Physical security is no longer defined by locks and keys alone. It is defined by the organisation’s ability to prove control.
Not long ago, physical security sat quietly in the background of most organisations. A lock on the door, a sign in the visitor book and the assumption that everything else would fall into place. That world is disappearing. Standards are shifting, regulators are asking harder questions and the expectation of provable accountability is reshaping how physical access is managed.
What used to be a facilities issue has become something legal teams and executives can’t ignore.
A New Expectation for Evidence
Modern standards are moving toward one idea. If someone accessed a site or asset, the organisation should be able to show it. Not guess. Not piece things together later. Show it clearly, with data that stands up if it is ever tested in court or in an audit.
Traditional mechanical systems were never designed for this. They were built for convenience and durability, not traceability. As frameworks like SOCI, PSPF and ISO evolve, the pressure is rising. Organisations now need systems that don’t just secure doors but also tell a trustworthy story about who used them and when.
This shift might feel subtle, but legally it changes everything.
Systems Can No Longer Operate in Silos
Another emerging theme is the expectation that systems talk to each other. Identity management, CCTV, alarms, digital keys, mechanical keys, incident response processes. Regulators increasingly assume these work together, not as isolated tools.
When they don’t, something simple becomes surprisingly hard. Reconstructing an incident timeline. Determining who was responsible. Proving that controls worked as intended.
The new standards are less interested in whether a system exists and more interested in whether an organisation can demonstrate control in a clear, defensible way.
Auditability Is Becoming a Legal Pressure Point
Across many industries, the conversation has shifted from “we have a secure site” to “we can prove it”. Retaining access records, verifying contractor activity, preserving logs and ensuring those records are tamper resistant are now core expectations rather than optional best practices.
The legal consequences of missing or unreliable access data keep growing. Disputed insurance claims, regulatory penalties, slow investigations, and reputational damage all stem from the same underlying issue. A lack of evidence.
The standards are adapting to that reality.
Standards Are Catching Up With Distributed Infrastructure
Many organisations operate assets far beyond the main office. Remote energy sites, radio towers, pump stations, storage facilities. The old frameworks assumed locked doors and staff on site. Today’s environment is different.
Newer standards acknowledge that access often happens in locations without connectivity and without supervision. That means expectations around credential validation, key issuance, and audit trails are tightening. Regulators now understand the practical challenges of dispersed assets and they expect organisations to solve them, not work around them.
Scrutiny Around Third Party Access Is Growing
Contractor access has always been one of the most difficult areas to control, and standards are beginning to reflect this. Organisations are now expected to know not only who entered a site but also who approved it and whether the access matched the intended scope of work.
In disputes or incidents, poor documentation around contractor access is becoming a major legal vulnerability. Updated standards treat this area with increasing seriousness.
Preparing for the Shift
Organisations that want to stay ahead are beginning to review their access systems through a legal lens rather than a purely operational one. They are asking questions like: Do our systems create evidence we can rely on? Can we show alignment between access permissions and identity policies? Are contractor workflows documented in a way that would hold up in an investigation?
These are becoming the questions that matter.
The Road Ahead
Standards will continue to evolve, and the direction is clear. More transparency, more verifiability, more emphasis on systems working together. Physical security is no longer defined by locks and keys alone. It is defined by the organisation’s ability to prove control.
Those who adapt early will find compliance easier and investigations shorter. Those who hold on to older methods may discover that the absence of evidence becomes a liability of its own.
Join the conversation!