Do scare tactics improve or hinder fire safety?

James Beale, Operations Manager at the Invicta Group, offers a view on the psychology behind scare tactics, and why the technique doesn’t seem to have worked when it comes to fire safety. The impetus, he says, is on businesses to change their perspective and view measures as an investment – not a cost.

James Beale, Operations Manager at the Invicta Group

We avoid doing a lot of things because we’re afraid of the consequences. Sometimes, these are lessons drilled into us in childhood. Other times, we learn them through experience, either our own or that of someone close to us.

In the wake of disasters, scare tactics are a go-to method of inspiring change – including a few of our own articles.

The idea is to force people to reflect on the root cause of disasters, and drive positive changes among individuals and within organisations. Yet, many people baulk at this, and see scare tactics as counter-productive.

Given that disasters seem to continue unabated, is it even worth trying this tactic – and what else can we do to inspire change from an individual and structural point of view?

We scare because we care

The idea behind scare tactics is simple: make somebody so frightened of the consequences of an action that they instinctively avoid it.

It’s a common idea both in health and safety and law enforcement. Long prison sentences are often given out as a deterrent to crime, scaring people away from doing it in the first place.

The concept as it relates to fire safety, electrical safety or other fields is essentially the same.

Scare tactics clearly do influence us on some level, particularly as children. At a time of life where everything feels heightened, the cold reality of deaths and injuries due to fires, blasts, electrocution and other hazards is frightening and sobering.

You probably remember getting a talk from a firefighter at school, or grim fire or electrical safety videos like this one, which evoke horror movies more than informational films. Anyone old enough to remember the BBC series Threads isn’t likely to ever forget it.

In theory, this should all but eliminate major disasters. If people take safety seriously, then mistakes will be minimised, and systems will be put in place to catch them.

Yet major fires, blasts, and other industrial or workplace accidents continue to occur. Just look at the spate of recent rail disasters in the United States, the largest of which caused an entire town to be evacuated.

There has been no shortage of rail disasters across history – so why are the problems continuing?

Are scare tactics the best way to improve fire safety processes? (Image credit: Steve_Jolicoeur/AlamyStock)

Lessons from other industries

An interesting parallel to other industrial disasters is the airline industry. When an accident occurs, even if it does not result in fatalities, the response is comprehensive.

Each nation deploys its own air accident investigation authority, as does the country of the plane manufacturer. A detailed investigation is carried out immediately, looking at all the technical factors and circumstances surrounding the flight, from the weather to the behaviour and communications of the crew and ground staff.

At the end, a detailed report is issued that often leads to swift action in the form of new laws, guidelines, and modifications to aircraft.

It would be easy, in the case of a serious error by a pilot, to enforce change by scaring pilots into not making the same poor decisions. Yet this is not an approach informed by reality. In the vast majority of cases, pilots do not take decisions out of arrogance, or take unnecessary risks with an aircraft.

They make mistakes because of fatigue, stress, or a lack of recurrent training that drills the correct response into them. The onus is not on them to avoid mistakes, per se, but on their employer to ensure that they are properly trained and in a fit state to fly; and on aircraft manufacturers to put an abundance of safeguards in place.

Compare this to the case of major fires and blasts. There have been hundreds of devastating commercial and industrial fires throughout history, enough to scare people and to provide ample learning opportunities.

Yet we still see instances such as the Beirut explosion, the Grenfell Tower fire, or the more recent fire at an immigration and detention centre in Mexico.

All of these disasters resulted from multiple points of failure, where any one person’s own realisation of the risks could have prevented a catastrophe. And all suggest that lessons have not been learned – in storage, communication, design, or an absence of fire protection.

“Impetus on governments and authorities is essential, then, but it also needs to come from businesses who see compliance as desirable from a business perspective.”

Taking action on fire safety

It’s clear that we need to move away from just scaring people into action, but what’s the alternative?

The most obvious answer is perhaps to force compliance by putting pressure on governments to act. Stronger policies and better enforcement would ensure people stick to rules designed to keep people safe from fires, whether that is in protocols and safe working practices to avoid fires and blasts, or protection against them should they occur.

The problem with this approach is that it inevitably leads to opposition from businesses, unless costs of compliance are alleviated.

This cost burden and the unpopularity of instigating new safety measures makes governments unpopular. This can make them reluctant to change, particularly because business lobbies are often large and influential.

On the more cynical side, some corrupt officials may benefit from the current status quo, such as through questionable public contracts for firms that cut corners, and turning a blind eye to safety issues in return for cash or influence.

Image credit: Arthon Meekodong/AlamyStock

Impetus on governments and authorities is essential, then, but it also needs to come from businesses who see compliance as desirable from a business perspective.

We’re starting to see this with fire and blast protection, where developing countries are looking to international standards in order to provide security for investors, and meet the requirements of international partners.

There is also a simple and underappreciated business case: in the event of a fire or blast, the damage to your property and reputation and harm to employees is likely to be much worse than the cost of preventing a disaster from ever happening.

View fire safety measures as an investment – not a cost

The goal then is to inform businesses about the benefits of fire and blast protection beyond what is evident from major and well publicised disasters.

Businesses also need a better understanding of the systemic nature of most disasters, and how the more safeguards you put in place, the safer you are.

Beyond this, however, it also needs to be framed as not a cost, but an investment. This is to prevent potential litigation, yes, but also to secure the safety of your employees.

By extension, you can make them feel safe and valued at work – improving their general wellbeing, productivity and happiness, and reducing employee turnover.

EBOOK: Lessons from FIREX 2023 – Emerging challenges in fire safety

Read our FREE eBook, which provides a summary of the key debates and presentations that took place at FIREX 2023 in May, alongside additional exclusive content for readers.

Chapters cover new fire safety construction guidance, how to mitigate the risk of lithium-ion battery fires, and evacuation planning. There's also exclusive insight into the resident's view of the building safety crisis, and how the fire safety and sustainability agendas can work together.

Get your copy today!