Read time: 8 Minutes
Fire Safety is a contentious issue for many organisations today, it adds to a growing list of complex obligations placed on organisations which pulls them away from what they are actually trying to achieve, by an ever growing compliance driven business environment.
Fire Safety has created its own industry consisting of an army of engineers, academics and endless BSI standards about door hinges and ironmongery, lightning protection and ugly signage which makes any respectable workplace look overly commercialised.
Don’t get me wrong, these people are highly skilled and are making society safer, something i wholeheartedly support, but i feel the lines have significantly been blurred between smart architecture with fire safety included in new building design and burdening organisations which lease commercial space with the responsibility of remediating poor design choices in old buildings which remain largely outside of the tenant organisations control.
Respectfully, these organisations have no stake in the highly complex and nuanced fire safety engineering measures present in a building which they don’t even own. Why should an organisation care what specification the hinges on their doors are? Why should a small accounting firm who rents their offices have to pay for an annual fire door survey? Does any of this actually alter the organisation’s risk exposure (the key word being organisations)?
I feel, despite the numerous qualifications and academic research that takes place in the Fire Safety space, and the millions of pounds that are handed over by organisations every year to “solve” this problem, there isn’t actually a clear understanding of the risks that fire poses to an organisation:
- There is a risk that fire develops in the workplace, harming people
- There is a risk that fire develops in the workplace, harming our material assets
- There is a risk that we do not meet fire safety legislation obligations, leading to potential prosecution
- There is a risk that a fire develops in the workplace, harming our reputation
I really believe the problem of Fire Safety should be simple for organisations:
Protecting People
Fire is harmful to humans, but only in close proximity, if you separate the humans from the fire, they remain safe – the focus of any Fire Safety program should be your employees leaving the workplace in the event of a perceived fire as quickly as possible, this must include adequate means of detection (fire alarms), adequate means of escape (ways of exiting the workplace) and should be tested with evacuation drills, with a focus on dedicated efforts to improve the intent and capability of people to leave the workplace at the first sign of potential fire it is wise to consider alternate means of shelter when evacuating groups of people).
Protecting Material Assets
Most organisations have already paid for expensive building insurance which covers fire damage, if your organisation houses particularly valuable assets at a site (maybe a data centre or a large repository of paper financial records which cannot be retrieved easily), which may benefit from additional fire protection – this should be risk assessed quantitatively on a case by case basis, and a risk strategy designed, balancing the cost of controls against the risk exposure. I believe this to be the optimal approach for the organisation, instead of just implementing controls based on surface level analysis or industry best practice.
Compliance Risks
Fire Safety legislation is burdensome, obligations should be met to avoid compliance risks. However, compliance should not be confused for good fire safety risk management, the two are not mutually inclusive.
Good Fire Prevention
The Fire triangle is an excellent model for identifying fire factors in the workplace, where all three of these aspects are met, there is a real possibility of fire.
Oxygen is naturally present in the atmosphere (and may be stored in concentrated form for medical or industrial use) it is very unlikely that any fire safety professional can alter this.
Fuel can come in many forms; building fabric, flammable materials and furniture to name a few, most workplace objects can be considered fuels. The reality is that these fuels can exist in abundance without causing a fire – i could fill my house with BBQ starters and charcoal (i am not recommending you do this), but without an ignition source, it is physically impossible for these items to cause a fire in isolation.
I am not suggesting that the fuel factor should be ignored, however beyond the obvious suggestions such as storing flammable materials appropriately (which would likely be addressed by good health and safety management in areas such as COSHH or Housekeeping) or spending millions of pounds to rebuild the workplace in fireproof materials and repurchasing all the organisations assets in fireproof or resistant form, neither of which are practical solutions.
Given that the other two factors are naturally present in virtually all circumstances, I would not consider these fire hazards. Fire hazards (hazards which may cause fire) in my opinion are sources of ignition (heat). These are generally well understood and include; electrical wiring faults, poor electrical configuration, faulty appliances or smoking. There are many other sources of ignition such as arson, chemical reactions, machinery which produces heat or sparks, or in extreme circumstances static electricity (this is not an exhaustive list).
Sources of ignition are the easiest fire factor for organisations to influence, and so should be the focus of fire prevention efforts.
Fire Engineering
While compartmentation is great for limiting the spread of fire, this should not be the responsibility of the organisation – it is the landlord of the commercial property who suffers greatly if the building is severely damaged or is destroyed by fire (the organisation and its assets should be protected by insurance, good evacuation procedures and good fire prevention in the workplace), as such fire prevention should fall within the purview of the landlord. Choosing a landlord who is responsible and proactive when it comes to fire safety engineering or reminding your landlord who really suffers in the event of a serious fire and attempting to collaborate with them on fire safety engineering is the best way to go in my opinion.
It is worth finishing by saying I am by no means an expert in fire safety, I hold the bare minimum qualification in fire risk assessment (5 day course), have minimal practical experience and was a technician of the institute of fire safety managers. I have however created fire safety policies, procedures and strategic risk assessments, looking at fire safety through the lens of enterprise risk and organisational management.