Arup chief executive Jerome Frost recently told the press that the global consultancy’s core value was “social usefulness”. He said the firm would not lose sight of the philosophy of its famous founder Sir Ove Arup who felt a built environment business should pursue “reasonable prosperity” for its people but not focus too closely on financial profit.
He also believed in what he called “total architecture” which involved all the separate disciplines working together to achieve the greater purpose of improving people’s lives through a well-designed built environment.
Social usefulness seems especially apt at a time when construction and its related disciplines are struggling to get to grips with a more heavily regulated process. It reminds us that the intense focus on professional licensing, qualifications, and certification in the wake of the Grenfell disaster isn’t just about compliance with legislation. It is also about ensuring we meet our ultimate aim of delivering a built environment that supports and enriches lives.
One that is socially useful.
Ethics
Interim chief construction advisor Thouria Istephan, who was a member of the Grenfell Tower public inquiry panel, said ‘curiosity’ would be an important component of the culture change necessary to embed better ethics into construction.
“If we are not professionally curious, we will not become technically competent,” she said. “If you work in the construction industry and do not feel the weight of the responsibility you have for keeping people safe, you are in the wrong job.”
In other words, we need to look beyond everyday details and remind ourselves why we are doing this work. That doesn’t mean we should be coy about aiming for Arup’s “reasonable prosperity”. We need to be able to attract the best and brightest and they should expect to receive a fair reward for their efforts. It’s simply a question of balance.
This issue has clearly been grasped by the former London Fire Brigade chief commissioner Andy Roe who was appointed as the new chair of the Building Safety Regulator last summer.
He immediately set about updating the organisation’s internal systems which he described as “not viable,”, pointing out that much of the bureaucracy involved in regulating building safety had “nothing to do with safety”.
Radically improving an outdated system would enable “more houses to get built, more applications to be processed without ever compromising the ideology of the Building Safety Act”, but he also made no apology for preventing “bad and unsafe buildings” being built. And, ultimately, isn’t that what we should all be aiming for? A better, safer built environment.
He also made it clear that a big part of the faster moving system relied on the support of sector bodies like BESA. We recognised from the start that we had a key role to play – in both identifying the problems our members and their supply chains were having with the legislation and then providing at least some of the solutions.
Our second annual piece of comprehensive research gauging adoption of the safety culture, which is free to download here, confirmed that the industry continues to struggle with the practical requirements of the Act. There remains an alarming gap between what people say about compliance and what they are actually doing to achieve it.
Closing that gap between vision and action is a key priority for us in 2026 because it’s the best way to contribute to a better world.
Producing targeted, sector-specific guidance remains vital to help our members and the wider sector break their roles and responsibilities down into easily digestible elements. We launched this with our widely welcomed Play it Safe campaign in 2024 and have continued to build on that foundation responding to the clear calls for help in our annual industry surveys.
However, an even more striking finding from the research was the lack of engagement demonstrated by the industry’s clients. In many cases, according to our respondents, clients either ignore or are ignorant of their responsibilities under the Act.
Client’s Guide
Therefore, BESA worked with eight other bodies to produce new guidance directly targeted at clients with the backing of the Building Safety Regulator’s Industry Competence Committee (ICC).
BESA’s Client’s Guide to the Building Safety Act addresses ongoing concerns that many clients are still basing procurement decisions primarily on cost and speed of delivery and avoiding their legislative responsibilities to improve safety and sustainability.
It clearly sets out clients’ legal duties and emphasises their leadership role in the industry transformation needed to keep all building occupants safe and protect their long-term health and well-being. It reiterates the message that the new building safety regime applies to ALL buildings, not just higher risk (HRB) or high-rise residential developments.
The guide also boils down the complexity of the legislation into simplified guidance using plain English and avoiding the overload of information that can lead to important messages being misunderstood or ignored.
ICC chair Jon Vanstone said BESA’s guide was a timely reminder of the central role clients play in delivering compliant and safe buildings.
“The Building Safety Act places clear legal duties on clients. They set the tone for projects through their procurement decisions, appointments and allocation of resources,” he said. “If those duties are taken seriously and supported by competent appointments and informed oversight, the quality and safety of outcomes will improve. If they are not, no amount of downstream control can fully compensate.
“Guidance that helps clients understand both their statutory responsibilities and the practical implications of those responsibilities is therefore welcome, particularly where it aligns with the Regulator’s Principles for Informed Clients and supports consistent cross-industry understanding.”
The BESA Clients’ Guide defines ‘Who is the Client’ and the legal requirements of that role. It sets out the client’s duties and how they can ensure their project remains compliant at every stage and the potential consequences of failure. It also explains the specific rules and processes required for HRBs, how to avoid common problems and further resources available.
She added that the Clients’ Guide would also help contractors and other supply chain members explain some of the key elements of the legislation to their clients and emphasise the importance of only appointing competent people and companies to work on their projects.
“It should also give contractors the confidence to challenge decisions and point out errors in procurement that can compromise safety and quality,” said Davidson. “Contractors are duty bound under the legislation to refuse to start work unless they are satisfied that the client is fully aware of their responsibilities.”
Lilly Gallafent, CEO of the Real Estate consultancy Cast, said the BESA guide was a timely reminder to clients of the need to take a long-term view.
“Change needs to start with clients,” she said. “Whilst many already do, clients all need to recognise that they have the power to drive a new culture through their supply chains, but they need to be willing to allocate risk fairly and focus on how their decisions will affect the operational life of their buildings.
Expensive
“Pushing hard for cost savings at the start of a project can, when not managed appropriately, end up being very expensive in the long run and risk needs to be properly assessed and not just pushed down the supply chain,” said Gallafent.
“This excellent guide reminds us that this is a once in a generation opportunity to bring about meaningful and lasting change to construction procurement for the benefit of the industry and all building users.”
The Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) also welcomed the guide which highlights some of the key issues contained in the organisation’s own more detailed Client Guide.
Head of client development, Linda Stevens, said: “The Building Safety Act places responsibilities on both clients and their contractors, and we hear that for many clients it can be a struggle to get to grips with exactly what they are required by law to do.
Our own Client Guide includes information on building safety amongst other important subjects, and we very much welcome this additional resource from BESA which can help clients in their understanding of what can be complex legislation. It can only be through everyone conforming to the Building Safety Act that we will ensure the built environment is safe for every community,” she added.
Building engineering services now represent at least 50% of construction cost and a high proportion of the operational cost of the built environment. They are increasingly complex, integrated systems that deliver an environment and services that make buildings work.
The social benefit of buildings that work and are safe is enormous, in terms of mental and physical health, wellbeing, productivity – all rely on a good working and living environment.
Competence is not a tick box exercise. It is in every decision we make and every question we ask and, if we are truly going to be socially useful, we all need to think long and hard about our own decision making and professional conscience. And that must include clients.
*The BESA Client’s Guide to the Building Safety Act is also supported by Constructing Excellence, the Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB), the Construction Clients’ Leadership Group (CCLG), Cast Consultancy, SFG20, The Industry Competence Steering Group, Ackroyd Lowrie and the Safety & Health Engineering Partnership (SHEP).
The guide, which can be downloaded for free here, will also be the focus of a special building safety briefing event at the Palace of Westminster on May 5.
For more information about complying with the Building Safety Act visit the BESA Hub.
www.theBESA.com