ISO 18788

 The comparison between ISO 18788:2015 (Management system for private security operations — Requirements with guidance for use) and ANSI/ASIS PSC. 11 (Management System for Quality of Private Security Company Operations – Requirements with Guidance). 

While highly similar and often considered complementary or equivalent, especially in US government contracting, they have distinct origins, structural nuances, and primary spheres of recognition.

1. Origin and Development:

• ANSI/ASIS PSC.1: This is an American National Standard. Its development (first published in 2012, revised in 2022) was driven significantly by the need within the United States, particularly by the Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of State (DoS), to establish clear, auditable standards for Private Security Companies (PSCs) contracted for operations in complex environments overseas (like Iraq and Afghanistan). ASIS International, a major US-based security professional organization, led the development effort with ANSI accreditation. (Result 1.1, 1.5, 5.1)
• ISO 18788:2015: This is an International Standard developed through the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) process. It leveraged PSC.1-2012 as a key foundational document but involved input from a wider range of international stakeholders (governments, PSCs, civil society). The goal was to create a globally applicable standard for managing security operations responsibly. (Result 1.1, 3.3, 3.5, 4.4, 5.1, 6.2)

2. Scope and Focus Naming:

• PSC.1: Titled as a system for "Quality of Private Security Company Operations." Its focus emphasizes establishing processes to consistently deliver quality security services that meet client requirements while managing risks and adhering to ethical/legal obligations. (Result 1.1, 1.2, 2.1)
• ISO 18788: Defined as a "Security Operations Management System (SOMS)." While encompassing quality management principles, the framing is slightly broader, covering the overall business and risk management framework specifically for conducting security operations. (Result 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1)
• Core Content Overlap: Despite the naming difference, both standards cover virtually the same essential ground: risk assessment and management, establishing policies and objectives, ensuring personnel competence, operational planning and control, legal and regulatory compliance, incident management, performance evaluation, and crucially, respect for human rights based on frameworks like the Montreux Document and the International Code of Conduct (ICoC). (Result 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 3.1, 3.5, 4.1, 4.4)

3. Structure and Integration:

• ISO 18788: Follows the ISO High-Level Structure (HLS) defined in Annex SL. This is the standardized 10-clause structure used across modern ISO management system standards (like ISO 9001 for Quality, ISO 14001 for Environment, ISO 45001 for Occupational Health & Safety). This common structure makes it significantly easier for organizations to implement an integrated management system covering multiple disciplines. (Result 1.1, 3.1, 3.3)
• PSC.1 (2012): Did not follow the HLS/Annex SL structure, making integration with other ISO standards slightly more complex, requiring mapping between different clause structures.
• PSC.1 (2022): The latest revision likely adopted or moved much closer to the HLS/Annex SL structure to improve alignment and integration capabilities, reflecting the evolution of management system standards globally. (References to 2022 version exist, e.g., Result 1.1, 1.3, 3.2, 5.1)

4. Recognition and Application:

• PSC.1: Holds primary recognition within the United States, particularly for fulfilling contractual requirements set by US government agencies like the DoD and DoS for PSCs operating overseas. (Result 3.3, 4.4, 5.1)
• ISO 18788: Has broader international recognition. It is increasingly preferred or required by international organizations, NGOs, multinational corporations, and non-US governments when procuring security services globally. (Result 2.3, 4.1)
• Equivalency: The US Department of Defense explicitly recognizes ISO 18788 certification as an acceptable alternative to PSC.1 certification for meeting its contractual standards requirements. (Result 4.4, 5.1, 5.2)

5. Certification:

• Both standards are designed for third-party certification.
• Due to the substantial overlap in requirements, Certification Bodies like MSS Global and Intertek often offer integrated or combined audits, allowing companies to achieve certification to both standards efficiently. (Result 2.3, 3.6, 4.2) Holding both can be beneficial for companies with both US government contracts and international commercial or governmental clients.

In-Depth Summary:

While PSC.1 laid critical groundwork as a US national standard focusing on quality assurance and responsible conduct for PSCs (driven largely by US gov needs), ISO 18788 represents the international evolution of these principles into a globally recognized Security Operations Management System framework. ISO 18788 benefits from the standardized HLS structure, facilitating integration with other management systems and gaining broader international acceptance. PSC.1 remains highly relevant within the US context, especially for specific government contracts. Because their core requirements—particularly regarding risk management, legal obligations, and human rights—are so closely aligned, they are often viewed and accepted as functionally equivalent for ensuring responsible private security operations. Many leading PSCs pursue certification to both to meet diverse client and stakeholder expectations.