128 P O’Malley
sustainability. This, however, conceals a much more complex reality. The
discourse of sustainability – and indeed the very methodologies whereby it
is translated into practice – have been co-opted and employed by the various parties to advance their traditional political and economic interests.
Defining sustainability
The political contest begins at the definitional level for there is no generally
accepted definition of sustainability in fire politics. The apparent absence of
conflict here is an effect of the fact that the key players operate with different
definitions of sustainability, such that all can profess to be advancing the
spirit of sustainability. In practice, the various major players have promoted
conceptions of sustainability that embody and further their respective longterm interests concerning fire safety. The same holds for those terms associated with the concept of sustainability, chief among them ‘green building’
(as both an object and activity), ‘environmentally friendly building’ and
‘eco-friendly building’ (Tidwell & Murphy 2010, p. 2; Merrill Lynch 2005,
p. 1). An analysis of fire politics must therefore unpack the various definitions of sustainability (and its associated discourses, concepts, and methodologies) that express the various players’ concerns. As will rapidly appear,
both fire insurers and their opponents render sustainability an economic
issue, and in so doing translate the politics of sustainability into a continuation of a struggle that has characterised fire insurance and fire regulation
for over a hundred years. Perhaps unexpectedly, a focus on linking fire prevention and environmental sustainability began not with fire insurers, but
with property developers.
Property developers and the economisation of sustainability
At the end of the 20 th century, property developers recognised the potential
of environmental sustainability to produce profit. Until then, the assumption had been that a green building was simply a luxury for which clients
paid a premium and which thus drove down overall demand. But as environmental concerns became widespread, developers re-examined the concept of environmental sustainability, and saw less of a conflict between
market and cost considerations and going green. Thus began the ‘economisation’ of the concept of sustainability, that is the deployment of discursive
practices that render any phenomenon part of ‘the economy’ Caliskan and
Callon (2009, 2010) 3 . In Australia, leading the way in economising sustainability in fire prevention, was the Investa Property Group, which started the
process in 1999 on the assumption that sustainability was good for profit
as a marketing tool, as observed by many others since (e.g. Merrill Lynch
2005, p. 8). So often are marketing advantages now given as an incentive for
‘going green’ that they emerge as a prime mover in the sustainable building movement: going green thus is revealed not as an end in itself but as a
major contributor to economic profitability (Carter 2011, p. 54). In a closely
sustainability. This, however, conceals a much more complex reality. The
discourse of sustainability – and indeed the very methodologies whereby it
is translated into practice – have been co-opted and employed by the various parties to advance their traditional political and economic interests.
Defining sustainability
The political contest begins at the definitional level for there is no generally
accepted definition of sustainability in fire politics. The apparent absence of
conflict here is an effect of the fact that the key players operate with different
definitions of sustainability, such that all can profess to be advancing the
spirit of sustainability. In practice, the various major players have promoted
conceptions of sustainability that embody and further their respective longterm interests concerning fire safety. The same holds for those terms associated with the concept of sustainability, chief among them ‘green building’
(as both an object and activity), ‘environmentally friendly building’ and
‘eco-friendly building’ (Tidwell & Murphy 2010, p. 2; Merrill Lynch 2005,
p. 1). An analysis of fire politics must therefore unpack the various definitions of sustainability (and its associated discourses, concepts, and methodologies) that express the various players’ concerns. As will rapidly appear,
both fire insurers and their opponents render sustainability an economic
issue, and in so doing translate the politics of sustainability into a continuation of a struggle that has characterised fire insurance and fire regulation
for over a hundred years. Perhaps unexpectedly, a focus on linking fire prevention and environmental sustainability began not with fire insurers, but
with property developers.
Property developers and the economisation of sustainability
At the end of the 20 th century, property developers recognised the potential
of environmental sustainability to produce profit. Until then, the assumption had been that a green building was simply a luxury for which clients
paid a premium and which thus drove down overall demand. But as environmental concerns became widespread, developers re-examined the concept of environmental sustainability, and saw less of a conflict between
market and cost considerations and going green. Thus began the ‘economisation’ of the concept of sustainability, that is the deployment of discursive
practices that render any phenomenon part of ‘the economy’ Caliskan and
Callon (2009, 2010) 3 . In Australia, leading the way in economising sustainability in fire prevention, was the Investa Property Group, which started the
process in 1999 on the assumption that sustainability was good for profit
as a marketing tool, as observed by many others since (e.g. Merrill Lynch
2005, p. 8). So often are marketing advantages now given as an incentive for
‘going green’ that they emerge as a prime mover in the sustainable building movement: going green thus is revealed not as an end in itself but as a
major contributor to economic profitability (Carter 2011, p. 54). In a closely