In the corporate security environment, where threats to executives can range from cyber-attacks to physical assaults, allocating resources for protection is not just an expense, but a precise financial calculation.
The return on investment (ROI) in executive protection is triggered when a high consequential impact - the damage that could be suffered by the organization if something happens to the executive - is combined with the risk to which he or she is exposed, which determines the investment in security measures.
In simple terms, the greater the consequential impact and risk, the more budget should be allocated to protection, as the cost of inaction would far exceed that of prevention.
This approach is not uniformly applied to all executives within a company; only those with the most critical importance receive comprehensive executive protection protocols, while others benefit from basic measures short of full executive protection.
A case that exemplifies this equation is the assassination of Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare (a division of UnitedHealth Group), which occurred on December 4, 2024 in New York. 5 Thompson was gunned down in an attack classified as terrorism, perpetrated by Luigi Mangione. The consequential impact was immediate and massive: the company's stock plunged 5% in the following hours, generating losses in the millions; regulatory scrutiny intensified; and public confidence eroded, compounded by viral reactions on networks celebrating the incident out of frustrations with the healthcare sector. With a high risk inherent to their role in a polarizing industry and a devastating consequential impact, the ROI for comprehensive executive protection would have been obvious: investing in predictive intelligence, contavigilanca, armored vehicles etc. would have cost a fraction of the actual repercussions.
Once ROI is understood, it is crucial to highlight the difference within the same organization between comprehensive executive protection and general security measures.
Comprehensive executive protection applies exclusively to executives where ROI is fully justified: those with high consequential impact and risk, such as CEOs or key leaders whose damage could paralyze global operations, cause stock market crashes or reputational crises etc. For them, the scheme includes complete structures, preventive processes and advanced means that anticipate attacks in early stages, minimize exposure and reduce risks to acceptable levels (low or medium-low). This is based on three interconnected pillars - threat (risk), financial capacity (resources) and criticality (IRR) - which, when aligned, release the necessary funds for an exclusive and effective service.
In contrast, for other mid-level or lower-impact executives - although exposed to similar risks - the ROI does not allow for the full executive protection scheme to be deployed. Here, organizations comply with the duty of care, the legal and moral obligation to provide a lower-risk environment, through general measures such as a trained driver, GPS-enabled vehicles (rarely armored) or basic personal security protocols. These approaches, which might be termed "executive general care" (EGC) or "operational support protocols," mitigate day-to-day threats but fail to lower risks to low thresholds or proactively anticipate attacks, so they do not qualify as executive protection.
Confusing these approaches generates unrealistic expectations and underestimates vulnerabilities, as it is often thought that a single driver with a vehicle and GPS constitutes executive protection, and this is not true. In every organization there must be a clear separation between the measures that constitute executive protection and those that only mitigate certain risks, and this is defined by the aforementioned ROI.
In short, ROI, calculated on the basis of high consequential impact and risk, determines the allocation of corporate security resources. This metric ensures that executive protection is reserved for those who justify it, while duty of care covers the rest with proportional measures. Recognizing this difference optimizes budgets, manages expectations and strengthens organizational resilience in an increasingly uncertain world.
EN