Accountability: The Key to Improving Safety Culture in the Built Environment

The Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA 22) has placed a clear emphasis on accountability, embedding it into the fabric of safety management within the built environment. While the legislation calls for a demonstration of ‘all reasonable steps’ rather than a reduction of risks to ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) and there is no mention of tolerability, the expectation is clear; the Principal Accountable Person (PAP) is accountable for the risks they own.

This accountability is not just a regulatory requirement; it is fundamental to improving safety culture in the built environment. To demonstrate all reasonable steps have been taken, the PAP must:

1. Firstly, know what those risks are!

   A thorough and ongoing understanding of hazards within the organisation is essential. Without this, any claim of effective risk management is built on shaky ground.

   
   

2. Second, know what steps are being taken and how well they work 

   It is not enough to assume controls are in place, there must be a demonstrable and rigorous process for assessing their adequacy.

   
   

By making the PAP accountable, the inference is that they should be comfortable with the level of residual risk they hold. If they are not, something is deeply wrong.

Improving safety culture starts with looking inwards. Too often, it feels to me that organisations are seeking external assurances, such as the Building Assurance Certificate, believing this will exonerate them from ongoing safety management.

Once obtained, I am concerned the certificate will treated as a box ticked, with little thought given to whether risks continue to be understood and managed effectively.

This approach is fundamentally flawed. A safety case is not just a formality to satisfy stakeholders, it is a living document that should underpin an organisation’s entire approach to risk management.

More than that, it serves as the PAP’s defence in court should the worst happen, demonstrating not just what was known but what was actively done to mitigate risk.

That is the essence of accountability. If an organisation cannot clearly articulate its risks, the measures in place and why those measures are sufficient, then it has not taken all reasonable steps.

A robust safety case should provide that clarity and be seen as a living demonstration of an organisation’s commitment to safety, not a compliance exercise.

The shift towards accountability-driven safety culture is not just about meeting legal obligations, it is about developing a mindset where ownership of risk leads to real, measurable improvements. Those accountable persons must not only accept that they own the risk but also ensure they are actively managing it in a way they can confidently stand behind. Accountability really is the key to improving the safety culture in the built environment and is the driving force behind genuine, lasting improvements in safety.