Editorial illustration questioning BEPP’s claim that EPS-2026 is a worldwide executive protection industry benchmark, featuring a global map, magnifying glass, and checklist examining evidence of adoption by federal agencies, state regulators, employers, insurers, and international organizations.

A Standards Developer Calls It an Industry Benchmark. Who Has Accepted It?

BEPP: The $595 Standard, Employer Responsibilities, and Claims About Legal Liability

Executive Protection Benchmark: By Matthew C. Parker
CEO, Independent Security Advisors LLC
Director of Training, EPTraining.us
October 30, 2026

A Question

A private sector standards developer says its publication “establishes a unified, accountable benchmark for protective operations worldwide.” Yet its own Frequently Asked Questions says, “Over the next 5 years, we anticipate widespread adoption of the standard.” One presents its work as an established benchmark, while the other describes widespread industry acceptance as something they still expect to achieve. Which is it? Has the industry already accepted this standard, or is the standards developer still trying to convince the industry to adopt it?

Sources: BEPP’s official website and BEPP Frequently Asked Questions.

Abstract

The Board of Executive Protection Professionals (BEPP) describes its ANSI-approved EPS-2026 book of executive protection standards as a benchmark for executive protection operations. It also suggests that agents who do not purchase its $595 manual are still likely to be judged against it in court. So, we will examine the evidence supporting those claims, what happens when employers and clients choose different protective procedures, and whether purchasing the publication provides the legal-risk benefits BEPP promotes.

Who Decided That BEPP’s Publication Is the Industry Benchmark?

On June 8, 2026, BEPP received ANSI approval for its Standard for Providing Executive Protection, designated ANSI/BEPP EPS-2026. That represents considerable effort, and I recognize the work involved in developing a 500 page publication. However, completing the standards-development process and convincing the executive protection industry to accept the finished publication are two different things. BEPP has completed the first, but where is the evidence establishing the second?

I ask because BEPP’s own statements raise that question. The Frequently Asked Questions on the website explains that voluntary standards gain influence through industry adoption and recognition. And describes widespread acceptance as an objective to be achieved over five years. The book was approved five months ago, and except for some marketing and promises of “big things” happening I can’t see five years being compressed into five months.

So, the two conflicting statements should be examined together, particularly when BEPP is promoting the publication as a measure of professional competence and its promotional statements give the impression that this acceptance has already been established.

So let’s assume over the last five months corporate protective programs and employers have examined a free advance copy of the standards and requirements, and are deciding whether they are appropriate for their operations, fit their assignments, resources, and responsibilities. Instructors and practitioners still need to evaluate whether the standards and requirements can be taught, applied, and measured. Those independent decisions, and not marketing claims are what help establish whether a publication becomes widely accepted or achieves industry benchmark status.

A new standard can certainly be used as a benchmark by an organization that chooses to adopt it. With 280 committee members who helped write the book from across the industry, government and law enforcement, you would think it may not take five years before it receives some real recognition. But describing a publication as the accepted benchmark for an entire profession is a a claim that requires some evidence of recognition beyond the people who helped developed it.

Research

As of October 30, 2026, I could not identify publicly documented widespread adoption of the finished EPS-2026 publication by independent executive protection employers. I also could not identify a federal protective agency or state regulatory authority that had formally adopted the publication as its governing operational standard. BEPP has reported academic interest, including an announcement involving National American University. That is relevant, but I could not independently confirm the extent to which the finished publication has been implemented.

I am not suggesting that no organization has purchased EPS-2026 or adopted some of its requirements. Such decisions may occur without public announcements. However, if BEPP believes its publication has already become an accepted industry benchmark, it should be prepared to identify the independent organizations using it and explain how its requirements have been implemented.

That evidence becomes especially important when BEPP goes beyond describing its publication as a benchmark and begins predicting how courts will use it against executive protection agents.

A Worldwide Benchmark? Accepted by Whom?

BEPP describes EPS-2026 as a benchmark for protective operations worldwide. Yet its own Frequently Asked Questions describe becoming an international benchmark as a possibility, not an accomplishment. So, I examined the available evidence of international acceptance. BEPP has involved professionals outside the United States in its development efforts and has held events attended by international participants. Those activities deserve recognition, but they do not establish that foreign governments, regulatory authorities, or protective organizations have formally adopted the finished standard.

I could not identify a foreign regulatory authority that has approved EPS-2026, an overseas protective organization that has publicly incorporated its requirements, or a published international adoption agreement. I also could not verify whether copies of the finished publication have been delivered to customers outside the United States. BEPP may have information about private sales or ongoing discussions that is not publicly available, but those records have not been produced to support its worldwide-benchmark claim.

If BEPP wants to describe EPS-2026 as an established worldwide industry benchmark, I believe it should identify the countries and organizations that have accepted it, explain what they adopted, and show how the requirements are being used. International conference attendance and participation in developing a proposed standard are not the same as international adoption of the finished publication.

BEPP is entitled to promote EPS-2026 internationally. What it has not publicly demonstrated is that the international executive protection profession has accepted its publication as the standard by which protective operations should be measured.

What Happens When an Employer Decides Not to Follow BEPP’s Standard?

Consider an executive protection company that has operated for twenty years. It has established procedures for threat assessments, protective advances, transportation, emergency planning, and protective movements. Its agents are trained to follow those procedures, and supervisors regularly evaluate their performance. The company examines EPS-2026 and decides that some recommendations are useful, while others do not fit its existing operations or the assignments it conducts.

Does that decision make the company’s agents negligent because they are not following BEPP’s publication? No. An employer’s decision not to adopt a private standard does not automatically establish that its procedures are inadequate. The question is whether the company and its personnel exercised reasonable care under the circumstances, including compliance with applicable laws, contracts, and professional responsibilities.

However, there is another part of the answer that deserves attention. An employer cannot guarantee that a voluntary standard will be excluded from a lawsuit simply by refusing to adopt it. In Elledge v. Richland/Lexington School District Five (2002), the South Carolina Supreme Court examined a case involving a student injured on playground equipment. The school district argued that national safety guidelines should not be considered because it had not formally adopted them for maintaining existing equipment.

The court disagreed. Expert witnesses explained why the guidelines were relevant to the equipment and the injury, while the district’s purchasing coordinator acknowledged that the district used those same national standards when purchasing new playground equipment. The court determined that the evidence should have been admitted for the jury’s consideration. It did not rule that the school district was automatically negligent simply because a voluntary guideline existed.

The lesson from Elledge is important for executive protection employers. Refusing to adopt a private standard does not automatically prevent someone from trying to use it in court. However, the publication still has to be connected to the circumstances of the case. Its relevance must be established, and the employer has the opportunity to explain its own procedures, training, threat assessments, and operational decisions.

BEPP has offered no evidence that an executive protection agent is negligent simply because the employer’s procedures differ from those in its manual. If BEPP believes its recommendations are better than established operating methods, it should explain why those methods are better and identify the circumstances in which they should be used. That would provide employers with something meaningful to evaluate before deciding whether to adopt EPS-2026.

What Happens When the Client Refuses a Recommendation?

Employers are not the only people who influence protective operations. Clients regularly make decisions that affect how their protection is provided, and those decisions may differ from what the protective team recommends. A client may refuse a particular vehicle, reject a proposed arrival procedure, insist on attending an event, or object to a highly visible protective formation. These are practical problems that protective professionals must be prepared to address.

Consider a corporate executive who does not want agents walking beside him in a visible protective formation. The team has evaluated the threat, examined the venue, and recommended a particular arrangement. The executive refuses because he believes the formation attracts unnecessary attention and interferes with his business activities. The team must now determine whether another arrangement can provide appropriate protection without ignoring the risks that led to its original recommendation.

An experienced protective practitioner understands that there is rarely one procedure suitable for every assignment. The level of threat, available personnel, operating environment, client’s activities, and resources all affect how the assignment is conducted. A professional agent should be able to explain the risks, recommend appropriate precautions, and develop reasonable alternatives when circumstances require them.

BEPP acknowledges that clients sometimes reject protective recommendations. On its website, under “Risk Mitigation and Accountability”, the organization explains that when a client refuses advice based on a standard, the practitioner has a documented basis for the recommendation. I agree that documenting professional advice can be important, particularly when a protective team has identified a foreseeable risk and explained why a particular precaution is necessary.

However, documentation does not automatically protect the agent from liability. If an incident occurs, questions may still arise about the original threat assessment, the alternatives considered, what the client understood, and whether the protective team should have continued the assignment. A client’s refusal does not automatically relieve an agent of professional responsibilities, just as departing from a recommendation does not automatically establish negligence.

Legal Liability

This raises another question about BEPP’s argument concerning legal liability. If the client refuses a procedure recommended in EPS-2026, what exactly does purchasing the publication accomplish? Does following the recommended documentation process establish that the agent acted reasonably? Does choosing another appropriate protective procedure create additional liability? What happens when the employer’s procedures differ from BEPP’s recommendations but are appropriate for the assignment?

BEPP’s recent public statements do not establish the legal answers to those questions. The complete final publication may contain more detailed guidance concerning client refusals, operational alternatives, and exceptions, but that material is not readily available for independent examination without purchasing the manual. And that becomes another problem when BEPP is suggesting that professionals may someday be judged against its requirements.

The purpose of executive protection is to protect the client through sound planning, appropriate precautions, and professional judgment. A manual may help explain those responsibilities, but it cannot replace the decisions a protective team must make during an actual assignment.

The New York Court Decision BEPP Should Consider

In its October 29, 2026 response, What a Standard Is Worth, BEPP cited seven court decisions to support its argument that executive protection agents may be judged against its $595 publication. Those cases establish that courts may consider voluntary professional standards when examining negligence claims. They do not establish that EPS-2026 has already become the accepted measure of professional conduct within the executive protection industry.

One of BEPP’s examples is Sawyer v. Dreis & Krump Manufacturing Co. (1986). The New York Court of Appeals examined an industrial accident involving machinery and an ANSI safety publication. The court ruled that ANSI requirements could be considered as evidence if they represented general industry custom, but the jury still had to examine the circumstances of the accident and determine whether the defendant’s actions were reasonable.

A later New York decision demonstrates why that limitation matters. In Deitrick v. Long Island Power Authority (2018), homeowners sued a gas company following an explosion during Hurricane Sandy. A tree had been uprooted, disturbing an underground gas line, so plaintiffs argued that the gas company should have taken additional precautions and relied upon an ANSI requirement to support their position.

The plaintiffs’ experts failed to demonstrate that the ANSI requirements represented accepted practice within the gas industry. The court rejected their argument based on that requirement and dismissed the claims against the gas company.

What makes this case noteworthy is that the court in Deitrick cited Sawyer, one of the cases BEPP uses to support its own position. In Sawyer, the court explained that ANSI requirements could be considered as evidence of accepted industry practice. In Deitrick, the plaintiffs failed to establish that connection, and the ANSI requirement did not support the claims by the plantiffs.

Predictions

The court did not prohibit ANSI standards from being used in litigation. But it did require evidence connecting the particular requirement to accepted practices and the responsibilities involved. That distinction matters when BEPP predicts that its newly approved standard is likely to be used against executive protection agents in court.

BEPP has not publicly demonstrated widespread independent adoption or identified a published court decision applying its requirements to determine whether an executive protection agent was negligent. Who knows, in the future, a plaintiff’s attorney may attempt to introduce EPS-2026 in a case, and a court might consider it. However, those possibilities do not establish BEPP’s prediction that such use is already likely.

BEPP may believe their book will eventually carry significant weight in negligence litigation. They are entitled to express that opinion. But they should distinguish between what courts have done with other standards and what is actually factual about its own publication.

Are they Selling a Standard or Selling Protection Against Liability?

BEPP’s October 29 response contains a statement that particularly concerns me because of how it may be understood by people entering executive protection. The organization states:

“A professional who declines to buy the standard is still likely to be measured against it.”

Not, that a professional who declines to read or follow or adhere to, or except the standard is still likely to be measured against it. But those who don’t buy it.

BEPP then compares the $595 purchase price with the potential expense of defending a negligence lawsuit and describes the publication as professional risk management. The argument is that purchasing the manual is a relatively inexpensive way to understand the requirements that may someday be used to evaluate an agent’s conduct. Wow, don’t buy the book and get sued is quite a marketing message.

I understand why that argument might persuade someone to purchase the book. Negligence lawsuits can be expensive, and protective professionals should understand the responsibilities associated with their assignments. However, BEPP has not shown that purchasing EPS-2026 reduces legal liability or that declining to purchase it increases the likelihood of an adverse court decision.

Consider an agent who purchases EPS-2026, studies its requirements, and then fails to conduct an appropriate threat assessment before a public appearance. If an incident occurs, ownership of the publication will not excuse the agent’s decisions or establish that reasonable care was exercised. Another agent may follow different established procedures, complete an appropriate threat assessment, identify foreseeable risks, and perform the same assignment competently.

In either case, the agent’s conduct matters. The publication may provide useful information, but purchasing it does not establish competence, guarantee appropriate performance, or prevent a negligence lawsuit. Nor does an agent automatically become negligent simply because a particular recommendation appearing in EPS-2026 was not followed.

Actual Legal Liability Help

A personal legal plan from can provide help for nearly all legal situations, including trials. Most standard plans include time for your lawyer to conduct pre-trial research and defend you at a covered civil trial. Because trials can be time-consuming and expensive, many agent s and company owners have trial defense supplements. Talk to an attorney and your insurance company about the legal coverage you may need. A basic plan is around $40.00 a month, it is a tax write off and unlike a book on standards, your attorney will handle matters if needed.

This is especially important for military veterans and retiring law-enforcement officers entering private executive protection. They may already face expenses for additional training, licensing or registration, insurance, equipment, and other professional requirements. Their military or law-enforcement experience may provide a valuable foundation, but the private sector has its own operating conditions and legal responsibilities that must be understood.

I encourage these individuals to invest in their professional development. However, I do not believe they should spend $595 because they fear that failing to own BEPP’s publication places them at a legal disadvantage. BEPP has not provided evidence supporting that conclusion.

I am not accusing BEPP or anyone associated with them of deliberately misleading people entering or in the industry. And I recognize their right to promote the publication. However, using the possibility of future litigation to justify purchasing a book is a marketing argument based on anticipated legal exposure. When an organization makes that argument, it should be prepared to explain what evidence supports it.

If BEPP can demonstrate that its requirements improve measurable protective performance, reduce incidents, or have received independent recognition that affects an agent’s legal responsibilities, that would provide a stronger basis for recommending the publication. Until then, agents and business owners should distinguish between the books potential professional value and the legal-risk benefits BEPP predicts it may provide.

If BEPP Wants Industry Acceptance, Why Make the Publication So Expensive?

The price of EPS-2026 was the subject of my earlier article, If Standards Matter, Who Gets to Read Them?. I do not intend to repeat that entire discussion, but the price becomes particularly important when BEPP connects its publication to potential legal liability. If the organization believes agents may someday be judged against its requirements, those agents should have a reasonable opportunity to examine the material.

BEPP currently lists its printed standard at $595, plus $25 shipping within the continental United States. By comparison, ASIS International, another established standards developer, lists its Executive Protection Standard at $45 for members and $90 for nonmembers. ASIS also makes the electronic edition available to members without an additional purchase charge.

The publications are not identical. The ASIS standard is 52 pages and focuses on the management of executive protection programs, while BEPP’s much longer publication covers a broader range of operational and professional subjects. BEPP’s EPS-2026 also received approval as an American National Standard, whereas I have not verified that ASIS’s specific 2025 Executive Protection Standard received that designation. These differences matter when comparing the publications and the expenses associated with producing them.

However, the price difference remains substantial, particularly for individual practitioners who must pay for their own professional development. A large corporation may have little difficulty purchasing multiple copies, but a veteran or retiring police officer paying for additional training and other expenses may view $595 very differently. If BEPP wants the profession to examine, understand, and adopt its requirements, accessibility should be part of that effort.

Legal Liability???

There is also a practical question concerning the very claims BEPP is making about legal liability. Why should someone entering executive protection have to spend nearly $600 simply to examine the requirements, recommendations, and exceptions that BEPP believes may someday be used to evaluate professional conduct in court? If the organization wants practitioners to understand what it considers appropriate professional practice, providing reasonable access to those expectations would seem to support that objective.

I recognize that developing and maintaining professional standards costs money. BEPP has explained that it incurred expenses associated with administration, editing, publication, ANSI participation, and continuing revisions. Those are legitimate considerations, and I do not expect an organization to provide professional work without a means of supporting the expenses involved.

However, there are other ways to address those costs. Individual practitioners could be allowed to read the foundational requirements without charge, while companies and training institutions pay reasonable licensing fees for reproduction or commercial distribution. Expanded commentary, instructional materials, and other supporting publications could also provide sources of revenue without requiring every individual practitioner to purchase an expensive printed manual simply to examine the requirements.

I believe professional standards should be accessible to the people expected to use them. That does not mean every publication must be free or that price alone determines credibility. It means that a standards developer seeking widespread acceptance should consider whether its pricing makes independent examination and adoption easier or more difficult.

BEPP has every right to charge for EPS-2026. The profession has an equal right to question whether that price supports the organization’s stated objective of improving protective operations through widely accepted standards.

I Support Standards, but I Expect Claims to Be Supported

Independent Security Advisors began developing its Dignitary and Executive Protection Training Program in 2011. Since then, our work has involved instructional systems development, practical evaluations, consultation with protective practitioners, state regulatory requirements, and continuing curriculum reviews. My professional background includes military instruction, curriculum development, instructor training, and the management of protective operations. Those experiences have reinforced my belief that professional standards must establish requirements that can be understood, applied, and evaluated.

I am not opposed to BEPP, or the professionals who contributed to EPS-2026. They have every right to develop standards, obtain ANSI approval, and encourage the industry to adopt their work. I recognize the time and effort required to complete the publication, and I would welcome independent evaluations demonstrating that its requirements improve protective operations.

However, I believe professional standards should be judged by more than the size of the publication, the number of contributors, or the approval process used to develop them. Employers should be able to identify what a requirement accomplishes, how it applies to their operations, and whether meeting it produces a measurable benefit. Practitioners should be able to distinguish between actual requirements and useful recommendations, while understanding how either may affect their responsibilities.

The same principle applies to claims about industry acceptance. If BEPP describes EPS-2026 as the profession’s benchmark, it should identify the independent organizations that have adopted it. If it predicts that agents are likely to be judged against the publication in court, it should provide evidence supporting that prediction. And if it promotes purchasing the manual as professional risk management, practitioners should be able to examine what benefit the purchase has been shown to provide.

Those are not unreasonable demands, nor are they evidence of opposition to professional standards. They are the questions I would ask of BEPP, ASIS, ISA, or any other organization attempting to establish requirements for executive protection. The standards themselves deserve serious examination, and so do the claims made about them.

Conclusion

BEPP has completed the development of an ANSI-approved voluntary standard. That achievement deserves recognition, but it does not establish that the executive protection profession has accepted EPS-2026 as its governing benchmark. BEPP’s own public statements acknowledge that widespread industry adoption is a process, while its promotional language describes the publication as a benchmark for protective operations worldwide. The organization should be able to explain what evidence supports that broader claim.

The same question applies to BEPP’s predictions concerning legal liability. Courts may consider voluntary professional standards, including standards that an employer has not formally adopted. However, their use depends on the circumstances and the evidence supporting their relevance. In Deitrick, a New York court rejected an argument based on an ANSI requirement because the experts could not establish that it represented accepted industry practice. That decision demonstrates why the existence of an ANSI-approved publication does not automatically settle what a defendant was required to do.

Employers may establish procedures that differ from those recommended by BEPP, and clients may reject particular protective recommendations. Those decisions do not automatically establish negligence, nor do they relieve protective personnel of every responsibility. The important questions involve the threats, the assignment, the alternatives available, and whether the agents exercised reasonable care. A professional standards manual may provide useful guidance, but it cannot replace the judgment required to conduct protective operations competently.

For military veterans, retiring law-enforcement officers, and new practitioners, I continue to recommend investing in education, practical training, and professional development. Understand the laws and regulations governing the work, develop appropriate operational skills, and learn to evaluate the risks associated with each assignment. If BEPP’s publication offers information that helps accomplish those objectives, practitioners should have a reasonable opportunity to examine it and determine whether the benefits justify its price.

However, I would not recommend purchasing EPS-2026 simply because BEPP predicts that agents who do not own the manual are likely to be judged against it in court. The organization has not substantiated that prediction, nor has it demonstrated that purchasing the publication provides legal protection.

BEPP has published an ANSI-approved standard. It has not publicly demonstrated that the executive protection industry has accepted it as its governing benchmark, and it has not shown that buying the $595 manual reduces an agent’s legal liability. If BEPP wants to make those claims, it should provide the evidence supporting them.

That is not opposition to professional standards. It is the kind of examination that credible standards should welcome.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is EPS-2026 already the accepted executive protection industry benchmark?

BEPP describes EPS-2026 as a benchmark, but the public evidence examined does not establish widespread independent adoption of the finished publication. An organization can voluntarily use the standard as its own reference, but doing so does not establish that it has become the accepted benchmark for the entire profession.

What happens if my employer does not adopt EPS-2026?

An employer may establish its own lawful protective procedures, and refusing to adopt EPS-2026 does not automatically make those procedures negligent. However, a court may still consider relevant voluntary standards even when an employer has not adopted them. The legal significance depends on the circumstances and supporting evidence.

Can my client refuse a procedure recommended by BEPP?

A client may reject a protective recommendation, but that decision does not automatically remove the agent’s professional responsibilities. The protective team must evaluate foreseeable risks, explain appropriate precautions, and consider reasonable alternatives. The client’s refusal alone does not establish negligence or guarantee protection against a lawsuit.

Can BEPP’s publication be used in court?

Potentially. Courts may consider relevant voluntary standards in negligence cases, but the party relying on the publication must establish why its provisions are relevant. BEPP has not shown that courts are already likely to use EPS-2026 to evaluate executive protection agents.

Does purchasing the manual reduce my legal liability?

BEPP has not publicly provided evidence demonstrating that purchasing EPS-2026 reduces an agent’s legal liability. Ownership of the publication does not establish competence, guarantee reasonable conduct, or prevent a negligence lawsuit.

Why does the $595 price matter to industry acceptance?

Employers and practitioners must be able to examine a standard before deciding whether to adopt it. A substantial purchase price may discourage individual access, particularly among practitioners paying for their own training and professional expenses. Price alone does not determine a standard’s quality, but accessibility is important when widespread industry adoption is the goal.

Sources and References

About the Author

Matthew C. Parker is CEO of Independent Security Advisors LLC (ISA) and Director of Training for EPTraining.us. His professional experience includes twenty years of military service, military instruction and curriculum development, executive and dignitary protection operations, and international security advising. Before retiring from the U.S. Army in 2011, Parker managed military instructional programs and taught military science at Virginia Tech.

Since establishing ISA, Parker has directed protective operations, developed executive protection training programs, and provided protective training and advisory services in the United States and internationally. His work includes instructional systems development, instructor training, practical performance evaluations, and the continuing review of protective operations training. ISA’s programs have received specific approvals, acceptances, or recognition from state law-enforcement and regulatory authorities.

EXTERNAL SOURCE LINKS

BEPP Official Website:
https://www.ep-board.org/

BEPP Frequently Asked Questions:
https://www.ep-board.org/faq

American National Standards Institute:
https://www.ansi.org/

Government Accountability Office — September 2026 Secret Service Report:
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-108455

#ExecutiveProtection #BEPP #IndustryStandards #ANSI #EPTrainingUS #ExecutiveProtectionIndustry #ExecutiveProtectionProfessionals #ExecutiveProtectionServices #DignitaryProtection #ProtectiveOperations #ExecutiveProtectionStandards #ProfessionalStandards #StandardsCompliance #StandardsAdoption #ProfessionalAccountability #IndustryRecognition #StandardsVerification #IndustryBestPractices #InternationalStandards #ANSIStandards #VoluntaryConsensusStandards #SecurityIndustry #ProtectiveServices #CorporateSecurity #SecurityManagement #ExecutiveProtectionTraining #IndependentSecurityAdvisors #MatthewParker #EPTrainingUS

They Call It an Industry Benchmark. Who Has Accepted It?