Why competent engineers cannot guarantee infrastructure safety on their own

All ICE members would agree that their competence is key to the safe delivery and operation of infrastructure.

But simply putting highly qualified professionals in charge of projects cannot guarantee this.

Even the most accomplished engineer is unlikely to deliver safe outcomes if their employer has an unethical culture, poor leadership, ineffective supervision, unrealistic workloads and inadequate resources.

Guiding the industry

Safe infrastructure depends not only on the competence of individuals, but also on the capability of the organisations they work for.

That’s the thrust of two related guidance documents covering the built environment industry, both published in spring 2026:

• Setting Expectations on Competence Management: ICC advice for industry*, issued by the Industry Competence Committee (ICC) in April; and
• Managing Competence in the Built Environment: An industry guide on how to meet the ICC principles, issued by the Industry Task and Finish Group (ITFG) in May.

At first glance, they might seem to be just another pair of practice guides arising from the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA). But they are much more than that.

Together, they provide a clear explanation of what effective competence management should look like throughout the built environment industry.

A shift in our understanding

Traditionally, the industry has viewed competence – founded on professional qualifications, experience and CPD – mainly as an individual attribute.

While the two publications don’t diminish the importance of personal proficiency and how it’s achieved, they place it within a broader context.

They recognise it as a property of organisations and the systems within which people work, arguing that employers must be able to demonstrate effective arrangements for managing their workers’ competence.

While noting that people should apply the appropriate skills, knowledge, experience and behaviour to their work, they stress that competence depends on much more than this.

Both documents argue that the industry needs to understand the distinction between individual proficiency and organisational capability – and the need to ensure both.

Turning principles into practice

In its guidance, the ICC sets out 15 high-level competence management principles for organisations. The ITFG’s document explains how these can be implemented.

The latter offers practical advice on processes such as establishing role profiles, identifying safety-critical work, managing competence in supply chains and integrating it into existing processes.

Crucially, it doesn’t recommend a one-size-fits-all approach.

Instead, it encourages organisations to act according to their scale, complexity and risk profile.

A small specialist contractor won’t need the same systems as a national infrastructure client, for instance, but each must be able to show that it’s managing competence effectively.

The ITFG guidance also underlines a key principle that’s familiar to health and safety specialists: people should never be expected to work beyond their abilities or without appropriate supervision and support.

Why this matters beyond building safety

Although developed in response to the BSA and the post-Grenfell regulatory regime for higher-risk buildings, these guidance documents have much wider relevance.

Indeed, many of their themes will be familiar to civil engineers and others involved in infrastructure projects.

Our sector already recognises the importance of factors such as effective leadership and supervision, behavioural competence, clear role definition, supply-chain assurance and continual improvement.

It’s not about collecting certificates

The message is that maintaining competence is about more than attending courses and collecting certificates.

Formal training remains important, but employers must also ensure that their people are properly supervised, supported and equipped to deliver safe outcomes.

This has wider implications: organisations that can show effective competence management are likely to manage risk better and so inspire greater confidence among clients, insurers and regulators.

The guidance is not designed to add bureaucracy. Its aim is straightforward: to improve safety, quality and resilience by ensuring that competent people work within competent organisations.

A challenge – and an opportunity – for the ICE

The guidance should be particularly interesting to ICE members because it aligns with the institution’s commitment to professionalism, ethics and public safety. At the same time, it challenges us to think more broadly about competence.

Professional bodies have traditionally focused on developing, assessing and maintaining their members’ skills and knowledge. The emerging competence agenda is extending that responsibility to ensuring organisational capability.

This gives the ICE an opportunity to help the industry understand what that looks like. The institution should collaborate and demonstrate leadership in areas such as competence frameworks, supply chain assurance and support for SMEs.

These two publications should be seen not only as guidance arising from the post-Grenfell reforms, but also as the start of a vital conversation about how to manage competence across the broader built environment.

We must all ask ourselves: are our profession, its organisations and its clients ready to accept that competent people need competent employers if they are to deliver safe outcomes?

* For access to the ICC document, register with the British Standards Institution’s Built Environment Competence Hub.