In examining industry patterns, the energy and natural resources sector has faced particularly high risks. Companies involved in oil, gas, and mining operations have seen their executives targeted, especially in regions with resource-related conflicts. For instance, several oil company executives were targeted in Nigeria’s Niger Delta region during periods of unrest in the 1990s and 2000s, highlighting the intersection of business interests and local grievances.

Geographic distribution shows concentrated risk in certain regions, with Latin America experiencing a notable frequency of such incidents. Mexico, in particular, has seen multiple cases involving business leaders in various sectors. The Mexican government’s National Institute of Statistics and Geography has documented an increase in attacks targeting business owners and executives, particularly in regions with strong cartel presence [1].

Perpetrator analysis reveals diverse motivations and groups. Organized crime syndicates frequently target business figures for financial gain or territorial control. Terrorist organizations sometimes target business leaders as representatives of economic systems or nations they oppose. Additionally, some cases involve disgruntled employees or business rivals, though these comprise a smaller percentage of incidents.

Nationality patterns indicate that local business figures often face higher risks than expatriate executives, contrary to some popular assumptions. However, multinational corporation executives from Western nations face elevated risks in certain regions, particularly where anti-Western sentiment intersects with business interests.

The frequency of such incidents has fluctuated over recent decades, with some studies suggesting an increase in targeting of business figures in emerging markets since the 2000s. However, precise statistics are challenging to compile due to varying definitions of “targeted assassination” and inconsistent reporting across jurisdictions [2].

Motivations for these attacks typically fall into several categories: economic extortion, political statements, revenge for perceived corporate misconduct, and broader ideological conflicts. The World Economic Forum’s annual risk reports have consistently identified targeted violence against business leaders as a significant concern for corporate security.

Prevention strategies have evolved significantly, with many major corporations now maintaining sophisticated executive protection programs. These programs typically include threat assessment, secure transportation, and coordination with local security forces. The International Security Management Association has developed best practices for executive protection, though these remain proprietary to member organizations.

[1] See, for example:

[2] The definitional complexities surrounding targeted assassinations of business figures present significant challenges for researchers and security analysts. The International Institute for Strategic Studies defines business-related targeted assassinations as “premeditated killings of business leaders where the victim’s role in commerce was a primary motivation for the attack.” However, this definition becomes problematic when multiple motivations exist. For instance, when a business figure also holds political office or maintains strong political connections, determining whether their business role or political position motivated the attack can prove challenging.

Reporting mechanisms vary significantly across nations, affecting data reliability and comparability. Developed nations typically maintain detailed databases of violent crimes against business leaders, often categorizing them by motivation and methodology. The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation, for example, maintains specific categories for business-related homicides. In contrast, nations with limited institutional capacity or those experiencing internal conflicts often lack systematic data collection methods. Some nations may deliberately underreport such incidents to maintain investor confidence or classify them differently to avoid highlighting security concerns.

These reporting disparities create significant challenges for cross-national comparison. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has attempted to standardize reporting through its International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes, but adoption remains inconsistent. Some nations classify business-related assassinations as ordinary homicides, while others categorize them as acts of terrorism or organized crime, depending on the perpetrators and circumstances.

The accompanying visualization demonstrates regional trends in verified cases of business-figure assassinations from 1990 to 2024. The data reveals a general upward trend across most regions, with Latin America consistently showing the highest numbers. However, these statistics likely represent an undercount due to the aforementioned reporting issues. The Middle East and Africa show steady increases, particularly in resource-rich regions where business interests intersect with political instability.

Data collection methodology also varies significantly by region. Western European nations typically employ standardized reporting protocols through Europol, while developing regions often rely on media reports and non-governmental organization documentation. The International Business Risk Consortium estimates that official statistics may capture only 60-70% of actual incidents in some regions, particularly where institutional capacity is limited or where violence has become normalized.

These definitional and reporting challenges affect both academic research and practical security measures. Security firms and corporate risk management teams often maintain proprietary databases with broader definitions and more comprehensive incident tracking. However, these private sector resources rarely become available for academic study, creating a gap between practical security knowledge and scholarly analysis.

The methodological challenges in studying this phenomenon suggest the need for improved international coordination in data collection and classification. The International Chamber of Commerce has proposed standardized reporting protocols, though implementation remains voluntary and inconsistent across jurisdictions. Future research would benefit from more unified definitions and reporting standards, enabling more accurate trend analysis and more effective preventive measures.