If Standards Matter, Who Gets to Read Them?

Executive Protection Standard

Why Does a $595 Executive Protection Standard Cost So Much More Than the Bible, Military References, and Major Public-Safety Codes?

By Matthew C. Parker
CEO, Independent Security Advisors LLC
Director of Training, EPTraining.us
October 2026

Abstract

Professional standards are intended to establish common expectations, improve performance, and provide guidance that practitioners can understand and apply. Their value depends not only on how they are developed but also on whether the people expected to use them can reasonably obtain and understand their requirements. Accessibility becomes particularly important when a standards organization wants its publication to influence an entire profession.

One standards developer , The Board of Executive Protection Professionals (BEPP) lists its ANSI-approved executive protection standard for $595, plus shipping. This article examines whether that price is reasonable when compared with significant military, occupational safety, fire protection, legal, and religious publications available at considerably lower costs or without charge. It also considers federal guidance on access to voluntary consensus standards, the limitations of ANSI approval, and the difference between publishing professional requirements and demonstrating occupational competence.

The article further examines questions raised by other executive protection professionals concerning standards, terminology, certification, and organizational influence. These matters provide context for evaluating whether this developer’s pricing and distribution practices advance its stated objective of improving the profession.

Bottom Line Up Front

I believe $595 is an excessive price for a foundational professional reference intended to improve the knowledge, judgment, and performance of executive protection practitioners. The price becomes particularly difficult to understand when compared with publications of far greater historical reach, legal significance, and public-safety application.

Consider the Bible. Libreria Editrice Vaticana, the Vatican’s publishing house, offers a 1,260-page hardcover Italian-language Bible for €20. The United States Army and Department of Defense make numerous important military and legal publications available electronically without charge. OSHA provides free access to federal workplace safety regulations, and the National Fire Protection Association offers free online viewing of its codes and standards.

These publications serve different purposes and are produced under different financial arrangements. Nevertheless, they demonstrate that substantial and important bodies of knowledge can be made available without requiring readers to spend hundreds of dollars for access. Some have direct legal significance, while others influence the conduct, safety, education, and responsibilities of millions of people.

This raises the central question of my article: how does BEPP justify charging $595, plus $25 domestic shipping, for a specialized publication serving the comparatively small executive protection profession, when the Vatican can offer a 1,260-page Bible for €20 and major military and public-safety references are available at much lower costs?

BEPP reports that its publication contains more than 550 pages and represents nearly four years of development involving more than 280 contributors. I recognize that professional standards require time, administration, technical review, editing, and financial resources. I am not suggesting that BEPP has acted unlawfully, that its contributors lack expertise, or that its leadership has obtained improper financial benefits.

My concern is whether the price is consistent with the organization’s stated objective of improving professional performance. If the standard contains valuable guidance that practitioners should understand and apply, making that guidance affordable would appear to be an important part of accomplishing that objective.

Professional Standards Must Be Read Before They Can Be Applied

Throughout my military and civilian career, I have worked with training requirements, instructional programs, performance standards, and practical evaluations. As a U.S. Army and Department of Defense Master Instructor, I learned that writing a standard is only one part of establishing an effective training program. The requirement must be understood, applicable to the task, and capable of being evaluated under defined conditions.

I have applied those principles for more than two decades in executive and dignitary protection training, including developing and evaluating protective-security programs. I support professional standards because they can improve consistency, establish expectations, assist employers, and help instructors develop measurable training objectives. However, a published requirement cannot improve performance unless practitioners have an opportunity to examine it, understand its purpose, and apply it correctly.

That brings me to BEPP’s publication. The organization describes a comprehensive executive protection standard addressing professional responsibilities, threat assessment, protective planning, advances, operational procedures, and emergency response. These are legitimate subjects for a professional reference, and the publication may provide useful information to practitioners and employers.

The difficulty is the cost of obtaining it. A large security company may consider $595 a routine business expense, while a student, military veteran entering civilian protective services, or independent practitioner may find that amount difficult to justify. Those individuals are among the very people professional standards are intended to help, which makes affordability a practical consideration rather than a minor publishing issue.

The Bible: Why Is One Important Book €20 and Another $595?

The Bible provides the most striking comparison because its influence extends far beyond any single profession, government, or industry. Its teachings and historical significance have influenced religious belief, education, moral philosophy, legal traditions, literature, and human civilization for centuries. Its importance is not measured by the price of any particular edition, but by the continuing influence of its contents.

Libreria Editrice Vaticana, the Vatican’s publishing house, lists La Sacra Bibbia, a 1,260-page hardcover Italian-language edition published in 2015, for €20. This is not a small pamphlet or abbreviated publication. It is a substantial printed volume made available at a relatively modest price by an institution associated with one of the world’s oldest religious traditions.

I recognize that the Bible and BEPP’s executive protection standard are different publications. The Bible has an established text, a much longer publishing history, and a potentially broader readership. BEPP’s standard is a recently developed technical document that may involve different administrative, editing, and distribution costs.

Those differences must be acknowledged, but they do not eliminate the question of accessibility. If the Vatican’s publisher can distribute a substantial hardcover edition of the Bible for €20, it is reasonable to ask why a specialized professional standard must cost $595. The comparison does not establish that BEPP is earning excessive profits, but it illustrates how dramatically different publication prices can be when the objective includes making information available to readers.

My concern is not that BEPP’s publication should be priced according to its religious or historical importance. Rather, I question whether the organization has sufficiently considered the financial circumstances of the people it wants to read and apply the standard. A professional document intended to improve an occupation should be distributed in a manner that encourages people to examine it.

The United States Army: Making Important Standards Available

The United States Army provides another useful comparison, and one directly related to my professional experience. The Army takes civilians and prepares them to become soldiers through a demanding system of instruction, discipline, professional development, and measurable performance. This process relies upon numerous regulations, manuals, guides, and instructional publications that establish common expectations across the force.

The Army Blue Book, Soldier’s Green Book, Soldier’s Guide, Ranger Handbook, and other official publications support different aspects of military service. Some address customs, military values, leadership, and individual responsibilities, while others address specialized military tasks, operational requirements, safety, and professional skills. Many of these publications are available electronically without charge through official military publishing systems.

Their importance extends well beyond their length or appearance. Military publications help establish the requirements soldiers must understand and the procedures they are expected to perform, sometimes under circumstances involving substantial personal risk. Making those references available supports consistency in training, supervision, and evaluation.

The Army’s approach demonstrates the importance of distributing professional information to the people expected to use it. I recognize that the Department of Defense has resources and funding that a small nonprofit standards organization does not possess. Nevertheless, the Army’s distribution practices illustrate a sound principle: when an organization expects people to follow important requirements, it should make those requirements reasonably accessible.

I believe the executive protection profession would benefit from the same consideration. An organization seeking broad adoption of professional standards should examine whether its distribution methods help or hinder that objective.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice

The Uniform Code of Military Justice provides another important example because it establishes the statutory framework governing military justice in the United States armed forces. It addresses discipline, legal responsibilities, offenses, individual rights, and military justice procedures affecting service members. These are matters with direct legal consequences for individuals and the military organizations in which they serve.

The Department of Defense makes the Manual for Courts-Martial, which includes the UCMJ and related rules, available electronically through an official public website. Military commanders, legal professionals, service members, and interested members of the public can examine these provisions without first purchasing an expensive printed volume.

The UCMJ and a voluntary executive protection standard serve different purposes, and I am not suggesting that their development or distribution costs are equivalent. The UCMJ is part of the federal military justice system, while BEPP’s publication is a privately developed professional reference.

Nevertheless, the comparison demonstrates that even material carrying substantial legal significance can be made readily available to the people affected by it.

If a body of military law governing the conduct and responsibilities of service members can be accessed without purchasing a costly book, I believe it is reasonable to question whether the foundational guidance for a much smaller civilian profession should require an expenditure of $595.

OSHA and NFPA: Public Safety and Accessible Standards

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration publishes federal workplace safety regulations electronically without charge. These requirements address hazards involving equipment, electrical systems, hazardous substances, emergency planning, personal protective equipment, and numerous other workplace conditions. They establish legally enforceable responsibilities designed to reduce occupational injuries, illness, and death.

The National Fire Protection Association provides another instructive example. NFPA develops codes and standards addressing electrical safety, fire prevention, building protection, emergency response, and other matters affecting public safety. Many of these documents influence the design, operation, and maintenance of buildings and systems used by large numbers of people.

The 2026 National Electrical Code, NFPA 70, is listed at $169 for the softbound edition. The 2027 Life Safety Code, NFPA 101, is listed at $176, making their combined advertised print price approximately $345. That amount is substantially below the $595 price of BEPP’s single publication.

NFPA also provides free online viewing of its codes and standards, subject to applicable access arrangements. Printed editions, enhanced digital products, and specialized reference materials remain available for purchase. This approach allows individuals to examine requirements without necessarily purchasing a printed book.

I am not suggesting that NFPA and BEPP have comparable resources, operating budgets, or production expenses. Their organizational structures and publishing activities differ. However, NFPA demonstrates that a standards developer can offer paid publications while also providing access methods that encourage people to examine important technical requirements.

This raises a practical question about BEPP’s distribution policy. Could the organization provide free read-only access while continuing to sell its printed standard, and would doing so encourage more practitioners, instructors, students, and employers to examine its requirements? If the objective is to improve professional performance, such an approach deserves consideration.

Comparing the Cost of Important Publications

The following prices and access arrangements were checked against published information in October 2026. The comparison illustrates the range of distribution methods available, rather than attempting to calculate the production cost or relative technical value of each publication.

The publications differ in length, purpose, audience, funding, development history, and distribution arrangements. It would be inaccurate to conclude that BEPP’s book should cost the same as any one of these references without understanding its expenses. However, the comparison demonstrates that important professional, legal, religious, and public-safety information can be made available through considerably less expensive methods.

The ASIS comparison is particularly relevant because both organizations address executive protection. ASIS offers its shorter Executive Protection Standard at substantially lower printed prices. The difference in length means that a direct comparison cannot establish which document provides greater professional value, but the difference in cost is significant for practitioners deciding whether to examine both publications.

I believe standards should be compared on their content, applicability, practical usefulness, and demonstrated benefits. Making those comparisons becomes more difficult when obtaining one of the documents requires such a substantial financial commitment.

Federal Guidance Recognizes the Importance of Affordable Access

The federal government has recognized that the cost of obtaining standards can affect whether they are reasonably available to the people who need them. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119, revised in January 2016 and made available through the National Institute of Standards and Technology, addresses federal agency participation in and use of voluntary consensus standards.

Section 5(f) discusses reasonable availability and identifies considerations that include the cost of obtaining standards, the ability of affected parties to bear those costs, and the availability of free read-only access or other distribution arrangements. The Circular also recognizes the intellectual-property interests of standards developers and the need to consider the circumstances under which standards are used.

I want to be precise about the application of this guidance. Circular A-119 addresses federal agencies and does not directly regulate BEPP’s publication price. It does not establish a maximum selling price for voluntary professional standards, and I am not suggesting that BEPP has violated federal policy.

The guidance is relevant because it recognizes that accessibility and affordability deserve attention when standards are expected to influence conduct or establish requirements. A publication may be technically useful, but its practical reach can be limited if the intended readers cannot reasonably obtain it. That consideration applies to voluntary professional standards as a matter of sound policy, even when the federal guidance does not impose a legal obligation on the publisher.

If BEPP wants its publication to become a widely recognized professional reference, I believe it should consider whether the current price encourages or discourages that objective. An explanation of the available distribution alternatives and the reasons for selecting the present selling price would help practitioners better understand the decision.

What Does ANSI Approval Actually Establish?

BEPP reports that ANSI approved ANSI/BEPP EPS-2026 as an ANSI American National Standard on June 8, 2026. That designation is legitimate and reflects completion of the applicable voluntary consensus standards process. ANSI establishes procedural requirements concerning openness, balanced participation, consensus, consideration of objections, due process, and opportunities for appeal.

These procedural requirements have value, and I do not dismiss the importance of an established standards-development process. However, ANSI approval should not be confused with government adoption or independent operational testing of the standard’s technical requirements. ANSI is a private, nongovernmental organization, and an ANSI American National Standard does not automatically become a federal regulation or a mandatory state licensing requirement.

ANSI’s Board of Standards Review states that it does not evaluate the technical content of standards or resolve technical appeals. Its responsibility is to determine whether applicable standards-development procedures have been followed. This distinction is important because the professional value of an executive protection requirement must ultimately be assessed through its clarity, applicability, and usefulness.

I am not suggesting that BEPP’s contributors performed no technical review. The organization reports that its working groups, technical participants, and committees developed and examined the material. What I am emphasizing is that ANSI’s procedural approval should not be interpreted as proof that every recommended protective procedure has been independently tested under operational conditions.

In military instruction, we distinguished between identifying a required action, establishing the conditions under which it must be performed, and defining the standards used to evaluate performance. I believe the same approach is appropriate for executive protection. A published requirement may provide useful guidance, but its operational value should be examined through training, practical application, and measurable results.

This is another reason that affordable access matters. The more practitioners and instructors who can examine and evaluate professional standards, the greater the opportunity to identify useful guidance, recognize limitations, and contribute to continuing improvements.

What Does the Practitioner Receive for $595?

An individual entering executive protection may already face significant expenses for training, applicable state licensing or registration, travel, lodging, medical qualifications, equipment, and continuing education. These expenses can represent a substantial investment before the individual begins earning meaningful income from protective work. Established practitioners also face costs associated with maintaining and improving their professional qualifications.

Purchasing BEPP’s printed standard provides a copy of the publication. It does not, by itself, authorize a person to perform regulated protective services, satisfy every applicable state licensing requirement, or demonstrate the ability to conduct protective operations. Ownership of the book should also not be confused with independent professional certification or observed practical competence.

The publication may contain useful guidance that improves someone’s knowledge or assists an employer in evaluating protective procedures. I recognize that benefit, and I would not dismiss the value of a technical reference merely because purchasing it does not confer a qualification. Nevertheless, the price should be considered against the alternatives available to practitioners who have limited resources for professional development.

An individual with $595 available may reasonably need to decide whether to purchase reference material, attend practical instruction, improve medical skills, complete advanced training, or meet another legitimate professional requirement. I believe standards organizations should consider these competing demands when deciding how to distribute foundational information.

The cost of reading professional guidance should not unnecessarily compete with the cost of learning to perform the work. If an organization wants practitioners to understand its requirements, the first step should be making those requirements reasonably accessible.

Other Professionals Have Raised Questions About Standards

Questions concerning the development and application of executive protection standards are not unique to Independent Security Advisors. In July 2026, executive protection professional Joe LaSorsa published Choosing Between the ASIS and BEPP Executive Protection Standards, examining how practitioners and employers should determine which publication is suitable for their operations.

LaSorsa addressed the importance of considering scope, applicable laws, operational requirements, and practical implementation. His analysis did not establish that BEPP’s price was improper, nor did it accuse the organization of financial misconduct. It raised a legitimate professional question about how competing standards should be evaluated.

I addressed LaSorsa’s question in my previously published article Two Executive Protection Standards: The Question Joe LaSorsa Asked. My position remains that employers and practitioners should examine the actual requirements of a standard, determine their applicability, and consider whether they support measurable professional performance.

Access is relevant to that process because practitioners must be able to read and compare the publications before making an informed decision. A substantial difference in cost may affect whether an individual or small organization is willing or able to examine both documents.

The existence of competing standards does not mean one must be rejected. It means the profession should evaluate each on its merits rather than assuming that a particular designation, publisher, or selling price establishes technical superiority.

Professional Terminology and the Broader Standards Discussion

Questions about professional access also arise when organizations seek trademark protection involving established occupational terminology. Public trademark records identify applications filed by BEPP in 2024 involving terms such as Executive Protection, Executive Protection Specialist, Personal Protection Specialist, and Executive Protection Agent.

An application does not establish unrestricted ownership of a word or occupational title. Trademark protection depends upon the status of the application, the goods or services involved, the manner in which a mark is used, and applicable law. Organizations have legitimate reasons to protect distinctive brands and credentials, but those considerations should be distinguished from ordinary professional terminology that has been used for many years.

Executive Protection Institute director Jerry Heying publicly raised concerns about applications involving established professional terms, including Personal Protection Specialist. Another industry commentator, Oded K., questioned whether efforts to protect widely used terminology could contribute to professional fragmentation or make participation in a particular organization’s framework appear more important than the broader interests of the industry.

These are the opinions of the individuals who expressed them, not findings that BEPP acted unlawfully or improperly. I have examined the trademark issues more fully in my separate article Who Owns the Language of Executive Protection? They are relevant here only because professional terminology, standards, and certification programs can influence how practitioners understand and participate in their occupation.

I believe an organization seeking broad professional acceptance should explain how its activities protect legitimate organizational interests while respecting the established terminology and practices of the wider profession. Clear explanations of those intentions would help reduce uncertainty and encourage informed participation.

Standards, Certification, and Financial Transparency

BEPP’s published project information identifies additional initiatives beyond its current executive protection standard. These include a proposed professional certification examination developed with Prometric, a Protective Intelligence Systems standard, and a separate standard addressing executive protection training providers.

Each of these activities may provide legitimate professional benefits. Independent certification can assist employers in evaluating knowledge and qualifications, while training-provider standards may encourage consistency in instruction. Protective intelligence is also an important subject that deserves appropriate technical attention.

The existence of these programs does not establish an improper commercial purpose. Nonprofit organizations may legitimately sell publications, administer examinations, provide services, and recover reasonable operating expenses. However, the development of several related programs makes it important for practitioners to understand what each program offers, how its requirements are established, and how its costs are determined.

Professional standards, training, certification, and licensing serve different purposes. A standard describes expectations, training prepares people to meet them, independent assessment helps determine whether competence has been demonstrated, and licensing establishes legal authority when required by applicable law. These functions should remain clearly distinguished so that practitioners understand what they receive for the fees they pay.

My concern is therefore not whether BEPP earns revenue, but whether its financial decisions support its professional objectives. I would welcome an explanation of how the $595 price was established, how development and publication expenses are recovered, and what alternatives were considered for improving individual access.

Accurate Public Reporting Matters

Professional standards also depend upon accurate public explanations of what standards designations mean and what particular publications establish. Industry magazines and professional websites routinely report announcements from standards organizations, and there is nothing inherently improper about using information supplied by the organizations being covered.

EP Wired, for example, has published articles discussing BEPP’s standards-development activities and ANSI approval. Its November 2025 article concerning BEPP’s public-review process included an editorial disclosure identifying James Cameron and Kevin Dye as the individuals who submitted the material. A subsequent July 2026 article discussed BEPP’s approved standard alongside the ASIS Executive Protection Standard and included statements attributed to BEPP.

The important question is whether readers can distinguish organizational announcements from independently verified conclusions. Reporting that ANSI approved a standard is different from independently confirming that the standard’s technical requirements produce particular operational outcomes. Both subjects may be appropriate for professional reporting, but they should not be presented as equivalent findings.

I do not know who prepared the July 2026 EP Wired article, and I am not suggesting that the publication concealed its authorship or intentionally published inaccurate information. My interest is in the broader principle that professional reporting should clearly distinguish established facts, organizational claims, and independent technical assessments.

That distinction helps employers, instructors, and practitioners make informed decisions. It also supports the credibility of professional standards by explaining precisely what recognition has been granted and what questions remain open to evaluation.

It May Be Legal, but Is It Ethical?

BEPP identifies professional conduct and ethics as important subjects within executive protection. I believe that makes it appropriate to consider the ethical dimensions of decisions involving the pricing and accessibility of professional guidance.

The organization generally has the legal right to establish the selling price of its publication. Charging $595 does not, by itself, establish unlawful conduct, improper financial motives, or an ethical violation. Legitimate publishing costs and organizational expenses must be recognized when evaluating any commercial decision.

Professional ethics, however, can involve considerations beyond what the law permits. If a standards organization exists to improve professional conduct and performance, it should consider how its policies affect students, individual practitioners, smaller employers, and others who may have difficulty obtaining the information.

This raises a reasonable question about the relationship between price and purpose. If a publication is intended to improve protective operations, should the organization consider whether its selling price limits the number of people able to examine and apply its recommendations? Would less expensive access encourage wider participation, discussion, and practical use?

I am not suggesting that BEPP has violated its ethical obligations. I am asking whether its publication and distribution policies have been evaluated against the organization’s stated professional mission. An explanation of the considerations behind those decisions would help readers make a fair assessment.

A decision may be legally permissible and still deserve examination from an ethical standpoint, particularly when the decision affects access to information intended to benefit an entire profession. This principle applies equally to BEPP, ASIS, ISA, and any other organization offering professional guidance.

A More Accessible Model Is Possible

My preferred approach is to make foundational executive protection standards available electronically without charge to individual practitioners and students. This would allow people to examine the requirements, understand their purpose, and consider how they apply to their professional responsibilities.

Such a policy would not prevent organizations from charging for other legitimate products and services. Printed editions, specialized reference materials, implementation guides, examinations, independent assessments, and professional certification programs may all involve reasonable fees. Educational institutions might also pay licensing charges when reproducing copyrighted standards for classroom distribution.

The important distinction is between allowing an individual to read a foundational professional requirement and charging for additional services or products. Practitioners should be able to examine the standard before deciding whether purchasing a printed edition, attending specialized training, or obtaining a credential would be beneficial.

Free read-only access is one possible approach. Lower-cost individual editions, educational arrangements, or other distribution methods could also improve accessibility while allowing the organization to recover legitimate expenses.

BEPP may face financial or contractual considerations that affect which options are practical. I recognize that possibility and would welcome an explanation of those limitations. Nevertheless, I believe the organization should consider whether an alternative distribution model could reach more practitioners and better support the purpose of its standard.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Why does BEPP charge $595 for its executive protection standard?

BEPP lists its printed standard for $595, plus $25 shipping within the continental United States. The organization reports that the publication contains more than 550 pages and took nearly four years to develop with participation from more than 280 contributors.

Those facts establish that the project was substantial, but they do not provide a complete explanation of how the selling price was determined. Without detailed production and financial information, I cannot determine whether the price reflects development cost recovery, ongoing program expenses, or other legitimate considerations. My concern is that the amount is substantial for individual practitioners, and I believe more affordable access deserves consideration.

2. How can a Vatican Bible cost €20 when BEPP’s standard costs $595?

The Vatican’s publishing house lists a 1,260-page hardcover Italian-language Bible for €20, while BEPP lists its specialized professional standard for $595. The publications serve different purposes and have different development histories, audiences, and production arrangements, so their prices cannot establish equivalent costs or profit margins.

The comparison nevertheless raises a legitimate question about accessibility. If such a substantial and historically important book can be offered at a modest price, it is reasonable to ask what distribution alternatives might allow professional executive protection guidance to reach more readers.

3. Is BEPP required to provide its standard free of charge?

I have not identified a general legal requirement compelling BEPP to distribute its voluntary standard free of charge. Standards developers may have legitimate intellectual-property interests and may charge for publications and related services.

My recommendation for free individual electronic access is a professional policy position rather than a claim of legal obligation. I believe that providing such access would better support broad examination, understanding, and voluntary adoption of professional requirements.

4. Does OMB or NIST guidance prohibit BEPP’s price?

No. OMB Circular A-119 addresses federal agency participation in and use of voluntary consensus standards, including considerations concerning reasonable availability and affordability. It does not directly regulate BEPP’s selling price or establish a maximum charge for privately developed voluntary standards.

Its relevance is that federal guidance recognizes cost as a factor affecting access to standards. I believe that principle is worth considering when a professional organization seeks broad acceptance of its publication.

5. Does ANSI approval mean the standard has been independently field-tested?

Not by ANSI’s Board of Standards Review. ANSI approval establishes that the applicable private consensus standards-development procedures have been satisfied, while technical content remains the responsibility of the standards developer and its participants.

This does not mean that BEPP conducted no technical review. It means ANSI’s procedural recognition should not be confused with independent operational testing or a guarantee that every recommendation is effective under all circumstances.

6. Does buying the BEPP standard qualify someone to work in executive protection?

No. Purchasing a standards publication provides access to information but does not, by itself, grant legal authority to perform regulated protective services or establish practical competence. Applicable licensing requirements, professional training, experience, and performance evaluations remain separate considerations.

The standard may be useful as a reference for training and operations, but ownership of the book should not be confused with an occupational qualification or independent certification.

7. Are other executive protection professionals questioning BEPP’s activities?

Yes, although their questions concern different subjects. Joe LaSorsa has discussed how employers and practitioners should compare the ASIS and BEPP standards, while Jerry Heying and Oded K. have publicly raised concerns involving trademark applications and established professional terminology.

Their comments do not establish that BEPP’s publication price is improper or that the organization has engaged in misconduct. They demonstrate that questions about standards, professional terminology, and organizational influence have been raised by individuals outside ISA.

8. Does nonprofit status prevent BEPP from earning revenue?

No. Nonprofit organizations may legitimately sell publications, charge for services, operate professional programs, and compensate personnel consistent with applicable law and their organizational purposes.

Nonprofit status does not automatically establish that every selling price is fair, just as charging a substantial price does not establish misconduct. The relevant considerations include financial needs, governance, transparency, and whether activities support the organization’s stated mission.

9. Is charging $595 unethical?

The price alone does not establish an ethical violation. Developing and maintaining technical publications involves legitimate costs, and an organization may reasonably seek to recover those expenses.

Nevertheless, I believe the price raises an appropriate ethical question about whether the distribution method supports the organization’s stated purpose. If professional standards are intended to improve conduct and performance throughout an industry, affordability should be one of the factors considered when determining how the information is made available.

10. What would be a reasonable alternative?

I favor free electronic access for individual practitioners and students, with optional paid printed editions and charges for appropriate additional services. Educational licensing, institutional reproduction rights, implementation assistance, examinations, and independent evaluations could remain separate sources of legitimate revenue.

This model would distinguish basic access to professional guidance from payment for additional products and services. I believe it would allow more practitioners to examine and apply standards while recognizing the expenses associated with developing and maintaining professional programs.

What Should the Profession Expect?

I support the development of credible, accessible, and measurable executive protection standards. I recognize the contributions of the professionals who participated in BEPP’s publication, and I do not question the value of their work merely because I disagree with the selling price. I also recognize that nonprofit organizations must recover legitimate expenses to continue providing professional services.

My concern is that a foundational standard intended to improve professional knowledge and performance should be reasonably accessible to the people expected to use it. The Bible, Army publications, Manual for Courts-Martial, OSHA regulations, and NFPA codes demonstrate different ways important information can be distributed at modest cost or through free-access systems. These publications differ from BEPP’s standard in funding, purpose, and production, but their accessibility provides a meaningful basis for comparison.

The Vatican’s €20 hardcover Bible presents the most striking example. It contains 1,260 pages and represents a body of religious and historical writing whose influence extends across approximately two millennia. BEPP’s professional standard serves a much narrower audience and costs $595 before shipping, making it reasonable to ask what factors justify such a substantial difference and whether less expensive access is possible.

If development, printing, administration, or other legitimate expenses make the current price necessary, an explanation would help practitioners better understand the decision. If lower-cost electronic access, educational pricing, or another distribution method could reach more readers, I would encourage BEPP to consider those alternatives.

I do not believe a professional standard should be judged by its selling price, the number of pages it contains, or the designation printed on its cover. Its value should be measured by the clarity and usefulness of its requirements, the accessibility of its information, and the extent to which practitioners can apply that information to improve their performance.

The purpose of professional standards should be to make people more knowledgeable, capable, and better prepared to carry out their responsibilities. If improving executive protection is our shared objective, making foundational professional knowledge accessible should be part of achieving that objective.

About the Author

Matthew C. Parker is CEO of Independent Security Advisors LLC (ISA) and Director of Training for EPTraining.us. A retired U.S. Army senior noncommissioned officer, combat veteran, and U.S. Army/Department of Defense Master Instructor, he has more than three decades of experience involving military instruction, curriculum development, protective operations, and international security advising.

His military assignments included serving as a senior enlisted training department head at the U.S. Army Chemical Warfare School, where he supervised and evaluated instructors and revised instructional materials. He also taught military science through Army ROTC at Virginia Tech and has participated in protective operations, training, and security advisory assignments involving senior military and government officials.

His international experience includes protective-security program development, training, and advisory work in Iraq and Ukraine. Through ISA and EPTraining.us, Parker has developed and evaluated executive protection programs using applicable state requirements, established instructional-development methods, professional standards, operational experience, and demonstrated competency.

His writing reflects independent professional analysis based upon military instruction, protective operations, and training-program development. His views do not represent the findings of a regulatory authority.

References and Source Material

Publication Prices and Access

• BEPP — ANSI/BEPP EPS-2026 Printed Standard
• Libreria Editrice Vaticana — La Sacra Bibbia
• U.S. Army Publishing Directorate
• Department of Defense — Manual for Courts-Martial
• OSHA — General Industry Standards
• NFPA — National Electrical Code
• NFPA — Life Safety Code
• ASIS International — Executive Protection Standard

Standards Guidance and Organizational Information

• OMB Circular A-119 — January 2016 Revision
• ANSI — Board of Standards Review
• BEPP — Standards and Certification Project Updates
• ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer — BEPP
• USPTO — Trademark Information

Professional Commentary and Related Articles

• Joe LaSorsa — Choosing Between the ASIS and BEPP Executive Protection Standards
• EP Wired — July 2026 Standards Article
• EP Wired — November 2025 Contributed Article
• ISA — Two Executive Protection Standards: The Question Joe LaSorsa Asked
• ISA — Who Owns the Language of Executive Protection?
• ISA — Executive Protection Needs an ASE Model

Publisher: Independent Security Advisors LLC / EPTraining.us
Classification: Independent professional commentary and standards analysis
Publication date: October 2026

Why does a professional executive protection standard cost $595 when the Vatican sells a 1,260-page Bible for €20 and important military and public-safety references are available for far less? Matthew C. Parker examines the affordability of BEPP’s standard, the limits of ANSI approval, federal guidance on standards accessibility, and the ethical questions surrounding the cost of professional knowledge.

#ExecutiveProtection #ExecutiveProtectionStandards #BEPP #ANSI #ProfessionalStandards #ProfessionalEthics #StandardsAccessibility #ExecutiveProtectionTraining #EPTraining #IndependentSecurityAdvisors