ten priorities for the next five years. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/05/153&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en (European Union). Accessed 1 August 2006.

  44. Bossong, R., & Wagner, B. (2016). A typology of cybersecurity and public-private partnerships in the context of the EU. Crime, Law and Social Change. doi:10.1007/s10611-016-9653-3.

  45. Carrapico, H., & Farrand, B. (2016). ‘Dialogue, partnership and empowerment for network and information security’: the changing role of the private sector from regulation adopters to regulation shapers. Crime, Law and Social Change. doi:10.1007/s10611-016-9652-4.

  46. ENISA (2014a). About ENISA. http://www.enisa.europa.eu/about-enisa. Accessed 24 June 2014.

  47. ENISA (2014d). Public private partnerships (PPPs). http://www.enisa.europa.eu/activities/Resilience-and-CIIP/public-private-partnership/public-private-partnerships-ppps. Accessed 24 June 2014.

  48. ENISA (2014c). Good practice guide on cooperative models for effective PPPs. http://www.enisa.europa.eu/activities/Resilience-and-CIIP/public-private-partnership/national-public-private-partnerships-ppps/good-practice-guide-on-cooperatve-models-for-effective-ppps. Accessed 24 June 2014.

  49. European Commission (2009). Protecting Europe from large scale cyber-attacks and disruptions: Enhancing preparedness, security and resilience. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0149:FIN:EN:PDF. COM(2009) 149 final. Accessed 14 April 2014.

  50. ENISA (2014b). European Public Private Partnership for Resilience (EP3R). http://www.enisa.europa.eu/activities/Resilience-and-CIIP/public-private-partnership/european-public-private-partnership-for-resilience-ep3r. Accessed 24 June 2014.

  51. Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2011). Public-private partnerships: perspectives on purposes, publicness, and good governance. Public Administration and Development, 31(1), 2–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Cabral, S., Lazzarini, S. G., & Furquim de Azevedo, P. (2010). Private operation with public supervision: evidence of hybrid modes of governance in prisons. Public Choice, 145(1–2), 281–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Hart, O. (2003). Incomplete contracts and public ownership: remarks, and an application to public-private partnerships. Economic Journal, 113(486), 69–76.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Hodge, G., & Greve, C. (2007). Public-private partnerships: an international performance review. Public Administration Review, 67, 545–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Osborne, S. P. (2000). Public-private partnerships: theory and practice in international perspective. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Minow, M. (2003). Public and private partnerships. Accounting for the new religion. Harvard Law Review, 116(1), 1229–1270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Collier, S. J., & Lakoff, A. (2008). The vulnerability of vital systems: how critical infrastructure became a security problem. In M. D. Cavelty & K. S. Kristensen (Eds.), Securing 'the Homeland': critical infrastructure, risk and (in)security (pp. 17–39). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Bursh, N. E., & Givens, A. D. (2012). Public-private partnerships in homeland security: opportunities and challenges. Homeland Security Affairs, 8(18), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Petersen, K. L. (2008). Risk, responsibility and roles redefined: is counterterrorism a corporate responsibility? Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21(3), 403–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Dempsey, J. S. (2011). Introduction to private security. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Bures, O. (2015). Political corporate social responsibility: including high politics? Journal of Business Ethics, 129(3), 689–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Linder, S. H., & Rosenau, P. V. (2000). Mapping the terrain of the public-private policy partnership. In P. V. Rosenau (Ed.), Public-private policy partnerships. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Lee, E. (2009). Homeland security and private sector business: Corporation’s role in critical infrastructure protection. New York: CRC PRess.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Kristensen, K. S. (2008). ‘The absolute protection of our citizens’: critical infrastructure protection and the practice of security. In M. D. Cavelty & K. S. Kristensen (Eds.), Securing ‘the Homeland’: critical infrastructure, risk and (in)security (pp. 63–83). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Bures, O. (2013). Public-private partnerships in the fight against terrorism? Crime, Law and Social Change, 60(4), 429–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. European Commission (2013b). New approach to the European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/infrastructure/doc/critical/20130828_epcip_commission_staff_working_document.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2014.

  67. Dunn-Cavelty, M., & Kristensen, K. S. (2008). Securing ‘the Homeland’: ciritical infrastructure, risk and (in)security. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  68. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. (2004). The 9/11 commission report. http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm. Accessed 21. November 2008.

  69. Pursiainen, C. (2009). The challenge for European critical infrastructure protection. European Integration, 31(6), 721–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. De Bruijne, M., & Van Eeten, M. (2007). Systems that should have failed: critical infrastructure protection in an institutionally fragmented environment. Journal of Contingencies & Crisis Management, 15(1), 18–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Joseph, J. (2013). Resilience as embedded neoliberalism: a governmentality approach. Resilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses, 1(1), 38–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Brenna, J., & Mattice, L. (2014). How to add resiliency to your risk management strategy. Security Magazine. http://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/85461-how-to-add-resiliency-to-your-risk-management-strategy. Accessed 26 June 2014.

  73. Chandler, D. (2013). International statebuilding and the ideology of resilience. Politics, 33(4), 276–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Bara, C., & Brönnimann, G. (2011). Resilience: trends in policy and research. Crisis and Risk Network (CRN) Focal Report 6. http://mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/134314/ipublicationdocument_singledocument/39e12b8c-34e1-4fd0-a9a4-45a260c21b22/en/CRN-Focal-Report-6-Resilience.pdf. Accessed 23 July 2013.

  75. Bourbeau, P. (2013). Resiliencism: premises and promises in securitisation research. Resilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses, 1(1), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Walker, J., & Cooper, M. (2011). Genealogies of resilience: from systems ecology to the political economy of crisis adaptation. Security Dialogue, 42(2), 143–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Petersen, K. L. (2013). The corporate security professional: a hybrid agent between corporate and national security. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 54th Annual Convention, San Francisco, CA, USA, April 6, 2013. Retrieved 30.5.2013, from http://files.isanet.org/ConferenceArchive/41b0823857654c71ae63da45c4d6c257.pdf.

  78. Ougaard, M. (2010). Introducing busines and global governance. In M. Ougaard & A. Leander (Eds.), Business and global governance (pp. 1–36). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: a review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Whelan, G. (2012). The political perspective of corporate social responsibility: a critical research agenda. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(4), 709–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Moon, J., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Moon, J., Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2005). Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(3), 429–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Bures, O. (2012). Private actors in the fight against terrorist financing: efficiency versus effectiveness. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 35(10), 712–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Vlcek, W. (2006). Acts to combat the financing of terrorism: common foreign and security policy at the European court of justice. European Foreign Affairs Review, 11, 491–507.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Matten, D. (2009). Introduction to the special issue: globalization as a challenge for business responsibilities. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(3), 327–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Deitelhoff, N., & Wolf, K. D. (2010). Corporate security responsibility: corporate governance contributions to peace and security in zones of conflict. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  88. Wolf, K. D., Deitelhoff, N., & Engert, S. (2007). Corporate security responsibility: towards a conceptual framework for a comparative research agenda. Cooperation and Conflict, 42(3), 294–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support by Metropolitan University Prague under research scheme no. VVZ 34-04.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Security Studies, Metropolitan University Prague, Dubecska 900/10, Prague, 100 31, Czech Republic

    Oldrich Bures

  2. Institute of Hazard, Risk and Resilience, Durham University, Lower Mountjoy South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK

    Oldrich Bures

Authors
  1. Oldrich Bures
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oldrich Bures.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bures, O. Contributions of private businesses to the provision of security in the EU: beyond public-private partnerships. Crime Law Soc Change 67, 289–312 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-016-9650-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-016-9650-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation