Passive fire safety: Fire safety’s best-kept secret, or its biggest lie?

by Featured NewsPassive

Duncan J. White, IFSJ Managing Editor, asks whether passive fire safety is the industry’s best-kept secret or its biggest lie

The industry prides itself on innovation in active systems, but behind every headline fire lies the same truth: compromised or ignored passive fire protection.

Until we confront this blind spot, we are designing buildings that look safe but aren’t.

It’s time for uncomfortable honesty: passive fire protection (PFP) is being neglected, not occasionally, not by accident, but as a matter of routine.

And unless we confront this complacency head-on, we will keep reading inquiry reports that echo the same failures, with the same tragic outcomes.

We all know the pattern.

Designs start with robust specifications.

Then the budget tightens, “value engineering” begins, and suddenly PFP becomes optional, stripped back, downgraded, compromised.

On site, penetrations are left unsealed, fire doors are wedged open, and coatings are thinned.

Inspections tick boxes rather than interrogate performance.

And once the building is signed off, maintenance regimes conveniently forget that PFP even exists.

The result? Buildings that look compliant on paper but in reality are catastrophically vulnerable.

This is not a technical failure; the science of PFP is sound, the products are tested, and the standards are clear.

It is a cultural failure – ours.

The fire industry must stop pretending that sprinklers and alarms can compensate for the absence of structural resilience.

They cannot.

Active systems mitigate fire; passive systems contain it.

When PFP is neglected, we are gambling with time, the one variable we cannot control in an emergency.

Steel collapses, smoke spreads, and lives are lost.

And we shrug, citing “budget pressures” or “oversight,” as though those words excuse preventable deaths.

Regulators, too, bear responsibility.

Enforcement is inconsistent, penalties are weak, and loopholes are wide enough to drive a contractor’s van through.

If the law allows corners to be cut, corners will be cut.

It’s that simple.

Stronger regulation is not an inconvenience; it is the only way to prevent the quiet erosion of safety that happens in every project cycle.

And building owners? They need to face the truth: cutting PFP is not saving money; it is transferring liability.

When the worst happens, the question will not be “how much did you save?” but “why didn’t you protect people properly?” The reputational and financial fallout of neglect will dwarf the upfront cost of doing the job right.

We cannot keep whispering about PFP in technical forums while the spotlight stays fixed on active systems.

Our industry must be louder, bolder, less polite.

Passive protection is not a side issue; it is the foundation of fire safety.

If we don’t give it equal priority, then we are complicit in the very tragedies we claim to prevent.

It’s time to stop treating PFP as invisible.

It is not hidden; it is absent.

And unless we change, that absence will continue to kill.

Stay safe!

This was originally published in the September 2025 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

Industry Comment: Trust, transparency and toxic culture

by Breaking News

IFSJ Managing Editor Duncan J. White examines the reinstatement of Chief Fire Officer Hardiman’s and the broader implications for organisational culture

I have been following the case against Chief Fire Officer Simon Hardiman and Deputy Chief Fire Officer Adam Matthews with interest, and in the preparation of this response sought the views of the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS).

The decision to reinstate Hardiman as Chief Fire Officer of the Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) after being found guilty of misconduct is an example of the challenges that public institutions face in balancing accountability with organisational stability.

This case highlights cultural issues within emergency services and raises questions about the sufficiency of the response to such behaviour.

The investigation into Hardiman’s conduct revealed that he used abusive language in messages about women and even expressed violent sentiments about a senior female colleague.

The fact that these comments were made by someone in a leadership position has been viewed as particularly troubling as it sets a dangerous tone for the organisational culture.

Such behaviour, especially in a public institution like a fire service, appears to undermine the ethical standards and trust that are vital for leadership roles​.

The decision by the Shropshire Fire Authority to allow Hardiman to return to his role, issuing only a written warning and requiring him to undergo mandatory training, has been met with a mixture of support and outrage.

On one hand, the Fire Authority likely believes that Hardiman’s experience and leadership skills are essential for maintaining operational continuity, especially in such a critical public service.

Hardiman himself expressed contrition, stating that the messages did not represent who he is or the values of the service he leads and acknowledged that there were “lessons to be learned”​. However, this response has raised several ethical concerns.

First, the leniency of the punishment, a written warning, risks sending a message that misconduct, particularly sexist and abusive behaviour, can be minimised, especially when it involves individuals in senior positions.

This decision could foster a sense of impunity, where senior leaders feel protected from serious consequences even when their actions undermine organisational integrity.

It also signals to female colleagues, and the workforce at large, that their safety and dignity are secondary to operational concerns. The outrage expressed by several women in the fire service, who feel that Hardiman’s punishment was too lenient, reflects this disillusionment.​

Furthermore, this case underscores the reports of broader issues of toxic workplace culture in fire services, where sexist and abusive behaviour has been found to be pervasive.

The fact that the investigation into Hardiman was part of a larger review of misconduct in multiple fire services across the UK suggests that this is not an isolated incident, but part of a systemic issue.

A parliamentary inquiry earlier this year concluded that the fire service as a whole suffers from “institutional misogyny and racism,” further highlighting the urgency of reform​.

When approached on this matter the Chair of the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) Mark Hardingham told IFSJ: “My thoughts have been with the victim in this case who had the courage to speak out, and with all those who have experienced bullying and harassment in fire and rescue services.

“Decisions on what action to take when unacceptable behaviour is reported or uncovered lie with the local fire authority or relevant governing body, and it is important to note that NFCC has no power or influence over local decision-making.

“However, we are clear that issues of this nature have an impact on all fire and rescue services and on NFCC as a membership organisation.

“NFCC is working with fire and rescue services across the country to lead improvements in culture and inclusion. Earlier this year, we published an update on the NFCC Culture Action Plan, which recognised that positive progress had been made in delivering against the plan due to the focused efforts of fire and rescue services and partners.

“But it also made clear that too many people are still being let down, with change across the sector not happening quickly or consistently enough. We have witnessed how acutely every setback is felt by those who have spoken out about unacceptable behaviour.

“In response to calls from our members, we will now be developing a revised policy for responding to incidents of serious misconduct by individual members, including options for sanctions, which we will publish once agreed.

“We will also ensure the voices of victims of bullying are heard, working with our lived experience panel to develop and shape our work moving forward.”

For SFRS and other fire services, this situation presents an opportunity for deeper reflection. While individual accountability is crucial, it must be accompanied by systemic change that prioritises the creation of inclusive, respectful, and safe workplaces.

Reinstating leaders like Hardiman without serious consequences risks perpetuating a culture where abusive behaviour is tolerated, as long as the perpetrator holds a high enough position. When requested for comment a HMICFRS spokesperson simply said: “The allegations made regarding senior officers at Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service were deeply concerning.

This article was originally published in the November 2024 issue of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE digital copy, click here.