134 P O’Malley
The insurers (and their associated engineers such as FM Global) advocate
a rather different view of sustainable development. In line with their rendering of sustainability as building resilience and durability, the focus of their
sustainability agenda has been on the refinement of the premium – their traditional means of incentivising resilient and durable buildings that factor-in
acceptable levels of passive as well as active fire protection (O’Malley &
Roberts 2014). The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) has developed relevant risk databases to aid in this effort, and in particular has been working
on a publicly accessible Building Resilience Rating Tool (Edge Environment
2013) to assist in the calculation of resilience to hazards such as fire, and in
assessing premiums. Its focus is thus not centred on broader questions of the
environment and sustainability as such, but with respect to risks to capital.
Although the common-sense view might see a certain communion
of interests between the green property developers and the insurers, it is
instructive to point out that there is no substantial mention of fire safety by
the green developers. Moreover, that the green developers and the insurers
are not on the same page is further evidenced by the important fact that as
noted the Green Star rating tool – itself an initiative of the green building
industry – has no fire safety criteria. In other words, Australia’s leading
sustainable building rating tool can deem a building sustainable even as it
fails to cater for anything beyond the strict minimum fire safety standards
set out in the BCA. With respect to building rating tools, in other words, the
insurers and the green building industry are operating with quite divergent
understandings of resilience and sustainability. Each has a rating tool to
match. This closely maps onto the pattern emerging when consideration is
given to the fire protection manufacturing industry.
The fire protection manufacturers (the active and passive fire protection
technology manufacturers) have integrated the discourse of sustainability
into their product marketing. Active fire protection manufacturers (allied
largely with developers) incorporate notions of sustainability in both their
automatic and manual fire-suppressant technology; from sprinkler systems
that economise (in both senses) water usage to fire extinguishers with more
economical (again, in both senses) release rates and chemicals, sustainable
active fire protection translates into cost reductions. As with the developers,
this carefully eschews issues of safety and the environmental costs of damage and destruction due to fire. Passive fire protection manufacturers, (allied
largely with insurers) on the other hand, incorporate notions of sustainability that now include ‘resiliency, life-cycle analysis and occupant health’ (San
Diego 2013, p. 29). The claim is that passive fire protection ‘helps reduce
the loss of components and materials, with the environmental benefit of
reduced resource needs including raw materials, manufacturing energy and
resources for construction, reconstruction and renovations required due to
fire damage’ (San Diego 2013, p. 29 emphasis added).
While its allies in insurance centre resource (and thus economic) issues,
the fire services’ response is far less concerned with this economisation of
The insurers (and their associated engineers such as FM Global) advocate
a rather different view of sustainable development. In line with their rendering of sustainability as building resilience and durability, the focus of their
sustainability agenda has been on the refinement of the premium – their traditional means of incentivising resilient and durable buildings that factor-in
acceptable levels of passive as well as active fire protection (O’Malley &
Roberts 2014). The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) has developed relevant risk databases to aid in this effort, and in particular has been working
on a publicly accessible Building Resilience Rating Tool (Edge Environment
2013) to assist in the calculation of resilience to hazards such as fire, and in
assessing premiums. Its focus is thus not centred on broader questions of the
environment and sustainability as such, but with respect to risks to capital.
Although the common-sense view might see a certain communion
of interests between the green property developers and the insurers, it is
instructive to point out that there is no substantial mention of fire safety by
the green developers. Moreover, that the green developers and the insurers
are not on the same page is further evidenced by the important fact that as
noted the Green Star rating tool – itself an initiative of the green building
industry – has no fire safety criteria. In other words, Australia’s leading
sustainable building rating tool can deem a building sustainable even as it
fails to cater for anything beyond the strict minimum fire safety standards
set out in the BCA. With respect to building rating tools, in other words, the
insurers and the green building industry are operating with quite divergent
understandings of resilience and sustainability. Each has a rating tool to
match. This closely maps onto the pattern emerging when consideration is
given to the fire protection manufacturing industry.
The fire protection manufacturers (the active and passive fire protection
technology manufacturers) have integrated the discourse of sustainability
into their product marketing. Active fire protection manufacturers (allied
largely with developers) incorporate notions of sustainability in both their
automatic and manual fire-suppressant technology; from sprinkler systems
that economise (in both senses) water usage to fire extinguishers with more
economical (again, in both senses) release rates and chemicals, sustainable
active fire protection translates into cost reductions. As with the developers,
this carefully eschews issues of safety and the environmental costs of damage and destruction due to fire. Passive fire protection manufacturers, (allied
largely with insurers) on the other hand, incorporate notions of sustainability that now include ‘resiliency, life-cycle analysis and occupant health’ (San
Diego 2013, p. 29). The claim is that passive fire protection ‘helps reduce
the loss of components and materials, with the environmental benefit of
reduced resource needs including raw materials, manufacturing energy and
resources for construction, reconstruction and renovations required due to
fire damage’ (San Diego 2013, p. 29 emphasis added).
While its allies in insurance centre resource (and thus economic) issues,
the fire services’ response is far less concerned with this economisation of