The property risks hiding behind manufacturing modernisation

Understand how site modernisation is changing fire risk, and the questions manufacturers should ask before the next upgrade.

Manufacturers are investing in greener, more resilient facilities. According to Make UK, 8 in 10 are planning to embed green growth into their business plans over the next five years , with renewable energy the single biggest area for investment.

That investment can support efficiency, sustainability and operational resilience. But as solar panels, battery storage, electrification and infrastructure upgrades are added to live manufacturing sites, the fire and property risk profile can change too.

The risk is not modernisation itself. It is the gap that can open up when facilities change faster than the controls designed to protect them.

The question is whether fire protection, maintenance, emergency response and business continuity arrangements are keeping pace.

Fire risk is a business continuity issue, not just a property one

A fire in a manufacturing environment is rarely limited to physical damage.

It can stop production, damage specialist machinery, disrupt customer orders and create delays across supply chains. In asset-heavy environments, a single affected production line, utility, storage area or critical item of equipment can have consequences far beyond the location of the incident itself.

The commercial impact can build quickly. Downtime affects output. Delayed orders affect customer confidence. Disruption at one site can create pressure elsewhere in the network. Regulatory scrutiny, investigation and recovery activity can add further complexity while teams are already working to restore operations.

That’s what makes fire resilience a business continuity issue. Protecting buildings and equipment matters. Protecting the organisation's ability to keep operating matters just as much.

Controls designed for yesterday's site may not fit today's risk

Many manufacturers already have established fire protection and property risk controls in place. The challenge is that those controls may have been designed around an earlier version of the site.

When new systems, equipment or production technologies are added, the existing risk profile changes. Fire risk assessments, detection systems, suppression arrangements, inspection routines, isolation procedures and emergency plans may all need to be reviewed against the new operating reality.

This is where the control gap can appear. It sits between the facility as it now operates and the protection measures, inspection routines and emergency plans originally designed for an earlier version of the site.

This is not a theoretical concern. Analysis of Zurich Resilience Solutions manufacturing risk assessments shows that recommended improvements often relate to core site controls, including:

• Fire detection and protection systems, such as alarms, sprinklers and other fixed fire protection measures.
• Utilities and supporting infrastructure, such as electrical systems, heating, power, plant rooms, charging areas and other services that can influence fire or property exposure.
• Process hazards, including risks created by production equipment, materials, heat, chemicals, manufacturing methods or storage arrangements.

These are exactly the areas that can be affected when facilities are upgraded, reconfigured or fitted with new technology. The risk is not always the technology itself. It is the gap between a changing facility and controls that have not changed with it.

Review risk before the retrofit, not after

The best time to assess emerging fire and property risk is before a new system is installed, not once it is operational.

By the time a new installation is live, many important decisions have already been made. Equipment location, roof use, access routes, separation, protection measures and isolation arrangements may already be fixed. When risk is reviewed too late, improvement work is often more complex, more disruptive and more expensive.

Early review helps manufacturers understand whether a planned change is suitable for the building and the wider operation. It also gives teams the opportunity to identify practical adjustments before installation begins, from layout and protection requirements to maintenance access and emergency response planning.

For new facilities, this means building risk thinking into the design from the outset. For existing sites, it means treating every significant retrofit as a change to the wider property risk profile, not just as a standalone installation.

Keeping controls aligned with site change

As manufacturing sites evolve, risk controls need to evolve with them. Before the next upgrade begins, manufacturers should be able to answer six practical questions:

1. Has the fire risk assessment been updated to reflect the new installation?
2. Are detection and suppression systems still appropriate for the changed site?
3. Have the location, separation and access around new equipment been considered?
4. Are maintenance and inspection routines clearly defined?
5. Do emergency plans reflect the updated site layout and technology?
6. Have business continuity plans been tested against realistic fire or outage scenarios?

Solar, BESS, electrification and infrastructure upgrades can all support stronger, more resilient operations. But only when the risks are understood early and managed as part of the wider site strategy.

For any modernising manufacturer, the final question is simple. Will our controls still be fit for the facility we are becoming?

Learn more about our manufacturing services.