COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE Security Industrial Policy Action Plan for an innovative and competitive Security Industry
Date: 2012-07-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air safety, competitiveness, innovation, international market, maritime safety, protective equipment, public safety, research and development, security services, single market, standardisation

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 26.7.2012  
COM(2012) 417 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE 

Security Industrial Policy 

Action Plan for an innovative and competitive Security Industry 
{SWD(2012) 233 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Providing  security  is  one  of  the  central  concerns  of  any  society.  There  is  no  policy  area 
without a crucial component of security. A safe and secure environment is the very basis on 
which any stable society is founded upon. A competitive EU based security industry offering 
solutions  for  enhanced  security  can  make  a  substantial  contribution  to  the  resilience  of 
European society.  

The  security  industry  represents  a  sector  with  a  significant  potential  for  growth  and 
employment. Over the last ten years the global security market has grown nearly tenfold from 
~€10 billion to a market size of ~€100 billion in  2011. Numerous studies show that the EU's 
as well as the worldwide security market will continue to have a growth rate which is beyond 
the average GDP growth.1  

In response to this significant potential for market growth, the Commission made the security 
industry one of the essential parts of the EU 2020 flagship initiative "An Integrated Industrial 
Policy  for  the  Globalisation  Era  Putting  Competitiveness  and  Sustainability  at  Centre 
Stage".2 Therein the Commission announced the launch of a dedicated initiative on a Security 
Industry Policy. 

This Action Plan is the first stepping stone of this dedicated initiative. The overarching aim is 
to enhance growth and increase employment in the EU's security industry. 

Thanks  to  their  level  of  technological  development  many  EU  (security)  companies  are  still 
among the world leaders in most of the segments of the security sector. Recent evolutions and 
market forecasts do, however, indicate that the market shares of European companies on the 
global  market  are  bound  to  decrease  constantly  over  the  next  years.  Industry  forecasts  and 
independent  studies  predict  that  the  current  market  share  of  EU  companies  in  the  security 
sector could drop by one fifth from around 25% of the world market in 2010 to 20% in 2020, 
if no action is launched to enhance the competitiveness of the EU security industry.  

The market leading US companies are still the technological front runners, they additionally 
also benefit from a harmonised legal framework and a robust internal market. This gives them 
not only a reassuring basis but also the benefit of a clearly recognised and distinguishable US 
brand,  which  has  proven  to  be  a  highly  valuable  advantage  compared  to  EU  companies  in 
terms of international competition. 

This lack of a similar "EU brand" is especially critical if one considers that the central future 
markets  for  security  technologies  will  not  be  in  Europe  but  in  emerging  countries  in  Asia, 
South America and the Middle East.  

Asian countries are closing the technological gap that separates them from EU companies at 
an increasing rate. Without a technological advantage, the EU companies will be confronted 
with fierce competition, also in view of the production cost disadvantage often faced by EU 
firms.  

1 

2 

All  the  figures  and  studies  mentioned  in  this  Action  Plan  are  further  detailed  in  the  Staff  Working 
Document (SWD) accompanying this Action Plan. 
COM (2010)614 final. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The primary aim of the Commission is thus to establish a better functioning Internal European 
Market  for  security  technologies.  Favourable  Internal  Market  conditions,  enhancing 
competition  and  lowering  production  costs  through  the  exploitation  of  scale  economies,  are 
also  essential  to  strengthen  the  position  of  the  EU  security  industry  in  those  emerging 
countries that represent the future of the security sector. A special emphasis should be given 
to the support for SMEs in their efforts to access international markets in third countries.  

The European Security Research and Innovation Forum (ESRIF), the subsequent Commission 
Communication3already addressed a number of these issues. For the ICT sector the promotion 
of security is an integral part of the equipments and products being offered by ICT companies 
and is key to future competitiveness. This will also be adressed in the the upcoming European 
Strategy  for  Internet  Security.  To  date,  however,  there  has  not  been  a  consistent  EU-wide 
approach to make the EU security industry more competitive and innovative. 

As present studies and stakeholder opinions4 have shown, the pressure of global competition 
will target manufacturing of products and technologies rather than services, as those form the 
vast majority of export potential in the security industry. This Action Plan therefore does not 
cover  security  services  as  such  (e.g.  on  site  security  personnel),  but  only  those  security 
services that relate to the installation and maintenance of security devices.  

The Commission will make use of all the tools at its disposal to create a true Internal Market 
for security technologies, thus providing a strong home base for the EU security industry with 
a view to gain market shares in emerging markets. 

The  Commission  will  ensure  that  any  initiatives  taken  for  the  development  of  the  Internal 
Market for security technologies respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights, particularly the 
right to privacy and personal data protection. 

2. 

THE EU SECURITY INDUSTRY AND MARKET 

The  global  security  market  is  estimated  to  be  worth  some  €100  billion  (2011  figure)  with 
around  2  million  persons  employed  worldwide.  The  EU  security  market  has  an  estimated 
market  value  in  the  range  of  €26  bill ion  to  €36.5  billion  with  around  180,000  employees 
(2011 figures). 

However,  there  is  currently  no  clear  definition  of  the  security  industry  and  a  methodical 
classification of this industry is hindered by a number of factors:  

•  The security industry is not covered as such by the main statistical nomenclatures (NACE, 

Prodcom, etc.).  

•  The  production  of  security-related  items  is  hidden  under  a  wide  range  of  headings. 
Statistics for these headings do not distinguish between security and non-security related 
activities. 

•  There is no statistical data source available at European level from the industry itself.  

3 
4 

COM (2009)691 final. 
See the SWD. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  From  a  supply-side  perspective,  procurers  of  security  equipment  and  systems  can  be 

reluctant to provide information on security expenditures. 

In order to remedy the lack of data on the security industry and its market, the Commission 
will develop an empirical basis on which more reliable figures on the security markets can be 
obtained. Cooperation with the main trade associations is essential to such an undertaking. 

The EU security industry can nevertheless broadly be subdivided into the following sectors5: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

aviation security; 

maritime security; 

border security; 

critical infrastructure protection; 

counter-terror intelligence (including cyber security and communication); 

crisis management/civil protection; 

physical security protection; and 

protective clothing. 

The security market has three distinctive features: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

It  is  a  highly  fragmented  market  divided  along  national  or  even  regional 
boundaries.  Security,  being  one  of  the  most  sensitive  policy  fields,  is  one  of  the 
areas where Member States are hesitant to give up their national prerogatives. 

It  is  an  institutional  market.  In  large  parts  the  security  market  is  still  an 
institutional market, i.e. the buyers are public authorities. Even in areas where it is a 
commercial  market,  the  security  requirements  are  still  largely  framed  through 
legislation. 

It  has  a  strong  societal  dimension.  Whilst  security  is  one  of  the  most  essential 
human needs,  it  is also a  highly sensitive  area. Security measures and  technologies 
can  have  an  impact  on  fundamental  rights  and  often  provoke  fear  of  a  possible 
undermining of privacy. 

3. 

THE MAIN PROBLEMS FACED BY THE EU SECURITY INDUSTRY 

These three distinctive features of the security market are also the determinants for the three 
main problems that the EU security industry faces: 

(1) 

The fragmentation of the EU security market 

5 

This list is not exhaustive, a more detailed overview on the various sectors and the technologies they 
encompass can be found in the SWD. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The main problem is the highly fragmented nature (e.g. the lack of harmonised certification 
procedures and standards) of the EU security market. Divergent approaches have effectively 
led  to  the  creation  of  at  least  27  different  security  markets,  each  of  them  being  split  into  a 
large number of security sectors.  

This not only creates a rather unique situation with respect to the Internal Market, but has also 
a considerable negative impact on both the supply side (industry) and the demand side (public 
and private purchasers of security technologies). It leads to high barriers to market entry and 
makes true economies of scale very difficult, if not impossible. Moreover, it leads to a lack of 
competition among suppliers and suboptimal use of public money. 

(2) 

The gap between research and market 

When  performing  R&D  on  new  technologies,  it  is  often  very  difficult  for  the  EU  based 
security industry to predict whether there will be in the end a market uptake, or even to get 
some sort of reassurance that there will be a market at all. While this is a widespread problem 
which  can  also  be  found  across  many  industrial  sectors,  it  is  particularily  pertinent  for  the 
security industry, which is mostly faced with an institutional market.  

This  leads  to  a  number  of  negative  consequences:  for  example,  potentially  promising  R&D 
concepts not being explored, which in turn means that certain technologies that could improve 
the security of the citizen are not available to the demand side.  

(3) 

The societal dimension of security technologies 

The  societal  acceptance  of  new  products  and  technologies  is  a  general  challenge  across 
different  industrial  sectors.  There  are,  however,  a  number  of  specificities  that  distinguish 
security  technologies  from  other  areas.  Security  technologies  might  directly  or  indirectly 
concern  fundamental  rights,  such  as  the  rights  for  respect  for  private  and  family  life, 
protection of personal data, privacy or human dignity.  

The  problems  assosciated  to  the  societal  acceptance  of  security  technologies  results  in  a 
number of negative conseqences. For industry it means the risk of investing in technologies 
which are then not accepted by the public, leading to wasted investment. For the demand side 
it  means  being  forced  to  purchase  a  less  controversial  product  which  however  does  not 
entirely fulfil the security requirements.  

4. 

TACKLING THE PROBLEMS 

The Commission identified a number of key policy actions to enhance the competitiveness of 
the  EU  security  industry,  stimulate  its  growth  and  promote  the  creation  of  jobs.  The  key 
policy actions concern: 

• 

• 

Overcoming market fragmentation, through: the creation of EU wide/international 
standards,  the  harmonisation  of  EU  certification/conformity  assessment  procedures 
for security technologies and a better exploitation of synergies between security and 
defence technologies. 

Reducing the gap from research to market, by: aligning the funding programmes 
and an enhanced exploitation of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) routes, as well as 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
the full use of Pre-commercial procurement (PCP) in the context of security research 
in Horizon 20206. 

• 

Better  integration  of  the  societal  dimension,  by  thoroughly  assessing  social 
impacts including impacts on fundamental rights, and by creating mechanisms to test 
the societal impact during the R&D phase. 

4.1. Overcoming market fragmentation 

4.1.1. Standardisation 

Standards  play  a  major  role  in  defragmenting  markets  and  helping  industry  in  achieving 
economies  of  scale.  Standards  are  also  of  upmost  importance  for  the  demand  side,  notably 
with  regard  to  interoperability  of  technologies  used  by  first  responders,  law  enforcement 
authorities,  etc.  Additionally,  standards  are  essential  for  ensuring  uniform  quality  in  the 
provision  of  security  services.  Creating  EU-wide  standards  and  promoting  them  on  a  world 
wide level is also a vital component of the global competitiveness of the EU security industry. 

However,  only  a  few  EU-wide  standards  exist  in  the  security  area.  Divergent  national 
standards  pose  a  major  obstacle  for  the  creation  of  a  true  internal  market  for  security,  thus 
hindering  the  competitiveness  of  EU  industry.  Overcoming  these  national  divergences  is  a 
quintessential  step,  if  the  EU  wants  to  contribute  significantly  to  the  creation  of  global 
standards. 

The Commission already announced in its Communication on a Strategic Vision for European 
Standards  the  need  to  speed  up  standardisation  efforts  in  the  security  area7.  Therefore,  the 
Commission  mandated  in  2011  the  European  Standardisation  Organisations  to  gather  a 
detailed  overview  of  existing  international,  European  and  national  standards  in  the  security 
area,  as  well  as  to  set  out  a  list  of  standardisation  gaps.  Major  gaps  were  identified  in  the 
following areas: 

– 

– 

– 

Chemical,  Biological,  Radiological,  Nuclear  and  Explosives  –  minimum  detection 
standards as well as sampling standards, including in the area of aviation security; 

Border  security  –  common  technical  and  interoperability  standards  for  automated 
border control systems, as well as standards for biometric identifiers; and 

Crisis management/ Civil protection – standards for communication interoperability, 
as  well  as  interoperability  of  command  and  control,  including  organisational 
interoperability, as well as mass notification of the population. 

Action  1:  Based  on  these  initial  priorities,  the  Commission  will  ask  the  European 
Standardisation  Organisations  to  establish  concrete  and  detailed  standardisation  roadmaps. 
These  standardisation  roadmaps  should  focus  on  the  next  generation  of  tools  and 
technologies. To do so, end-user and security industry involvement and policy coherence will 
be essential. 

Implementation period: from mid 2012 

6 
7 

COM (2011) 809 final. 
COM (2011)311 final.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.1.2. Certification/ conformity assessment procedures 

There  are  currently,  no  EU-wide  certification  systems  for  security  technologies.  National 
systems  differ  widely,  thus  significantly  contributing  to  the  fragmentation  of  the  security 
market.  The  Commission  has  identified  areas  where8, in an initial phase,  it would make the 
most sense to set up an EU-wide certification system, starting with: 

– 

– 

airport screening (detection) equipment; and 

alarm systems9 

As  regards  airport  screening  equipment,  there  exists  a  whole  body  of  EU  legislation  which 
sets  out  performance  requirements  for  such  equipment10.  However,  this  legislation  does  not 
contain  the  required  conformity  assessment  mechanism  so  that  certification  of  screening 
equipment  in  one  Member  State  would  be  mutually  recognised  in  any  other  Member  State. 
The  lack  of  harmonised  standards  and  legally  binding  conformity  assessment  of  airport 
screening equipment at the EU level causes fragmentation of the Internal Market.  

As  regards  alarm  systems,  some  European  performance  standards  already  exist.  Moreover, 
there  exists  the  industry-led  certification  mechanism  CertAlarm.  However,  this  system  is 
faced  with  the  problem  that  it  is  privately  run  and  that  Member  State  authorities  have  no 
obligation to accept certificates established under the scheme.  

In the future, products certified on the basis of an EU wide certification system could receive 
an  "EU  Security  Label",  similar  to  the  CE  marking  used  in  the  field  of  product  safety.  As 
suggested by ESRIF, such a label could act as a ‘seal of quality’ for security products (made 
and validated in the EU). 

It is conservatively estimated that for these two product categories industry would be able to 
make savings in terms of testing and certification costs of up to €29 million per year. 

Harmonising  the  certification  procedures  for  airport  screening  systems  and  alarm  systems 
should  also  have  a  positive  effect  on  the  creation  of  a  clearer  European  identity  for  these 
technologies,  a  possible  "EU  brand".  This  brand"  should  contribute  to  enhancing  the  global 
competitiveness of the EU companies with regards to their US and Chinese competitors. 

8 
9 

10 

Details on the rationale and the criteria for the selection of the targeted areas can be found in the SWD. 
It should be noted that the alarm systems represent a highly important segment, with a market size of 
€4.5 billion or 50% of the physical security market.  
See Regulations EC 300/2008, EC 272/2009 and EU 185/2010. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Action 2: Subject to a thorough impact assessment analysis and consultation of stakeholders, 
the  Commission  would  propose  two  legislative  proposals:  one  to  establish  an  EU  wide 
harmonised  certification  system  for  airport  screening  (detection)  equipment;  and  one  to 
establish  an  EU  harmonised  certification  system  for  alarm  systems.  The  objective  is  to 
achieve mutual recognition of certification systems.  

Implementation period: mid 2012 – end of 2014 

4.1.3. Exploiting synergies between security and defence technologies 

One  can  clearly  distinguish  between  a  (civilian)  security  and  a  (military)  defence  market. 
However,  the  existence  of  these  two  separate  markets  can  in  itself  be  considered  a 
fragmentation.  To  some  extent,  this  fragmentation  is  normal,  given  that  the  industrial  base 
supplying  these  two  markets  is  not  fully  identical  and  that  the  end-users  differ,  application 
areas  differ,  and  so  do  the  requirements.  However,  this  fragmentation  is  felt  upwards  at  the 
level  of  R&D  and  capability  development,  and  is  felt  downwards  at  the  level  of 
standardisation. It leads sometimes to the duplication of R&D efforts and the impossibility of 
making use of economies of scale due to differing standards in these two markets.  

As  regards  R&D,  civil-military  synergies  are  currently  being  sought  with  the  European 
Defence  Agency  (EDA)  through  the  European  Framework  Cooperation.  Under  this 
cooperation  there  is  an  on-going  coordination  between  the  Security  Theme  of  the  7th 
Framework  Programme  (FP7)  and  EDA's  defence  research  activities.  The  aim  is  to 
synchronise  this  research  with  a  view  to  avoid  duplications  and  to  profit  from  possible 
synergies.  The  Commission  intends  to  continue  and  expand  this  cooperation  under  Horizon 
2020. 

As  regards  even  more  upstream  cooperation,  whilst  such  cooperation  in  view  of  a  more 
synchronised capability planning would be useful, the Commission considers that in the civil 
security domain there is such a multitude of public authorities involved that it is currently not 
possible  to  establish  common  capability  planning  with  the  defence  domain,  where  there  is 
usually only one actor per Member State, i.e. the national defence ministries. 

As  regards  downstream  cooperation,  the  Commission  considers  that  the  development  of 
'hybrid  standards',  i.e.  standards  that  apply  both  to  civil  security  and  defence  technologies, 
should be actively pursued in areas where technologies are the same and application areas are 
very  similar.  The  Commission  is  considering  a  number  of  promising  areas  for  such  'hybrid 
standards',  including  software  defined  radio  and  certain  technological  requirements  for 
unmanned  aircraft  systems  (e.g.  sense  and  avoid  technologies,  airworthiness  requirements). 
For software defined radio alone it is estimated that hybrid standards could lead to an overall 
sales increase of one billion Euros. 

Action 3: The Commission intends to issue, in close cooperation with the European Defence 
Agency, standardisation mandates to the European Standardisation Organisations for 'hybrid 
standards'. A first mandate will soon be issued for software defined radio. 

Implementation period: from mid 2012 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
  
4.2. Reducing the gap from research to market 

4.2.1. Aligning funding programmes, exploiting IPR routes 

The  Commission's  proposal  for  Horizon  2020,  establishes  a  close  link  with  a  number  of 
policy areas, notably with home affairs. To this end, Horizon 2020 foresees specific IPR rules 
for security research, allowing the Commission and its Member States not only to have access 
to  the  foreground  of  security  research  projects,  but  also  to  make  –  on  fair  and  reasonable 
terms – use of that foreground in subsequent procurement11. 

This should lead to a more direct and faster exploitation of the results of EU security research 
by  the  national  authorities  and  a  closer  cooperation  with  the  mostly  public  end-users,  thus 
enhancing greatly the efforts to overcome the gap from research to market in the security area. 

In addition, the two components of the Internal Security Fund, proposed for the next financial 
period, dealing respectively with external borders and visa and police cooperation, preventing 
and combating crime, and crisis management, foresee the possibility for Union funded actions 
to test and validate results stemming from EU security research projects12. 

For this possibility to be used effectively, the specific IPR rules for security research, which 
allow  the  Commission  to  use  these  IPR  on  fair  and  reasonable  grounds,  are  a  necessary 
feature,  in  order  to  be  able  to  exploit  security  research  results  in  subsequent  testing  and 
validation. 

Where  Union  capacities  are  needed,  the  Commission  will  consider  reinforcing  these  testing 
and validating measures through the actual purchase of prototypes for the EU, if adequate.  

Action  4:  The  Commission  will  make  full  use  of  the  new  IPR  rules  provided  for  security 
research in Horizon 202013, in particular through the possibility provided in the two specific 
programmes  of  the  Internal  Security  Fund  to  test  and  validate  results  stemming  from  EU 
security research projects. 

Implementation period: from beginning 2014 

4.2.2. Pre-commercial procurement  

PCP14  is  a  very  useful  tool  in  bridging  the  gap  from  research  to  market.  The  Commission 
underlined its importance already in its Innovation Union Communication15, in particular in 
domains, where there is an institutional market or a market largely driven by legislation, given 
that public procurement of innovative products and services is vital for improving the quality 
and  efficiency  of  public  services  at  a  time  of  budget  constraints.  Eventually,  PCP  should 
enable public users to play a more central role in the innovation cycle through the purchase of 
novel technologies. Procurers should act as "agents of change". 

11 
12 
13 

14 

15 

COM (2011)810 final. 
COM (2011)750 and 753 final. 
The  adoption  of  these  rules  is  however  still  subject  to  approval  by  the  European  Council  and  the 
European Parliament. 
PCP  is  understood  here  as  an  approach  to  procure  R&D  services,  whereby  the  IPR  does  not  belong 
(exclusively) to the contracting authority. See COM (2007)799 final. 
COM (2010)546 final 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Nevertheless, to date only few Member States have made use of PCP schemes in the security 
area.  At  EU  level,  in  the  FP7  Security  Theme,  a  pre-operational  validation  scheme  was 
introduced in the call of 2011, acting as a precursor for a possible future PCP scheme.  

Horizon 2020 contains a specific PCP instrument, which should greatly help in overcoming 
practical hurdles linked to the implementation of PCP. 

Based  on  the  US  SBIR16  experience,  a  tentative  assumption  of  a  1%  increase  in  the  annual 
growth rate due to R&D support through a PCP scheme would lead in the security industry to 
extra sales of 2 billion Euros between today and 2020.17 

Action 5: The Commission intends to make full use of the PCP instrument set out in Horizon 
2020  and  devote  a  significant  part  of  the  security  research  budget  on  this  instrument.  This 
novel  funding  approach  should  bring  research  closer  to  the  market  by  bringing  together 
industry, public authorities and end users from the very beginning of a research project. The 
Commission considers that border security and aviation security are the most promising areas 
for undertaking PCP. 

The Commission will also encourage Member States to launch similar initiatives at national 
level, in compliance with relevant EU public procurement law.  

Implementation period: from beginning 2014 

4.2.3. Access to international procurement markets 

The EU's public procurement market is traditionally very open. However, this is not always 
matched by a similar degree of openness by our trading partners. Worldwide, only a quarter of 
the world's procurement market is open for international competition.  

The  Commission  has  proposed  a  Regulation18  to  help  open  worldwide  public  procurement 
markets  and  to  ensure  European  businesses  have  fair  access  to  them.  This  Regulation  is 
expected to provide a number of tools that will ensure that these objectives are reached.   

Action 6: The Commission will make full use of the  instruments at its disposal to ensure a 
fair access of its security industry to international procurement  markets.  Given  the  sensitive 
nature of security technologies, utmost attention will be given to relevant export regulations. 

Implementation period: from end 2013 

4.2.4. Third party liability limitation (TPLL) 

To  overcome  the  gap  from  research  to  market  and  in  particular  to  ensure  that  the  threat  of 
liability  does  not  deter  security  industry  from  developing,  deploying  and  commercializing 
technologies  and  services  that  could  save  lives,  the  US  introduced  after  9/11  the  US  Safety 
Act. The US Safety Act provides for legal liability limitations for providers of anti-terrorism 

16 

17 
18 

SBIR  stands  for  "Small  Business  Innovation  and  Research"  and  is  a  US  programme  supporting 
innovation in SMEs using a PCP scheme. 
See the SWD. 
COM(2012) 124 final 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
technologies  and  services.  In  third  country  markets,  this  legislation  might  give  the  market 
leading US companies a competitive advantage over their EU counterparts. 

It is evident, that the US Safety Act is born out of the specific US legal context, where class 
action  is  a  recurrent  feature.  Whilst  it  is  not  foreseen  to  establish  an  equivalent  to  the  US 
Safety  Act  in  Europe,  there  is,  however,  a  need  to  better  understand  and  study  how  far 
liability  issues  deter  industry  from  bringing  promising  technologies  and  services  to  the 
market.  

No general consensus exists among industry stakeholders on this issue and a thorough legal 
analysis on the compatibility with national or EU regulations has yet to be conducted.  

Action7:  The  Commission  has  launched  a  tender  for  a  major  study  analysing  the  legal  and 
economic implications of third party liability limitation. The study will also look into possible 
alternatives  to  TPLL  as  introduced  through  the  US  Safety  Act,  such  as  for  example  a 
voluntary industry fund, a Commission recommendation, etc. This study will take due account 
of fundamental rights' implications. 

Implementation period: 2012 – mid 2013 

4.3. Better integration of the societal dimension  

4.3.1. Societal impact "checking" during the R&D phase 

A  better  integration  of  the  societal  dimension  into  security  industry  activities  would  help  in 
reducing the uncertainty of societal acceptance. This should allow for an efficient use of R&D 
investment,  as  well  as  allowing  the  demand  side  to  purchase  products  which  fulfill  entirely 
their security requirements and at the same time are accepted by society. 

The Commission, therefore, considers that the societal and fundamental rights impact should 
already be taken into account through societal engagement before and during the R&D phase. 
This would allow addressing societal issues early on in the process. 

The  Commission  already  undertook  a  number  of  activities  with  a  view  to  mainstream  the 
societal dimension in the FP7 Security Theme. In view of Horizon 2020, it is, however, now 
time  to  consolidate  these  efforts,  to  engage  society  in  research  and  innovation  and  make 
societal impact checking more systematic. 

The  Commission  will  involve  society  and  make  societal  impact  testing  an  obligatory  part, 
where  appropriate,  of  all  its  future  security  research  projects19.  The  Commission  will 
specifically "check" the societal impact of new technologies in all its security PCP schemes 
outlined above. 

4.3.2. Privacy by design and privacy by default during the design phase 

On the one hand, it is extremly difficult to translate societal considerations into technological 
requirements,  which  is  further  complicated  by  the  wide  variety  of  security  products  on  the 

19 

With the exception of "unsuited" areas, such as for instance basic technology research and projects on 
foresight and scenarios. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
market.  On  the  other  hand,  societal  issues  related  to  security  vary  considerably  among 
Member States.  

The Commission, therefore, considers that the best way forward is to introduce the concept of 
"privacy by design" and "privacy by default"20 at the design phase. To this end, the economic 
operator  wishing  to  have  his  production  process  audited  as  being  "privacy  by  design"  fit, 
would have to fulfil a set of requirements defined through an appropriate EU standard. This 
standard will be voluntary. The Commission is, however, convinced that there will be strong 
peer pressure for companies to follow such a standard which should gain a similar recogition 
value as for example the ISO 9000 management standard.21 

Action  8:  The  Commission  will  issue  a  mandate  to  the  European  Standardisation 
Organisations to develop a standard modelled on existing quality management schemes, but 
applied to the management of privacy issues during the design phase. 

Implementation period: mid 2012 – mid 2015 

5. 

MONITORING  

The monitoring of the announced policy measures will be overseen through a dedicated expert 
group set up by the Commission. This group will bring together all relevant actors in the field 
of security.  

This group will meet at least once per year to monitor progress. 

6. 

CONCLUSION 

This  is  the  first  Action  Plan  by  the  Commission  specifically  targeting  the  security  industry. 
Not only are the announced measures, therefore, a first, but also the comprehensiveness of the 
approach,  ranging  from  the  R&D  phase  up  to  standardisation  and  certification,  a  novelty. 
Depending  on  future  assessments,  possible  next  areas  for  harmonisation  could  include  the 
land and maritime transport sectors as well as addressing TPLL. 

It should be kept in mind that all the Actions listed in this document are closely linked to the 
willigness of the Member States to cooperate with the European Institutions, standardisation 
bodies,  public  and  private  stakeholders  to  overcome  the  fragmentation  of  the  EU  security 
markets. The Commission thus encourages the Member States to support the Commission in 
its  initiative  to  enhance  the  competitiveness  of  the  EU  security  companies  and  reduce  the 
existing barriers to market entry. 

The  Commission  is  convinced  that  the  policy  measures  outlined  in  this  Action  Plan  will 
strongly  contribute  to  improve  the  competitiveness  of  the  European  Security  Industry.  The 
Commission's  objective  is  to  provide  to  the  EU  security  industry  a  strong  home  base  from 
which to be able to expand into new and emerging markets, where in the future major growth 
for the security market can be expected. 

20 
21 

For more details on privacy by design, see SWD. 
COM(2012) 11  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Such  growth  inside  and  outside  the  EU  has  to  go  hand  in  hand  with  the  reinforcement  of 
measures  aimed  at  better  integrating  the  societal  dimension  into  security  industry  activities. 
Privacy  by  design  and  respect  of  fundamental  rights  needs  to  be  embedded  as  a  key  aspect 
into all EU security technologies. 

EN 

13 

   EN