How International Business Executives Protect Themselves from Terrorism - Essay Example

Running Head: HOW INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS EXECUTIVES PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM TERRORISM How International Business Executives Protect Themselves from Terrorism Name Course College Tutor Date Table of Contents Introduction 3 How should businesses shield themselves and Executives against terrorism 4 Executive Defense 7 Conclusion 8 Introduction Terrorism has become a major issue of concern for top executives of large firms. For that reason big business corporations expend funds to guard their chief executives. It is more comparatively imperative now more than ever to guarantee protection with private security agencies. Forbes in recent times publicized some stunning figures. They found out that the big corporations for instance Google and Oracle were shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars for the security of their executives from terrorism. Oracle used up roughly 1.8 million dollars in a year guarding their chief executive officer. Google was more economical, using just around half a million dollars. Big corporations are clearly noticing that the wellbeing and safety of their summit leaders is a vital component of doing business (Lerer, 2007). Particular business executives are in added danger compared to others. Whereas the Google chief executive, Eric Schmidt is worth very much, other directors are subjected to further scrutiny. For example, Schering-Plough top executive Fred Hassan has been presented with several threats from the activists of animal rights for Schering-Plough's participation in animal testing. Other top executives move their dealings to distant sites where security can be turned to a necessity. When business heads travel to countries such as Guatemala they frequently employ security to guarantee secure movements. All of the funds used up on protection of executive can compensate for itself if it averts just a single major misfortune. Terrorist attacks on business executives does not merely result in human suffering, it as well drives down the prices of stock and undermine the leadership of the company. A solitary abduction or robbery could cause damages of up to several million dollars. This figure can be overblown by medical and even legal costs. Paying out a mere portion of this to thwart such like instances is turning into a major priority for the major business industry stakeholders (Alexander, 2004). Countless executives are resorting to private security firms to offer the security they require. Technologically savvy protection means are utilized by the specialized private firms in protecting the executives and it is not unusual for the business leaders to move around the globe with executive bodyguards who present urgent security and support in precarious periods. How should businesses shield themselves and Executives against terrorism Being a top business executive could not be risky money-wise, but it is surely hazardous. That is a logical conclusion if it is based on the tens of millions of dollars that a number of firms will spend shielding their top echelon managers. The Executive recompensing information archived by the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States, over the last year or so reveals precisely the amount of funds companies use up to shelter their summit executives. From the archived information, firms take protection against terrorism so critically, furnishing their "C-level" workers with automobiles, airplanes and residence alarm systems. Others withhold on the security costs, reimbursing nominal sums for minimum security arrangements. Leading the group of firms investing in executive protection is Oracle that used up 1.8 million dollars shielding their CEO, Larry Ellison in 2007, (a 40 percent rise from the previous year. Tellingly, the 1.8 million dollars did not cover up each and every one of Larry Ellison's protection expenses. The billionaire executive, in addition, used up his personal resources in the installation of high-tech security system in his personal residence in Woodside and Malibu, California estates. The other firms are not reasonably generous (paranoid of terrorist attacks). For instance, Google used up 532,755 dollars for the protection of Eric Schmidt and spent 33,196 dollars on the safe transportation of Larry Page, the firm's founder. The roughly 33,200 dollars as well covered logistical aspects and personal protection. Moreover, the firm used up not a single dime on the security of Sergey Brin who is the firm's co-founder. The disparity in companies expenses to cover the threats of terrorism pose fundamental question. Is Larry Ellison in additional threat compared to the firm's renowned founders That is not necessarily the case, as a majority of security experts argue. Neither of the companies is entirely revealing their expenses on security, but are placing some of them to operating cost not recorded in security and exchange commission archives. Bruce Alexander, the executive president of All Source Consulting Group (a protection consulting firm) alluded to the top executives not disclosing the high-end expenses accrued from protection measures terrorism (Lerer, 2004). One would therefore deduce that the firms investing colossal amounts of money, in a bid to protect their executives from attacks, under-report the actual security outlays. The figures attributed to Page and Brin are might therefore not be an exception. It is becoming a very common pattern for the huge firms to accept the security outlays as an essential price for doing business in secure environments. The companies figure out that their summit executives are one of the firm's very precious resources, and for that reason they should handle them appropriately. Just like the Ford Motor clarified in its April 2007 proxy account, the advantages of presenting these protection programs overshadow the comparatively slight expenses related to them (Lerer, 2007). Ford used up a million American dollars in 2006, in a bid to guard its summit managers and the Ford family members. The question is where the substantial sum of money goes, the two firms Oracle and Google did not plainly designate how they spent the huge chunk of money. Nevertheless, Alexander together with the comrade security specialists articulates that the majority of the funds normally go to the personal bodyguards, arms and hi-tech security equipment. Clearly, the major cost is labor. Characteristically a chief executive enters into contractual agreement with the firm to avail personal bodyguards to his residence, equally for the purposes of screening the guests at the gate and have other guards posted around his' property's perimeter. Executives in addition hire 24-hour bodyguards for their families, comparable to the ones hired by celebrities (Rogers, 2009). The perceived terrorism risks rise when the executives journey to regions that are supposed to be hostile to their organization's interests. The number of personal bodyguards on these perceived dangerous trips increases, relative to perceived heightened threats. The bodyguards will take trips with the executives to dangerous areas, search for trusted chauffeurs and examine the hired or firm's jet for possible security violations like mysterious luggage. They will survey hotels, the conference rooms and eating places beforehand. President of the Bilyeu group in Virginia, Jeff Bilyeu, states that if the security firm needs to get a client to a region or venue, concise plans are laid .The Virginia firm offers private security services for top company executives, foreign and domestic diplomats and politicians. The firms that these top executives get protection services from install state-of-the-art security systems to guard the homes and hotels, these come at incredible costs. High-tech alarm systems could cost thousands of dollars and even more dependent on the residence size. The classiest security systems integrate excellent high-resolution cameras outdoors, motion detectors, reinforced bullet-proof windows and facial identification scanners. Secure rooms are fashionable residence protection feature. These secure rooms are structurally designed like advanced 1950s bomb-shelters, having air-filters that screen alien genetic (biological) agents, specially assigned telephone lines and washrooms and the closed-circuit Television. Dependent on features of the security systems, secure rooms could cost hundreds of thousands of American dollars. Another key personal security cost is accrued in the safe transportation of the executives. Many firms oblige their chief executives to travel abroad using the companies' private jets or automobiles for precautions and the management of time. Bank of New York used up around 960,000 American dollars on transport services for the firm's summit executives; from the firm's March 14 2007 proxy reports. That figure might not take in the outlay for securing automobiles and jets (Alexander & Kilmarx, 2006). Contracted guards have to upgrade the trip, scrutinizing everybody who repairs or services the executives' vehicles, screening the cabin cleaners and the caterers. The vehicles are frequently kept in secluded, protected garage safeguarded by cameras and motion detectors to avoid tampering (Alexander, 2004). Executive Defense Although installing high-tech security systems and employing specialist bodyguards improves the safety of a business executive, it nonetheless does not designate a complete elimination of kidnap possibilities. In the event that prevention of a crime has failed then the only logical next course of action is attempting an escape. Executive defense presents the chief executives with necessary technical tools to flee and endure a hostage attempt by means of brutal, straightforward and efficient techniques. The objective of executive defense is to get away from the kidnappers and not fighting them. The most excellent advance to executive defense is understanding how hostage taking circumstances build up and the ideal way to avoid them. If, nevertheless, the abduction situation is inescapable, then employing one or two straightforward physical self-protection techniques will present an executive with the edge necessary for escaping. Adeptness in the physical techniques allows improved protection by halting a captor momentarily, so that escaping is an established harmless haven. Top executives understand that if it is necessary to protect oneself from an abductor, why wait (Rogers, 2009) Top executives employ expert bodyguards to protect them from terrorism, on top of that they seek training on the best response to hostage situations. They are advised to only employ executive defense in self-defense. Executive defense offers a last resort attempt at anti-kidnapping and mainly focuses on upholding a defense pose to get away from impending unexpected terrorist threats. The primary defense precedence is an executive's capability to detect and circumvent risks by keeping pre-abduction surveillance identification. Activation of timely caution radar, promptly denying the captor's calculated intentions and maximizing the surroundings' alertness are key to an executive's safety. Conclusion Terrorist assaults demonstrate a pattern leaning towards an escalating number of violence and complexity in attack methods. Terrorist techniques comprise threats, kidnapping or hostage taking, bombing and arson. An executive is therefore required to be aware of his surroundings and take note of even the slightest anonymous threat to improve his chances of surviving an impending attack (Suder, 2004). References Alexander, D. (2004). Business confronts terrorism: risks and responses. Terrace Books. Alexander, Y & Kilmarx, R. (2006). Political terrorism and business: the threat and response. Santa Barbara: Praeger. Lerer, L. (2007, April). Executive Protection. Retrieved November 6, 2009, from http://www.forbes.com/2007/04/27/security-ceo-compensation-tech-security- cx_ll_0430ceosecurity.html. Rogers, D. (2009, August 6). Executive Protection - Executive Defense. Retrieved November 6, 2009, from http://ezinearticles.com/Executive-Protection---Executive- Defense&id=2719618. Suder, G. (2004). Terrorism and the international business environment: the security-business nexus. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Read More