By Jon Vanstone, chair Certass TA.

One of the stranger features of regulation is that the clearer the rules become, the easier it is for some people to ignore them.

Not because expectations are unclear, but because consequences are perceived as uneven. Where oversight is inconsistent, compliance becomes optional for those willing to test the limits, while the burden falls most heavily on those who take standards seriously.

The result is a behavioural paradox in which the organisations that invest most in competence and assurance often feel the greatest pressure, while those operating at the margins continue largely undisturbed.

The construction industry is not short of standards. Over the past decade, particularly since Grenfell, expectations around competence, accountability and evidence have been articulated with increasing clarity. The issue is not the absence of rules, but the uneven way they are applied and defended when commercial pressure increases.

Raising the bar has never been the real challenge. Holding it consistently, especially when others choose not to, is where leadership is tested.

Markets move in cycles, but behaviour under pressure is predictable. When work is plentiful, standards feel easier to maintain. Capacity absorbs inefficiency, margins soften poor decisions and systems appear robust because they are not being stretched. When conditions tighten, shortcuts begin to feel commercially sensible, equivalence becomes convenient, and judgement slowly gives way to justification.

This is the environment the industry is now entering.

Regulatory frameworks are clearer than they have ever been. Expectations around competence, evidence and decision making are well understood. The real question is whether organisations are prepared to apply them consistently when doing so creates friction, or whether standards become negotiable for those confident they can avoid scrutiny.

Most systemic failures do not occur because standards were never set. They occur because standards are applied selectively, interpreted generously or gradually diluted over time. This erosion is rarely deliberate. It is driven by accumulated exceptions and tolerated workarounds, until the gap between intent and practice becomes material.

Leadership in this phase looks different from leadership during reform. It is less about announcing change and more about enforcing consistency. It requires resisting the temptation to lower standards simply because others appear to do so without consequence, and accepting short term disadvantage to protect long term credibility.

One of the clearest indicators of this discipline is longevity. Not survival in a narrow sense, but the ability to operate through multiple regulatory cycles without retreating from standards when pressure increases. Longevity reveals whether systems are designed for endurance rather than momentum, and whether judgement has been shaped by experience rather than opportunism.

The industry often celebrates disruption, growth and speed. Those qualities have their place. In a regulated environment, however, longevity tells a deeper story. It reflects an ability to adapt without abandoning principle, and to maintain trust even when oversight is imperfect.

This matters because regulation increasingly tests judgement rather than documentation alone. Regulators, insurers and clients are asking how decisions were made and whether standards were applied consistently. Organisations that can demonstrate this over time are far better positioned than those relying on minimal compliance or regulatory blind spots.

The industry therefore faces a choice. It can tolerate a system in which those willing to push boundaries gain short term advantage, while responsible organisations absorb the cost of doing things properly. Or it can recognise that leadership lies in holding the line, applying standards evenly and defending them calmly when challenged.

Certass’s experience is instructive in this context. Having operated as a licensed Competent Person Scheme for two decades, Certass has had to maintain alignment with regulatory intent through multiple market cycles, policy shifts and enforcement regimes.

That longevity reflects sustained internal discipline and a commitment to applying standards consistently, not only when it is convenient.
The next phase of reform is not about introducing new rules. It is about whether existing ones are upheld when scrutiny becomes routine and pressure increases.

The industry has already raised the bar and leadership will belong to those prepared to stay there.
Holding the line will challenge habits, commercial instincts and short-term thinking. It will also distinguish organisations built for endurance from those built to exploit gaps in the system. In the years ahead, credibility will belong to those who demonstrate that standards are not conditional on convenience.