Fire insurance and the ‘sustainable building’ 129
linked way, more generally, corporate social responsibility has blossomed
in recent times precisely because of this increased recognition that ethical
business ‘pays.’ It is in this context that we can make sense of ‘sustainable’ fire safety practices emanating from the developers, who – perhaps not
wanting to appear economic opportunists – publicly proclaim many other
reasons for their alignment with green building. These include pressure
from government regulations, the impact of energy ratings, capital expenditures, reduced running costs, and ‘ethical reasons’ (Carter 2011, p. 62). Each
of these however converges with the financial interests of the developers.
While this convergence is more or less self-evident with respect to marketing and reduced capital expenditure, reductions in running costs and
improved energy ratings both provide marketing resources while the latter
may attract subsidies and reduced costs.
And while ethical concerns may be genuine, these are also major marketing assets. More problematic is the issue of regulation since, as will be
seen later, government regulation has only followed developments emanating from industry 4 . The state, following a more or less explicit neo-liberal
agenda favouring self-regulation, has not been proactive in advancing the
sustainability agenda in the Building Code of Australia (BCA) 5 .
How, then, do the developers’ fire-safety objectives fit into the picture of
sustainability? Here the BCA has been important, since it has promoted performance-based, rather than prescriptive, regulation. Where self-regulation
cannot be given free rein, for example where public safety has to be guaranteed, regulation has tended towards regulation of ends (performance
regulation) rather than means (prescriptive regulation). In the case of fire
protection, this means moving away from prescribing how safety is to be
achieved, for example by the specification of materials and design of infrastructure, towards giving leeway to innovate how certain specified ends are
to be achieved. In this regulatory environment, developers now interpret
minimal allowable capital expenditures on fire safety as productive of minimal embodied carbon (that is, the amount of carbon emissions required in the
production of a good or service). From this perspective stripping buildings
of certain passive fire protection systems – such as thicker and more numerous walls for greater fire resistance, and increased compartmentalisation – is
heralded as sustainable. This preferred fire-safety configuration requires for
its construction far fewer carbon emissions than would a more comprehensive passive fire protection strategy 6 . An equivalent level of fire safety is, of
course, proclaimed, on the basis of performance-based fire safety engineering methods. Through quantification, precision modelling, and computer
simulation, a degree of ‘over engineering’ (Carter 2011, p. 71) in fire safety
is identified, and thereby rendered redundant. Today, through the development of performance-based fire safety engineering, the variables in fire safety
assemblages can be so precisely controlled as to allow for substantial reductions in passive fire protection investment. Developers and their engineers
understandably consider this a triumph of rationalisation, for economic
resources are now argued to be more efficiently distributed. Minimalist fire
linked way, more generally, corporate social responsibility has blossomed
in recent times precisely because of this increased recognition that ethical
business ‘pays.’ It is in this context that we can make sense of ‘sustainable’ fire safety practices emanating from the developers, who – perhaps not
wanting to appear economic opportunists – publicly proclaim many other
reasons for their alignment with green building. These include pressure
from government regulations, the impact of energy ratings, capital expenditures, reduced running costs, and ‘ethical reasons’ (Carter 2011, p. 62). Each
of these however converges with the financial interests of the developers.
While this convergence is more or less self-evident with respect to marketing and reduced capital expenditure, reductions in running costs and
improved energy ratings both provide marketing resources while the latter
may attract subsidies and reduced costs.
And while ethical concerns may be genuine, these are also major marketing assets. More problematic is the issue of regulation since, as will be
seen later, government regulation has only followed developments emanating from industry 4 . The state, following a more or less explicit neo-liberal
agenda favouring self-regulation, has not been proactive in advancing the
sustainability agenda in the Building Code of Australia (BCA) 5 .
How, then, do the developers’ fire-safety objectives fit into the picture of
sustainability? Here the BCA has been important, since it has promoted performance-based, rather than prescriptive, regulation. Where self-regulation
cannot be given free rein, for example where public safety has to be guaranteed, regulation has tended towards regulation of ends (performance
regulation) rather than means (prescriptive regulation). In the case of fire
protection, this means moving away from prescribing how safety is to be
achieved, for example by the specification of materials and design of infrastructure, towards giving leeway to innovate how certain specified ends are
to be achieved. In this regulatory environment, developers now interpret
minimal allowable capital expenditures on fire safety as productive of minimal embodied carbon (that is, the amount of carbon emissions required in the
production of a good or service). From this perspective stripping buildings
of certain passive fire protection systems – such as thicker and more numerous walls for greater fire resistance, and increased compartmentalisation – is
heralded as sustainable. This preferred fire-safety configuration requires for
its construction far fewer carbon emissions than would a more comprehensive passive fire protection strategy 6 . An equivalent level of fire safety is, of
course, proclaimed, on the basis of performance-based fire safety engineering methods. Through quantification, precision modelling, and computer
simulation, a degree of ‘over engineering’ (Carter 2011, p. 71) in fire safety
is identified, and thereby rendered redundant. Today, through the development of performance-based fire safety engineering, the variables in fire safety
assemblages can be so precisely controlled as to allow for substantial reductions in passive fire protection investment. Developers and their engineers
understandably consider this a triumph of rationalisation, for economic
resources are now argued to be more efficiently distributed. Minimalist fire