Fire safety buyers prioritise competence over cost, says NSI
NSI and BAFE’s The Fire Safety Buyers Report 2026 finds that UK organisations are placing greater weight on competence, assurance and third-party certification when selecting fire safety service providers, although many decision-makers remain uncertain about legal duties and how provider competence should be checked.
The report, based on independent research by Sapio Research, examines how UK buyers choose fire safety providers and how expectations have changed as fire safety responsibilities receive more attention from building owners, employers and duty holders.
Its central finding is that buyers increasingly want evidence that fire safety providers are competent, independently assessed and able to support defensible decisions if those decisions are later challenged.
Fire safety awareness has increased since Grenfell
The report places current buyer behaviour within the period following the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire, which claimed 72 lives and led to greater attention on fire safety procurement, competence and accountability.
NSI and BAFE say decision-makers now take fire safety responsibility more seriously than they did a decade ago, with 93% of those surveyed reporting greater focus and action around fire safety in the past five years.
The research also found that 89% believe fire safety is now more of a strategic business priority, while 76% say they prioritise fire safety more than they did five years ago.
Despite this shift, fire safety does not yet sit at the top of the building management agenda.
When respondents were asked what matters most in building maintenance and management, fire safety ranked fifth overall, behind general health and safety and cost control.
The report describes this as a challenge for both buyers and providers, because fire safety is receiving more attention but still competes with other operational and financial pressures.
Spending expectations are rising
The research indicates that spending on fire safety is expected to increase during the next five years.
Almost six in ten buyers, 59%, describe their current investment in fire protection as high, with 16% describing it as very high.
Looking ahead, 77% expect fire safety investment to increase during the next five years, including 39% who anticipate a significant increase.
NSI and BAFE also link higher awareness to higher spending expectations.
Among respondents who said they were fully aware of their legal fire safety responsibilities, 85% expect spending to increase, compared with 68% among those who said they were only somewhat aware.
The report says this matters because informed buyers are more likely to invest in fire safety and to scrutinise the competence of those delivering fire safety services.
As organisations become more aware of legal and reputational exposure, they appear less willing to rely on suppliers whose competence has not been independently checked.
Organisations view fire safety in different ways
The report says organisations do not all view fire safety through the same lens.
Some treat it mainly as a compliance requirement, while others view it as part of duty of care, risk management or business continuity.
The research found that 45% of decision-makers see fire safety as a compliance necessity.
A further 34% view it as a moral or ethical duty, while 21% mainly see it as supporting and enabling business operations.
This split has practical implications for providers.
Where buyers see fire safety as a compliance necessity, procurement may focus on minimum obligations, low cost or administrative completion.
Where buyers see fire safety as a duty of care, procurement is more likely to focus on competence, reassurance and evidence that decisions can be justified.
The report also identifies continued complacency in some organisations.
More than a quarter of decision-makers, 26%, believe fire safety is not taken as seriously as it should be within their organisation.
Among those respondents, 51% cited complacency that a fire is unlikely to happen, while 44% cited other strategic priorities.
Budget constraints were cited by 38%, 36% said fire safety is seen as compliance rather than business strategy and 31% referred to a lack of organisational sponsorship.
The report also found that 26% cited the absence of fire safety from anyone’s official role, while 21% selected none of the listed reasons.
Responsible Persons want reassurance
The report uses the term Responsible Person as a collective shorthand for persons with legal fire safety responsibility across UK jurisdictions.
It notes that England and Wales use Responsible Person, Scotland uses Duty Holder and Northern Ireland uses Appropriate Person.
These terms are not identical, because each jurisdiction has its own legal wording and duties.
In workplaces, the Responsible Person is generally the employer of those working in the premises.
In premises that are not workplaces, the person with control of the premises is usually responsible.
Where no one has control of the premises, the owner is almost always the Responsible Person.
NSI and BAFE say those who identify as Responsible Persons experience fire safety more personally than wider decision-makers.
Among this group, 45% view fire safety primarily as a moral or ethical duty, compared with 40% who view it mainly as a compliance requirement.
Responsible Persons are also more likely to place importance on reassurance and peace of mind when choosing a fire safety provider.
The report says this reflects the nature of the role, because those with legal duties must put appropriate measures in place and be able to show that their decisions were sound.
Confusion remains over legal duties
The research identifies uncertainty around the Responsible Person role and its boundaries.
A third of decision-makers express some level of doubt about the legal duties of the Responsible Person.
The report also found that 38% changed their answer about who the Responsible Person was after legal definitions were explained.
A further 66% selected responsibilities that do not formally sit within the role.
Among respondents who identify themselves as Responsible Persons, 15% are not fully confident in their responsibilities.
NSI and BAFE say this uncertainty creates an important role for fire safety providers.
Technical delivery remains essential, but many Responsible Persons are also seeking clarity on duties, support in understanding risk and help in demonstrating due diligence.
The report makes clear that organisations do not expect providers to assume legal responsibility.
It identifies an emerging buyer expectation that providers should explain risk clearly, show how competence is assured and support stronger decision-making.
Proof of competence outranks cost
One of the strongest findings concerns how buyers choose fire safety providers.
When decision-makers were asked what matters most when selecting a provider, proof of competence ranked as the single most important factor.
The research found that 69% said proof of competence was essential.
This placed it ahead of cost, reviews, recommendations and industry-recognised certifications.
The report also found that 94% of organisations ranked proof of competence as more important than cost.
Less than a third, 31%, placed pricing among their top three considerations.
Cost still matters in procurement, but the research challenges the view that buyers are primarily price-led.
NSI and BAFE say buyers are looking for providers that give them the greatest confidence, because fire safety decisions are more likely to be questioned and reviewed.
This means provider selection now needs to be defensible as well as operationally suitable.
A buyer may need to explain why a provider was selected, what evidence of competence was available and how that decision would stand up if challenged after an incident or inspection.
Certification is becoming a trust signal
The report says trust remains a major factor when choosing a fire safety provider, but the basis for trust is changing.
Using the Trust Equation developed by David Maister, Charles H. Green and Robert M. Galford, NSI and BAFE frame trust as a combination of credibility, reliability and personal reassurance, divided by self-interest.
In practical terms, buyers trust providers more when they appear credible, dependable and independently checked.
The research found that 79% of buyers rank certification and independent auditing among the strongest signals of trust.
Brand reputation was selected by 66%, testimonials by 33% and recommendations by 23%.
NSI and BAFE say this indicates that trust is shifting away from informal relationships and towards evidence that can be reviewed.
Providers relying only on reputation, personal relationships or online comments may find those signals carry less weight as buyers face greater scrutiny.
The report gives particular weight to UKAS-accredited third-party certification because it reduces reliance on self-certification.
A provider that certifies its own compliance may be viewed as less trustworthy than one assessed by an independent third party.
Buyers support third-party certification
The research found strong support for certification as a way to demonstrate competence.
The report says 83% of respondents agree that third-party certification is the standard route to demonstrating fire assessor competence.
It also found that 81% say certified providers are worth paying extra for.
When asked about the benefits of choosing a certified provider, 83% said certification helps meet legal or regulatory requirements.
A further 49% said it improves the quality and reliability of the service provided.
The research found that 46% said certification provides peace of mind in a worst-case scenario.
Among respondents designated as Responsible Persons, 55% rated peace of mind as a key benefit.
NSI and BAFE argue that certification is not primarily about branding for these buyers.
It helps address specific concerns around personal accountability, legal exposure, reputational risk and the need to show that decisions were reasonable.
Checks are still inconsistent
The report identifies a gap between the value buyers place on certification and the checks they apply in practice.
Although 84% of respondents say they use a certified provider, closer analysis found that 73% either do not know who certifies their supplier, are unsure whether their supplier is certified or use a supplier that is not independently certified.
This means competence may be assumed rather than checked.
Open-text responses showed that some organisations assess competence through online reviews, informal trust-building, gradual increases in responsibility or internal checks by non-specialists.
NSI and BAFE say this creates risk for competent and certified providers, because they may be assessed alongside unverified competitors on the basis of familiarity or informal signals.
It also creates an opportunity.
As scrutiny increases, buyers are likely to need clearer evidence that they have carried out proper checks before appointing a supplier.
The report says UKAS-accredited third-party certification is moving beyond a differentiator and towards an expected baseline in parts of the market.
What certification provides for buyers
The report identifies four practical functions of third-party certification.
The first is independent checking of competence.
This gives buyers an objective assessment that the provider meets recognised technical and operational standards.
The second is a clear due diligence trail.
This supports the Responsible Person in showing that a competent and independently audited provider was selected.
The third is greater confidence for clients and occupants.
This means buyers can have increased confidence that fire safety measures are being delivered in line with recognised standards.
The fourth is professional credibility for providers.
Certification gives providers a recognised signal that distinguishes them from unverified competitors.
When decision-makers were asked what choosing a certified provider would achieve, 97% agreed that certified providers bring clear benefits.
The research found that 70% say certified providers offer a trusted solution for fire safety needs.
A further 69% say they provide confidence that risk to life is minimised, while 68% say they provide an evidence trail of due diligence.
Implications for service providers
The report presents certification as a strategic choice for fire safety providers.
For providers, the issue is no longer only whether they can deliver the work.
Buyers increasingly want providers to show competence, explain how it has been assessed and provide evidence that can support the buyer’s own duties.
This changes the provider-client relationship.
A provider that only completes the required technical task may meet the immediate service need, but a provider that also explains risk, documents competence and supports defensible decision-making is more closely aligned with current buyer expectations.
NSI and BAFE say providers who combine technical delivery with support on responsibilities, clear risk communication and independently verified certification are better placed to build long-term client relationships.
For providers seeking to lead the market, the report says independently verified competence is becoming a defining feature of professional fire safety services.
Implications for Responsible Persons
The report also sets out a clear message for Responsible Persons and duty holders.
Fire safety management now requires greater focus on how provider competence is assessed and evidenced.
Responsible Persons may face questions about how they knew a provider was competent, how the decision could be evidenced and what assurance was in place if something went wrong.
This means provider selection must be documented in a way that can be explained after the event.
The report says Responsible Persons should be able to show why a provider was selected and how that provider’s capability was independently verified.
This is linked to broader regulatory and industry attention on competence, accountability and assurance.
The report does not say certification transfers legal responsibility away from the Responsible Person.
It says certification helps create a structured evidence trail for decisions made by those who hold fire safety duties.
How the research defines certification
NSI and BAFE define third-party certification in the report as independent, UKAS-accredited certification of fire safety service providers or fire risk assessors against recognised schemes and scopes.
The report says this does not include trade association membership, directories or unaccredited listing services.
It cites BS 8674:2025, published in August 2025, as one example of a recognised framework.
The standard sets out competence, skills and knowledge for fire risk assessors in the UK.
The report also explains that UKAS is the United Kingdom Accreditation Service and the UK’s National Accreditation Body.
UKAS assesses and accredits organisations that provide certification, testing and inspection services.
Organisations behind the report
BAFE and NSI commissioned the research to examine how fire safety is understood, how supplier decisions are made, how competence is assessed and where gaps exist between awareness and assurance.
BAFE says it has set fire safety competence benchmarks in the UK for more than 40 years.
Its third-party certification schemes are delivered through UKAS-accredited and licensed certification bodies, including NSI.
NSI is described as an independent, UKAS-accredited and BAFE-licensed certification body specialising in certification for the fire safety and security sectors.
The report says NSI has assessed companies against recognised technical and management standards through auditing and inspection for more than 55 years.
Sapio Research conducted the independent survey of UK decision-makers with responsibility for, or influence over, fire safety procurement across different organisation sizes, building types and UK nations.
Fire safety market is moving towards demonstrable assurance
The report concludes that fire safety expectations are rising faster than confidence in some organisations.
Awareness and investment are increasing, but many buyers remain uncertain about responsibilities, competence checks and evidence of due diligence.
This creates a gap between expectation and confidence.
For buyers, the report points to a need for more consistent checking of provider competence.
For providers, it points to a market in which independent certification, documented competence and clear support for duty holders are becoming more important.
The strongest message is that buyers are no longer satisfied with claims of competence alone.
They increasingly expect competence to be shown, checked and documented through independent means.