Fire insurance and the ‘sustainable building’ 127
from fire. In both North America and the United Kingdom, throughout the
19th century, fire insurers pioneered the use of systematic inspection and
data gathering aimed at identifying fire risks, especially in industrial settings.
(Tebeau 2003; O’Malley & Hutchinson 2007). Building up a considerable
data base, and deploying actuarial practices standard in the wider insurance
industry, fire insurance greatly influenced the early formation of a risk-based
regime that has substantially shaped the urban fire environment through,
inter alia, building regulation, infrastructure planning, industrial standards,
and public safety measures. Indeed even into the twentieth century, as in
Australia for example (O’Malley & Roberts 2014), the insurance industry
effectively became the principal regulatory agency for urban fire prevention
where state intervention lagged. This was something core to fire insurance
industry practice, as from the mid-1800s, across the English-speaking world
at least, insurers had set fire safety standards and enforced these through the
threat of refusal to provide insurance for non-compliance and through the
use of premium pricing to drive improvement in fire protection.
Despite this, there has never been a clear and consensual path towards
urban fire security even while all parties would subscribe to the ideal of a
fire-safe environment. Rather, the field has been one of more or less continuous contestation. For obvious reasons, fire insurers overwhelmingly have
been on the side of maximising fire security. While it could be argued that a
fire-secure environment would destroy the market for fire insurance, insurers have both an interest in keeping premiums affordable, and in protecting
insured properties against fire risks from adjacent buildings. Fire services –
often founded by and still often partially funded through fire insurance –
have been a consistent ally, focusing on the lives of their members and the
public. But property developers, local governments, and other industrial
interests have frequently opposed or passively resisted increased fire security, largely because of the often considerable expense involved. This ‘fire
politics’ has been a central feature of international urban fire security more
or less continuously since the 1850s (O’Malley & Hutchinson 2007).
Given the general prominence of sustainability rhetoric in the public
sphere, it is not surprising that recently urban fire politics has been considerably shaped by a concern with environmental sustainability. Both in terms
of the resources consumed to create fire safety, and the resources destroyed
in fires, sustainability in this field has focused on the environmental implications of buildings: summed up in the term ‘the sustainable building.’ This
intersection between sustainability and fire safety is much more than merely
a side issue in contemporary urban fire governance, and despite superficial
appearances sustainability is far from an agreed-upon goal. Instead, sustainability has become the site of a core struggle, in which the fire insurance industry again has been pivotal. On the surface it would appear as
though the key contenders in this politics have harmoniously adopted the
practice of sustainability, and are collectively advancing the building regulatory reform agenda towards a shared objective of greater environmental
from fire. In both North America and the United Kingdom, throughout the
19th century, fire insurers pioneered the use of systematic inspection and
data gathering aimed at identifying fire risks, especially in industrial settings.
(Tebeau 2003; O’Malley & Hutchinson 2007). Building up a considerable
data base, and deploying actuarial practices standard in the wider insurance
industry, fire insurance greatly influenced the early formation of a risk-based
regime that has substantially shaped the urban fire environment through,
inter alia, building regulation, infrastructure planning, industrial standards,
and public safety measures. Indeed even into the twentieth century, as in
Australia for example (O’Malley & Roberts 2014), the insurance industry
effectively became the principal regulatory agency for urban fire prevention
where state intervention lagged. This was something core to fire insurance
industry practice, as from the mid-1800s, across the English-speaking world
at least, insurers had set fire safety standards and enforced these through the
threat of refusal to provide insurance for non-compliance and through the
use of premium pricing to drive improvement in fire protection.
Despite this, there has never been a clear and consensual path towards
urban fire security even while all parties would subscribe to the ideal of a
fire-safe environment. Rather, the field has been one of more or less continuous contestation. For obvious reasons, fire insurers overwhelmingly have
been on the side of maximising fire security. While it could be argued that a
fire-secure environment would destroy the market for fire insurance, insurers have both an interest in keeping premiums affordable, and in protecting
insured properties against fire risks from adjacent buildings. Fire services –
often founded by and still often partially funded through fire insurance –
have been a consistent ally, focusing on the lives of their members and the
public. But property developers, local governments, and other industrial
interests have frequently opposed or passively resisted increased fire security, largely because of the often considerable expense involved. This ‘fire
politics’ has been a central feature of international urban fire security more
or less continuously since the 1850s (O’Malley & Hutchinson 2007).
Given the general prominence of sustainability rhetoric in the public
sphere, it is not surprising that recently urban fire politics has been considerably shaped by a concern with environmental sustainability. Both in terms
of the resources consumed to create fire safety, and the resources destroyed
in fires, sustainability in this field has focused on the environmental implications of buildings: summed up in the term ‘the sustainable building.’ This
intersection between sustainability and fire safety is much more than merely
a side issue in contemporary urban fire governance, and despite superficial
appearances sustainability is far from an agreed-upon goal. Instead, sustainability has become the site of a core struggle, in which the fire insurance industry again has been pivotal. On the surface it would appear as
though the key contenders in this politics have harmoniously adopted the
practice of sustainability, and are collectively advancing the building regulatory reform agenda towards a shared objective of greater environmental