Too Hot to Legislate: Why a Maximum Workplace Temperature Law Would Be a Mistake

The government's adviser, theClimate Change Committee (CCC) has said today that there should be a maximum temperature for workplaces to protect people as heatwaves intensify due to climate change. (Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2p1j4y0kro)

I disagree with this, and here is why.

Every summer, as temperatures climb, so does the political pressure to introduce a legal maximum workplace temperature in the UK. It sounds compassionate. It sounds obvious. But look beyond the headlines, and the case for a hard temperature cap begins to fall apart. Well-intentioned though it may be, a statutory maximum temperature would be blunt, unworkable, and ultimately counterproductive.

One Number Cannot Fit Every Workplace

The most fundamental problem with a maximum temperature law is that heat is not experienced equally across all workplaces. A 30°C limit might be genuinely dangerous for someone doing heavy lifting in a foundry, yet perfectly comfortable — even preferable — for a yoga instructor, a glassblower, or a chef working beside an open flame. How we respond to heat depends on a person’s weight, age, humidity, wind speed, radiant heat sources, and clothing — factors that an ordinary thermometer will not capture. (Source: https://www.tuc.org.uk/guidance/there-maximum-temperature-workplaces)

A single number imposed by law cannot account for this complexity. Any threshold rigid enough to be legally enforceable will inevitably be too restrictive in some settings and inadequate in others. Good workplace safety is nuanced; legislation rarely is.

The Law Already Protects Workers

Proponents of a maximum temperature law speak as though workers currently have no protection from excessive heat. That is not true. Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, employers already have a duty to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of their employees. The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 require that workplace temperatures be “reasonable” during working hours. (Source: https://www.duncanlewis.co.uk/Legal_News/Too_Hot_to_Work__What_UK_Law_Says_About_Heatwaves_and_Workplaces_(11_August_2025).html)

Crucially, workers are protected from detriment if they leave or refuse to attend a workplace they reasonably believe poses serious and imminent danger.

The framework is already there. The question is not whether workers are protected — they are — but whether that protection needs a specific number attached to it. The answer is no. Flexibility in the law is a feature, not a flaw.

Enforcement Would Be a Nightmare

How exactly would a maximum temperature law work in practice? Air temperature is only a rough guide — humidity, wind speed, radiant heat, clothing, and other factors all have an effect that an ordinary thermometer will not capture. (Source: https://www.tuc.org.uk/guidance/there-maximum-temperature-workplaces)

Would an employer face prosecution the moment a warehouse thermometer ticks past 30°C during a July heatwave? Would they be required to send workers home, even if those workers are comfortable and want to continue? Who bears the cost of lost productivity and lost wages?

The enforcement challenges alone should give legislators pause. Inspectors cannot be everywhere. Businesses — particularly small ones — would face legal uncertainty every time summer arrives. Rather than improving safety, a rigid law risks creating a compliance box-ticking culture that replaces genuine risk management with thermometer-watching.

It Places Impossible Demands on Employers

Many workplaces simply cannot control their temperature. Outdoor construction sites, farms, market stalls, and delivery depots have no ability to air-condition the open air. Kitchens operate around intense heat by their very nature. A legal maximum temperature would either exempt so many industries as to be meaningless, or place impossible demands on businesses that cannot physically comply — however much money they spend.

Some local councils have already shifted bin collections to 5am to protect manual staff. (Source: https://www.staffone.co.uk/blog/too-hot-to-work-the-case-for-a-legal-maximum-workplace-temperature-in-the-uk/). That kind of intelligent, context-specific adaptation — driven by employer responsibility and common sense — is precisely what good workplace safety looks like. It does not require a law to mandate it; it requires employers who take their duty of care seriously, supported by clear HSE guidance.

Europe’s Experience Is More Complicated Than It Looks

Advocates of maximum temperature laws frequently point to Spain and Germany as models to follow. But the comparison is less compelling than it appears. Spain sets maximum working temperatures of 27°C for sedentary work and 25°C for light physical work  — thresholds that would trigger shutdowns on a large proportion of British summer days in many workplaces, with enormous economic consequences. (Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/maximum-working-temp-rules-uk_uk_6a0d9923e4b0ceb40d488a65)

Transposing those rules wholesale into the UK context, without accounting for differences in building stock, industry mix, and climate patterns, is not straightforward policy-making. It is sloganeering.

Furthermore, those countries have had decades to build their compliance infrastructure, cooling infrastructure, and employer culture around those rules. Imposing a hard cap on the UK overnight would create disruption without the corresponding safety gains.

Better Alternatives Already Exist

The solution to heat risk in the workplace is not a blunt statutory cap — it is smarter, more targeted intervention. Strengthened HSE guidance with clearer thresholds for when employers must act. Better enforcement of existing duties. Sector-specific codes of practice for high-risk industries. Investment in cooling infrastructure through tax incentives. These approaches address the real problem — employers who fail to take heat seriously — without the unintended consequences of a one-size-fits-all law.

The TUC’s own proposal calls not just for a maximum of 30°C, but for guidance requiring employers to begin taking action at 24°C.  (Source: https://www.britsafe.org/safety-management/2025/maximum-temperature-law-closer-to-reality-under-bill-amendment). That kind of graduated, guidance-led approach is far more sensible than a hard legal ceiling — and it does not require new primary legislation to implement.

Conclusion: Protect Workers Smarter, Not Simpler

Nobody disputes that workers deserve protection from dangerous heat. The question is whether a statutory maximum temperature is the right tool to deliver that protection. It is not. It is too blunt, too difficult to enforce, too disconnected from the real variables that determine heat risk, and too burdensome for the many businesses that cannot control their operating environment.

The UK’s existing legal framework, properly enforced and supported by clearer guidance, is better equipped to protect workers than a single number ever could be. In a warming world, we need smarter workplace safety — not simpler soundbites.

**What do you think? I would love to hear your views on this. www.kshsafety.com/contact

This article has been partially written using AI more to ensure good grammar.