The Hidden Cost of Poor Fire Risk Assessment
When we talk about poor risk assessments, the conversation quite rightly tends to focus on the most important issue: the possibility that significant risks may be missed.
But there is another consequence that receives far less attention.
Poor risk assessment can be expensive.
Not necessarily because an organisation has failed to spend enough on safety, but because it has been advised to spend money where it wasn't actually necessary.
I was recently carrying out a fire risk assessment at a care home where a previous assessment had recommended replacing a cupboard door with a fire-resisting door.
At first glance, the recommendation might sound perfectly reasonable.
The cupboard contained an electrical distribution board. Electrical equipment presents a potential source of ignition, so upgrading the door to provide additional fire resistance might appear to be an obvious safety improvement.
Except there was a problem.
The cupboard was already located within a suitable fire compartment.
There was no identified risk that justified the additional fire-resisting door and no apparent need for the work that had been recommended. Unfortunately, by the time this was identified, the client had already acted upon the previous assessment.
The cost was approaching £2,000.
More recommendations don't necessarily mean a better assessment
This example illustrates something I think is easily lost when we talk about risk assessment.
The quality of an assessment should not be measured by the number of deficiencies identified or the length of the resulting action plan.
A good risk assessment requires judgement.
It means understanding the hazard, considering the people who may be affected, examining the controls that are already in place and determining whether further measures are actually necessary.
That distinction matters. There can sometimes be a tendency to regard the most cautious recommendation as automatically being the safest one. In reality, good risk management is about achieving an appropriate and proportionate level of safety.
Simply recommending additional measures “just in case” isn't necessarily good risk assessment.
Every recommendation has a consequence
A recommendation in a risk assessment doesn't exist in isolation.
Someone has to act upon it.
That can mean obtaining quotations, arranging contractors, managing access, taking areas out of use and ultimately paying for the work.
Multiply that across a large property portfolio, care provider, healthcare organisation or commercial estate and seemingly minor unnecessary recommendations can become a significant organisational cost.
There is also a less obvious consequence.
Resources spent addressing risks that don't require further control aren't available to address those that do.
That is why proportionality matters.
Good safety management isn't about spending as much money as possible. It is about directing available resources towards measures that genuinely reduce risk.
Risk assessment isn't a defect-finding exercise
One of the most important distinctions is between identifying something that could theoretically be improved and identifying something that presents a level of risk requiring further action.
Those aren't always the same thing.
Standards change. Guidance develops. Buildings age. Existing installations may not reflect the specification we would choose if designing the same premises today.
That does not automatically mean everything should be upgraded to the latest standard.
The assessor's job is to understand the context and determine the significance of what they find.
There will, of course, be occasions where substantial expenditure is entirely justified. Where people or property are exposed to significant risk, appropriate action should be taken.
However, the recommendation should arise from the risk, rather than simply from the possibility that something could be improved.
Good risk assessment protects more than people and property
An organisation has finite resources. Safety professionals therefore have a responsibility to consider proportionality when recommending how those resources should be used.
A competent assessment should help an organisation understand:
what actually presents a significant risk;
what requires action;
what should take priority;
what controls are proportionate to that risk; and
where expenditure will genuinely improve safety.
That doesn't mean compromising safety to save money.
It means recognising that good safety advice should protect people, property and organisational resources at the same time.
The two objectives aren't incompatible. In fact, good risk management should achieve both.
The hidden cost
The most obvious danger of a poor risk assessment is that something important may be missed.
The less obvious danger is that poor advice can send an organisation in completely the wrong direction — spending time and money resolving problems that didn't really exist while potentially distracting attention from those that do.
A risk assessment should therefore be exactly that: an assessment of risk — not a shopping list of expensive recommendations.
If you've received recommendations from a fire or health and safety risk assessment that don't appear proportionate, or simply don't seem to make sense, it can be worth seeking a second opinion before committing significant resources to the work.
Unsure about a recommendation in your fire risk assessment?
If you've been advised to undertake significant fire safety work and are uncertain whether the recommendation is necessary or proportionate, we can review the findings and provide an independent professional opinion.
We're always happy to have that conversation.
Comments