Internal HSBC documents seen by Reuters show the bank is planning a major global expansion of surveillance across its office estate, including a dramatic increase in CCTV coverage and biometric access controls at its new City of London headquarters. The presentation, dated May 2025, envisages roughly 1,754 cameras at the new City site — about four times the roughly 444 devices recorded at its current Canary Wharf headquarters — and a rise in biometric readers to about 779 from 350. According to the documents and reporting, the rollout is part of a broader “global security strategy” being driven from the bank’s protective security unit.

The proposals go beyond simple badge systems. The documents outline full‑hand biometric recognition and “digital” access that would use employees’ personal mobile phones with firm‑installed software to badge in. HSBC employs more than 210,000 people worldwide, including some 31,000 in the UK, and the presentation anticipates that most staff will use personal devices to access premises — a shift that, according to people familiar with the policies, has met with resistance inside the bank.

The surveillance plan would extend to sensitive areas such as trading floors, where cameras would be positioned at entry and exit points and footage would be analysed using artificial‑intelligence tools, the internal slides show. Insurers and security planners cited in the reporting highlighted a recent increase in local crime around the new office as part of the justification; Reuters’ reporting also says the bank’s initial budget for the London rollout was recently tripled to about US$15 million.

The documents also reveal existing and planned relationships with external suppliers. HSBC has been using tools from Israeli surveillance firm Octopus in the UK and Hong Kong and is said to be planning deployments in other jurisdictions such as India and Mexico. Octopus, which reports sales to multiple countries, did not respond to requests for comment, and HSBC told Reuters it does not comment on vendors or suppliers.

Staff unease is a recurrent theme in the reporting. Employees have pushed back against compulsory installation of mobile software and biometric requirements, and, as of the end of last year, many UK staff had not yet complied with the bank’s biometric and digital access policies — in part, those familiar with the matter said, because of opposition to the systems proposed. Media coverage has emphasised the contrast between the smaller footprint of the new City site and the scale of the surveillance measures envisaged.

The surveillance expansion comes against a backdrop of renewed insistence on in‑office attendance at senior levels. In July the bank asked managing directors to be in the office at least four days a week from October, a move reported by Bloomberg that was framed internally as a leadership‑level “set the tone” requirement and part of broader attempts to recalibrate desk allocation ahead of the move to a new London headquarters.

The timing is not unique to HSBC. Employers across sectors have increased monitoring as hybrid working patterns have evolved and as new technologies make granular oversight easier. Critics warn that such advances can have a cumulative impact on workers’ autonomy, wellbeing and equality. A May 2025 report from the Institute for Public Policy Research cautioned that biometric sensors, facial recognition and algorithmic management have significantly expanded employers’ capacity to collect intrusive data, and recommended stronger statutory consultation rights, broader legal definitions of workplace surveillance and new information rights so workers can challenge excessive monitoring.

Human‑rights advocates have also raised alarms about the downstream effects of exporting intrusive systems. NGO reporting has linked some Israeli surveillance technologies to intensive monitoring projects in contexts such as Greece’s Samos refugee facility, describing near‑prison conditions and pervasive biometric and CCTV usage. Those accounts — and the fact that several firms named in investigations did not respond to questions — have fed debate about the ethical parameters of deploying tools developed for high‑intensity security environments into corporate workplaces.

HSBC has said that “the safety and security of our people is at the forefront of everything HSBC does,” an HSBC representative told Reuters, and that it regularly risk‑assesses buildings and invests “in the latest cutting‑edge technology” to protect colleagues, customers and visitors in line with industry standards. The bank’s presentation framed the measures as responses to identified security risks; the project is overseen, according to reporting, by the bank’s global head of protective security, who reports to the chief operating officer. Those senior executives declined to comment for the reporting.

The disclosure crystallises a broader regulatory and cultural challenge: how to balance legitimate corporate security concerns and the operational demands of a post‑pandemic workplace with privacy, workers’ rights and human‑rights obligations. Campaigners and think tanks are calling for clearer statutory protections and negotiated workplace rules to ensure surveillance does not become an unchecked norm. For HSBC — and other large employers following similar paths — the coming months may be as much about internal negotiation and legal scrutiny as about cameras and readers.

📌 Reference Map:

Reference Map:

Source: Noah Wire Services