Security services providers grappling with keyholding and alarm response functions face the multifaceted challenge of balancing costs, operational resources, and regulatory demands.
While compliance with the BS 7984 standard and SIA licencing remains fundamental, growing sustainability requirements are prompting a re-examination of traditional operational models.
Heightened focus on sustainability and compliance
Significant new sustainability directives, such as the Procurement Act 2023 and frameworks like the UK Sustainability Reporting Standards (UK SRS) and the EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), are reshaping the landscape for security firms.
This shift from optional sustainability efforts to mandatory practices is provoking a gradual but necessary transformation of existing operational protocols.
Operational protocols and environmental demands
In-house mobile patrol operations are traditionally meticulous, with keys securely numbered
In-house mobile patrol operations are traditionally meticulous, with keys securely numbered, sealed, and audited quarterly.
However, the requirement to transport sizeable quantities of keys in reinforced vehicles contributes to increased carbon emissions, urging many security firms to rethink their strategies.
Challenges of electric vehicle integration
Although transitioning to electric patrol vehicles seems straightforward, the reality is complex.
Electric vehicles must meet the high load-bearing needs of reinforced structures and heavy key lockers, which is currently a limitation. Additionally, the upfront costs for electric vehicles remain a financial hurdle despite reduced running costs over time.
Offsetting emissions: Limited long-term benefits
Offsetting emissions to achieve Net Zero compliance, while beneficial, does not directly reduce the emissions produced by operations.
This solution often serves as a stopgap rather than a comprehensive strategy, leading companies to seek alternatives that offer more sustained results.
Outsourcing considerations and risks
Outsourcing key control to third-party providers can reduce logistical burdens, but it introduces risks
Outsourcing key management to third-party providers can reduce logistical burdens, but it introduces risks of losing operational control.
Companies might find themselves dependent on contractors' procedural integrity and response times, which can impact client relationships and contract renewals despite possible penalties for service breaches.
Technological innovations in security
Emerging technologies present promising alternatives. Improved AI-driven systems and IoT devices are enhancing remote site monitoring capabilities, while keyless access methods are beginning to gain traction.
Yet, the integration of such technologies requires thorough assessment and can entail notable initial investments.
SentriGuard's innovative key management
Major security firms are pivoting towards smart solutions like SentriGuard to address sustainability challenges in keyholding.
The system stores keys at entry points within certified vaults (LPS 1175, SR2 – C1 & C3) and remotely manages them through a cloud-based platform, which simplifies processes and enhances audit trails while minimising the need for heavy duty vehicles in patrols.
Ensuring compliance and usability
Introducing new systems necessitates rigorous due diligence to show both their physical and digital security
Introducing new systems necessitates rigorous due diligence to ascertain both their physical and digital security. Considerations include the evaluation of system certifications, performance standards, and digital security audits.
Equally crucial is system usability, as remote access revocation and comprehensive auditing capabilities bring additional operational benefits.
Adapting to a changing landscape
The security sector is undergoing rapid change driven by environmental imperatives, mounting internal costs, and quick technological advancements.
Success for mobile security providers will hinge on their ability to adopt innovative solutions and rethink old practices, ensuring sustainable and efficient service delivery. Early adopters of systems like SentriGuard could lead the charge in setting new industry standards.
Balancing operational efficiencies and customer satisfaction with costs, resources, and legislative obligations is a challenge faced by every security services provider offering keyholding and alarm response.
While mobile security operations must adhere to strict compliance, with BS 7984 standard and SIA licencing for guards at the very core of the operations, security providers are increasingly contending with a wider range of regulations. Among the most pressing are sustainability requirements that are prompting a re-evaluation of long-established operational models.
From the increased sustainability emphasis within the Procurement Act 2023, which may influence major contract allocations, to incoming frameworks such as the UK Sustainability Reporting Standards (UK SRS) or the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) for the EU operations, sustainable practices have shifted decisively from optional to essential. Yet change is rarely quick or easy, and mobile security operations are no exception.
Operational challenges and compliance: a system under pressure
In-house mobile patrol operations follow strict protocols: keys are numbered, sealed, and stored in designated, secure facilities, with quarterly audits in place. For patrols, substantial quantities of keys are transported in reinforced vehicles, significantly heavier than a standard transit van.
For many established security providers, these processes have been refined over years of practice. But increasing pressure to reduce carbon emissions is pushing companies to reassess their approach.
Reinforced structures and heavy key lockers
At first glance, the answer may seem simple: transition to an electric fleet. In reality, the challenge is far more nuanced. Specialised patrol vans require higher load-bearing capacity to accommodate reinforced structures and heavy key lockers, capabilities not yet widely matched by available electric models. And where suitable options do exist, cost may become a limiting factor.
The upfront capital cost of electric vans (even before specialist fit-out) remains significantly higher than for diesel equivalents. Although lower running costs over time can help balance the investment, the initial outlay can still place substantial financial pressure on organisations managing large mobile fleets.
An alternative approach is to use lighter vehicles and remove key storage from vans. But this introduces new complexities. Patrol guards may need to collect keys from a central point for every callout, slowing response times, or providers may need to adopt a dual-response model in which a keyless patrol attends first and waits for keys to arrive.
Offsetting emissions: a short-term fix, not a long-term strategy
A seemingly simple option is to offset emissions and pursue Net Zero compliance. Although better than taking no action, offsetting schemes remain controversial and are often criticised as “greenwashing.”
The core issue is that offsetting does not reduce emissions generated by day-to-day operations. Instead, it can function as a temporary workaround, supporting programmes with uncertain long-term outcomes. While offsetting may still play a useful role, it is rarely sufficient on its own.
Is outsourcing the answer? The high cost of letting go
Given these challenges and operational complexities, it is unsurprising that some large security and facilities management organisations turn to outsourcing. On paper, outsourcing keyholding and alarm response can eliminate the need to transport and safeguard keys internally. No keys, no problems!
Yet, this keyholding pass-the-parcel comes with its own risks, particularly the loss of operational control. Providers become dependent on contractors’ processes and performance while remaining accountable to their clients. With limited oversight, they cannot directly influence response times, procedural compliance, or key-management integrity. Although contractors can face penalties for breaches, strained client relationships and jeopardised renewals pose significant commercial risks.
Technology to the rescue
There is, however, room for optimism. Security technology is advancing rapidly, enabling sophisticated remote site monitoring and intrusion detection through AI-driven systems and IoT devices. Modern SOCs are increasingly data-led, with enhanced capability to identify false alarms and reduce unnecessary site visits.
As these technologies evolve, companies must adapt, though transformation inevitably comes with costs. In the longer term, keyless access may become the norm, reducing reliance on physical keyholding. But that future is not yet fully realised, and the operational challenges, along with associated emissions, remain very much in place.
Alternative methods gain momentum
It’s no surprise that security providers are increasingly exploring alternative keyholding approaches that maintain strong physical security while improving efficiency and reducing emissions.
As an example, one of the largest global security companies is adopting SentriGuard, a smart key management solution across its European mobile operations. SentriGuard stores keys at the point of entry in a certified key vault (LPS 1175, SR2 – C1 & C3) and is managed remotely via a cloud-based platform that also offers full access audit.
By shifting to this model, the organisation is streamlining keyholding processes, reducing audit complexity, and maintaining robust protection for commercial customers. Crucially, it also supports more sustainable fleet management by allowing lighter electric vehicles to be used, as keys no longer need to be transported during patrols.
Compliance considerations: scrutiny remains essential
Any new solution must be accompanied by rigorous due diligence. Both the physical and digital security of systems like SentriGuard and their alternatives require thorough evaluation before deployment.
The scope of assessment will depend on risk and minimum security requirements. This may include reviewing loss prevention or security certifications, performance ratings, ISO compliance, hardware origin, and digital security auditing.
Usability also plays a key role, particularly the ability to revoke access for individuals or groups remotely and run audit reports on the visits that have already taken place. SentriGuard, for example, is managed via a dedicated platform that enables these controls and provides additional operational alerts, including key detection in the vaults and device battery-status monitoring.
The future is bright. But only for those ready to adapt
Keyholding and mobile operations are undergoing a period of significant change, driven by environmental pressures, rising in-house operational costs, and rapid technological development. In an era where fleet emissions can represent a substantial share of a mobile security provider’s carbon footprint, adapting is no longer optional.
Success will depend on embracing new technologies, rethinking long-standing processes, and investing in models that deliver both sustainability benefits and reliable service. Those who move early will set the pace for the industry, reduce long-term costs, and strengthen client confidence in a sector undergoing faster-than-expected transformation. And, perhaps, innovative systems like SentriGuard will help the sector move closer to that balance.
