In today’s rapidly evolving business environment, security is no longer just about physical barriers and uniformed officers at the gate. Organizations face increasingly complex threats, from sophisticated cyberattacks to insider fraud and supply chain vulnerabilities. Traditional security models, which often rely solely on surveillance and reactive measures, are no longer sufficient.
To safeguard assets and ensure business continuity, companies must embrace a holistic, intelligence-driven approach that integrates artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and cyber risk management. This article examines the evolving landscape of corporate security, drawing on regional case studies and international best practices to illustrate how businesses can establish a resilient security culture that integrates people, technology, and strategic risk management.
Rethinking Security Responsibility
A deeply rooted fallacy among business managers is that security begins and ends with the uniformed security officer at the gate or entrance or your IT Security Manager. Many executives mistakenly believe that losses and security breaches result solely from failures in the security department rather than issues within the administrative or operational structure. This perspective is not only flawed but also dangerous, as it neglects the broader responsibility of, awareness programs, internal controls and proactive loss prevention.
The assets protection department typically does not oversee internal control audits and is often brought into the equation only after a major breach or loss has already occurred. Investigating theft after the fact can be unproductive, as employees often close ranks to protect their own interests. Even when dishonest employees are identified and terminated, the conditions that enabled the theft in the first place often remain, leading to continued losses. While future incidents may not occur in the same manner, the financial and morale impact on the organization persists.
An example of this occurred in June 2023 at the Arima Discount Mart Warehouse in Trinidad and Tobago discovered significant discrepancies during an inventory check. Specifically, 1,042 cases of New Zealand cheese valued at $1,073,260 and 1,938 cases of Rainbow corned beef worth $695,742 were found missing, totaling over $1.6 million in stolen goods. Initial suspicions may have fallen on security personnel; however, further investigation suggested that internal weaknesses, such as flaws in the inventory tracking system and inadequate supervisory oversight, facilitated the theft. This situation underscores the importance of implementing robust internal controls and comprehensive employee training to prevent such fraudulent activities.
Can you say Enterprise Security Risk Management?
Modern security threats are increasingly complex, requiring organizations to integrate advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning into security frameworks. These technologies enhance threat detection, anomaly recognition, and predictive analytics, significantly reducing the likelihood of internal fraud and cyber-related theft. Without a strategic security culture, losses will persist, harming employee morale and corporate profitability.
The Changing Context of Business Operations
Modern enterprises have undergone fundamental shifts in their internal controls and loss prevention mechanisms due to technological advancements. The reliance on information technology and database systems has led to a concentration of critical business information in fewer hands, significantly increasing the risk of major losses. Today, employees can commit fraud and theft on a large scale without physically bypassing traditional security checkpoints.
While electronic surveillance and access control systems offer substantial benefits, over-reliance on technology can create vulnerabilities. Employees may sabotage or disable these systems, sometimes out of frustration rather than malice. For example, a disgruntled worker with access to the system might disable an entire security network using a simple adhesive trick to jam card readers. Similar to how individuals react to a vending machine that takes their money without dispensing a product, employees can develop resentment toward security systems that seem overly restrictive or ineffective.
To address these evolving threats, security must be integrated into the overall business strategy rather than being treated as an isolated function. Security professionals must work closely with other departments, emphasizing collaboration and adaptability to ensure that protective measures evolve in tandem with the organization.
Evaluating Security Beyond Statistics
One of the biggest challenges in establishing an effective security framework is the managerial tendency to assess security performance solely through statistics such as reported losses and solved cases. A year in which reported losses decrease may seem like a success, but such figures can be misleading if underlying security weaknesses persist. Many organizations lack a structured loss-reporting system, and minor thefts or fraud often go undetected or unreported, allowing dishonesty to fester unchecked.
A workplace culture that condones small-scale dishonesty can escalate into large-scale fraud. For instance, employees who routinely manipulate production numbers to present favourable reports to their supervisors may later extend such practices to financial records, inventory management, or supply chain operations. If left unchecked, these actions can result in significant losses that go unnoticed until they reach catastrophic levels.
Identifying Potential Vulnerabilities
A recurring theme in theft investigations is the extent to which established control systems are bypassed or ignored—often with the implicit approval of supervisors. Employees learn how to manipulate these systems through everyday operations, making it easier for them to commit theft without raising suspicion.
In one instance, a second-shift supervisor in a manufacturing plant created a makeshift tool to open a locked storeroom to retrieve essential stock items. Initially, this was done out of necessity to maintain productivity. However, over time, employees discovered the trick and began helping themselves to materials for personal use or resale. When the theft was finally uncovered, the supervisor—who prided himself on integrity—was shocked to realize that his actions had inadvertently enabled a long-running scheme.
This scenario highlights how operational shortcuts can unintentionally compromise security. Every department occasionally faces emergencies requiring quick solutions, but when employees become accustomed to bypassing controls, the risk of dishonest behavior increases. Organizations must reinforce personal accountability for company resources at all levels to prevent such lapses.
The Challenge: Internal Theft in Manufacturing
In many manufacturing environments, shift changes are a critical point of vulnerability. The transition between outgoing and incoming employees often creates gaps in oversight, making it easier for internal theft to occur. This issue is particularly concerning when dealing with high-value raw materials or finished goods that can be easily concealed and removed from the facility.
The Scenario: A Case of Theft Exploiting Shift Transitions
A manufacturing plant specializing in high-value raw materials faced an unexpected rise in inventory discrepancies. Upon investigation, security personnel discovered a pattern: missing materials were often reported at the beginning of the morning shift, with no clear indication of external breaches.
Further analysis revealed that outgoing employees, in collusion with certain incoming workers, took advantage of the shift handover process to remove materials from the production area undetected. This was facilitated by a lack of proper inventory controls, inconsistent security presence, and overreliance on trust rather than systematic verification.
Security Gaps Identified:
Lack of Clear Inventory Accountability – Raw materials were not being properly logged at the end of shifts.
Weak Transition Oversight – Shift handovers were informal, with minimal supervision.
No Real-Time Monitoring – Surveillance systems were either ineffective or not actively monitored during shift changes.
Complacency in Security Procedures – Security staff relied on routine rather than conducting thorough spot-checks.
Preventive Measures and Best Practices:
To address such vulnerabilities, companies can implement the following:
✅ Enhanced Inventory Control: Require strict documentation of material usage, ensuring each shift accounts for what was consumed and remains.
✅ Structured Shift Handover Protocols: Implement a formalized shift transition process with designated personnel responsible for verifying all stock and tools before sign-off.
✅ Active Security Monitoring: Increase surveillance coverage and introduce real-time monitoring during shift transitions.
✅ Randomized Audits and Spot-Checks: Conduct unscheduled inspections to deter potential collusion among employees.
✅ Security Awareness Training: Educate employees on the impact of internal theft and encourage a culture of integrity and accountability.
By integrating these measures, manufacturing facilities can significantly reduce the risk of internal theft and reinforce a security-conscious work environment.
Fostering a Culture of Loss Prevention
Proactive loss prevention requires a shift in corporate culture, where every employee sees themselves as a stakeholder in security. Rather than waiting for losses to occur, businesses should create an environment where integrity and accountability are ingrained in daily operations.
Key Strategies:
- Supervisor Accountability: Supervisors should be required to report every mysterious disappearance or loss to the security department. Higher management should not approve replacement orders for missing equipment unless the loss has been formally reported.
- Security as a Performance Metric: Just as safety performance is evaluated, security compliance should be incorporated into supervisor assessments.
- Collaborative Security Approach: The security team should work in conjunction with operational units, offering training and support rather than functioning solely as an enforcement body. This ensures that security measures are practical and embraced by employees rather than being viewed as intrusive.
Documenting Losses for Prevention
Effective loss documentation requires a structured reporting process rather than casual verbal notifications. Supervisors must submit formal reports on losses, which should be reviewed at multiple levels before new equipment is purchased. While this process may seem bureaucratic, it serves as a strong deterrent, encouraging supervisors to maintain tighter control over their departments to avoid unnecessary paperwork.
Addressing Employee Integrity and Risk
Within any organization, employees generally fall into three categories:
- Those who will not steal under any circumstances.
- Those who will attempt to steal under any circumstances.
- The large group in between may steal if given the opportunity.
An effective security program must cater to all three groups. Preventive education and clear policies deter those in the middle category, while strong detection and investigative measures are necessary to identify and deal with persistent offenders.
Conclusion: A Unified Approach to Security
Security is not a standalone function confined to uniformed officers or the asset protection team. It is a corporate-wide responsibility that requires engagement from all levels of management and staff. By fostering a culture of integrity, reinforcing accountability, and integrating security into daily operations, businesses can create a robust loss prevention framework that protects both assets and employee morale. In the modern business landscape, security must be proactive rather than reactive, ensuring that vulnerabilities are addressed before they lead to significant losses.
Gamal Newry specializes in developing loss prevention and asset protection strategies. He is the founder of Preventative Measures Ltd., a training and consulting firm that provides services such as business security reviews and audits, as well as emergency and crisis management. For comments and inquiries, you can contact: 📬 P.O. Box N-3154, Nassau, Bahamas
📧 Email: gnewry@preventativemeasures.org 🌐 Website: www.preventativemeasures.org