Green Wall Systems, Fire Safety & Responsibility

Table of contents

#Biophilic design has matured

Green walls are no longer perceived as experimental features or decorative statements. They are now widely specified in corporate interiors, hospitality, healthcare, and public buildings.

However, recent incidents and regulatory updates across Europe, the UK, and other regions have exposed a critical gap between biophilic intent and technical responsibility.

Fire safety is not a peripheral concern in green wall projects. It is a core specification issue, and it must be addressed early, transparently, and product by product.

#The problem is not green walls

It is unclear classification and poor specification

The increasing scrutiny around green walls does not stem from biophilic design itself. It stems from vague material descriptions, misleading “fire resistant” claims, confusion between living systems, preserved systems, and decorative panels, and a lack of system-level testing.

In many documented cases, fire risk was not caused by vegetation alone, but by how systems were assembled, documented, and specified.

Treating green walls as decorative add-ons rather than architectural systems is the root cause of most compliance failures.

#Living walls vs preserved systems

A fundamental distinction that cannot be ignored

One of the most common specification errors is failing to distinguish between living green walls and preserved green wall systems.

Living systems typically involve

• Irrigation
• Organic growth
• Substrates and support layers that evolve over time
• Ongoing maintenance and moisture presence

These variables introduce unpredictable fire behavior and often require project-specific fire engineering strategies.

Preserved systems, when properly designed, offer

• Stable material composition
• No irrigation or biological growth
• Predictable long-term behavior
• The ability to test components and assemblies accurately

However, preserved vegetation alone is not sufficient. Fire performance depends on the entire system, not the visual layer.

#Fire safety is a system question

Not a material claim

A recurring issue highlighted by recent guidance and industry investigations is the misuse of partial certifications. A moss sample tested in isolation does not represent a green wall system in real conditions.

Fire performance must consider

• Vegetation type and density
• Backing materials
• Adhesives and mounting systems
• Frames, substrates, and interfaces with the wall
• Installation configuration

Responsible manufacturers test and document complete assemblies, not just decorative elements. Any claim that stops at “the moss is fire rated” is incomplete and potentially misleading.

#Understanding fire classifications

Why clarity matters for prescribers

Fire ratings vary by region, but the underlying principle is consistent: materials and systems must demonstrate controlled reaction to fire, not simply resistance to ignition.

For preserved green wall systems, this means transparent disclosure of fire classification, clear explanation of what has been tested, and honest communication about limitations.

Misinterpretation of fire classes, particularly between Class B and Class C systems, has been a source of confusion in recent years.

#Responsibility extends beyond compliance

Meeting minimum fire classification requirements is necessary, but it is not sufficient.

In professional interiors, responsibility also includes

• Risk anticipation
• Long-term performance predictability
• Clear documentation for consultants and authorities
• Avoiding unnecessary complexity in approval processes

This is especially critical in

• Corporate headquarters
• Public buildings
• Hospitality and healthcare environments

#Greenmood’s position

Designing biophilic wall systems with accountability

At Greenmood, preserved green walls are designed and documented as architectural systems, not decorative surfaces.

This approach is based on several non-negotiable principles

• Preserved vegetation selected for stability and consistency
• System-level fire testing and documentation
• No irrigation, no biological evolution, no hidden variables
• Clear differentiation between product types and use cases
• Early integration into project specifications

The objective is not to maximize visual impact at any cost, but to ensure that biophilic solutions can be integrated responsibly, predictably, and safely into demanding environments.

#What project teams should do differently

To avoid unnecessary risk, project teams should:

Fire safety cannot be added later in biophilic projects. It must be designed in from the start.

#A more mature future for biophilic design

The growing attention around green wall fire safety is not a setback for biophilic design. It is a sign of maturity.

As the industry evolves, responsible manufacturers, consultants, and designers have an opportunity to elevate standards, clarify expectations, and reinforce trust.

Biophilic design will continue to grow. But only solutions that combine aesthetic intent, technical rigor, and accountability will stand the test of time.

Final takeaway