By Danny Moody
Many organisations still don’t realise how embedded hidden conflicts of interest are in the security industry. Procurement decisions are influenced more by vendor incentives than by genuine security need. With the global physical security market projected to reach nearly $500 billion by 2026 and beyond, vendor influence across solutions and services is only increasing.
Meanwhile, research shows that about 35 % of breaches involve third-party vendors, and 61 % of companies experienced a security incident caused by a third-party in 2023-24, yet many organisations still lack rigorous vendor evaluation highlighting a systemic problem. These statistics underscore a systemic problem: where vendor relationships and margin-driven decisions can overshadow objective, risk‑led security investment.Biased specifications, preferred vendor funnels, and commercial pressures often dictate recommendations – leaving organisations exposed to unnecessary risk.
Looking ahead to 2026 and the coming years, threats are expected to increase in both physical and cyber security domains, driven by more complex supply chains, greater adoption of connected technologies, and rising global security concerns. Organisations will face more frequent third-party risks, with suppliers & integrators remaining a primary factor for potential breaches.
Like many organisations across the UK, security providers are reassessing how they structure advisory and operational services. As procurement becomes more complex and supply chains lengthen, questions around influence, objectivity, and commercial alignment are increasingly difficult to ignore. One response has been a gradual move toward fully in-house capability, designed to reduce reliance on external vendors and preserve independence at critical decision points.
This was at the forefront of our decision making when we reorganised the business and expanded our service line towards the end of 2025. We were careful to retain independence and impartiality when it came to physical and electronic security consultancy projects, explaining our decision not to partner or form relationships with security staffing providers, electronic security integrators or manufacturers. This ensures our recommendations are tailored to address the specific client/project challenges faced with no commercial incentives from third parties clouding our judgement.
As concerns about vendor influence and hidden conflicts keep cropping up — and they will — being able to show genuine independence is fast becoming a differentiator. Increasingly, organisations looking for long-term resilience want partners who can offer clear, defensible guidance and accountability. In a constantly evolving threat landscape, independent decision-making isn’t just a nice-to-have anymore; it’s the foundation of trust.