We’ve all seen the debate play out on the shop floor: the office is freezing, the warehouse is “fine,” and the health and safety manager is stuck in the middle - between the employees and the budget holders.
Currently, the law relies on the word “reasonable.” While the ACoP suggests 16°C (or 13°C for physical work), these aren’t “red lines” in the way many employees think they are.
The Argument for Change: Certainty
There is a growing school of thought that the current flexibility is actually a burden. Would a fixed legal minimum make life easier?
-
Clear Benchmarks: No more debating what “reasonable” means; you’re either compliant or you aren’t.
-
Simplified Budgeting: Facilities teams would have a clear mandate for HVAC upgrades rather than trying to justify costs based on “subjective comfort.”
-
Conflict Resolution: It removes the friction between management and staff by providing an objective standard.
The Flip Side: The Complexity of “Comfort”
On the other hand, a single number is a blunt instrument.
-
Could a rigid limit lead to “box-ticking” where a business hits the number but ignores the actual thermal comfort of the team?
-
Would it create an unfair legal trap for small businesses during an extreme weather event?
Let’s Discuss:
As health and safety professionals, we often value the flexibility of risk-based legislation. But when it comes to the environment, does “flexibility” just lead to endless grey areas?
-
Would you prefer a definitive legal limit to point to when talking to leadership?
-
Does the current ACOP guidance do enough, or is it too dated for the modern workplace?
-
How do you apply the principle of “reasonably practicable” with “thermal comfort”?