Scope:

Construction products regulation (EU) 305/2011, 09.11.2011

Evaluation findings:

The evaluation of the CPR points clearly to the underperformance of the framework, hindering the functioning of the single market for the construction products, and so failing to achieve the CPR’s objectives. The overall conclusion is that there are overarching systemic challenges for which remedies are missing. These mainly concern the insufficient delivery and quality of harmonised standards, whereas these are at the core of the system and of mandatory use under the CPR, which prevents the system from meeting Member States’ and market needs. Obstacles to the internal market remain, in the form of national marks and certification, in conjunction with ineffective and uneven market surveillance. The evaluation showed that while some simplification has been achieved by the CPR, this has been less than expected. Moreover, there is increased burden on the so-called EOTA route, allowing for the CE marking based on European Technical Assessments (ETAs) that are issued based on an European Assessment Document (EAD). This route was originally intended to allow the most innovative products not (fully) covered by harmonised standards gaining access to the market. However, due to the malfunctioning of the standardisation system, in recent years it is more and more frequent that the EADs are considered an alternative route to (lacking new) harmonised standards. Thus, the underperformance of the standardisation system leads to putting the EOTA route under strain.

Environmental aspects (in particular sustainability in the context of a more circular economy), safety of construction products (e.g. DIY) and adaptation to innovation (e.g. digitisation, 3D printing, prefabricated houses) are currently missing in the CPR. For this reason, in the ongoing preparatory work in view of a revision of the CPR these specifics features would be addressed.

Which objective(s) does the Commission pursue?

The Commission proposal addresses the main issues identified in the previous studies though a complete revision. The new CPR contains provisions to deblock the technical harmonised system and to remove barrier to trade for construction products. Market surveillance is improved and is supported by economic operators who receive additional obligations to prevent non-compliance. The proposal offers clarifications on crucial aspects discussed during the implementation of the current CPR and offers provisions and tools to reduce the administrative burden such as the creation of a database or system to file regulatory documents and the integration of digitalisation at the core of the system. Simplification and SME related provisions were revised and enhanced to facilitate their use. Finally, it provides the regulatory instruments to satisfy and even exceed the expectations of the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation as regards environmental protection with the final goal to cover these aspects and to prevent the need for the implementation of the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation in most of the cases.

Estimated savings and benefits

The impact assessment estimated that the CPR revision will save administrative burden of around 630 million EUR compared with additional administrative burden of around 450 million EUR. Altogether, there will be an annual net reduction of administrative burden of companies of around 177 million EUR. On the cost side direct annual adjustment cost of around 420 million EUR were identified and around 19 million EUR indirect adjustment costs.

Implementation by Member States

The implementation report (2016) concluded that not all the objectives of the CPR had been achieved.

Most of the challenges reported related to implementation difficulties and delayed adaptation by stakeholders.

The report identified a potential for a quicker and a better-streamlined standardisation process with standards responding better to the needs of their users through a close and efficient collaboration between CEN, Member States, the industry and the Commission.

The findings of the report show a need to further clarify certain provisions in the CPR to support uniform application.

Estimated savings and benefits

Two studies have provided a quantification of the costs and benefits of the CPR:

The CPR mostly has an impact on construction products manufacturers with a regulatory burden estimated between €2.6¹ and 3.4² billion per year, which is equivalent to 0.6 to 1.1% of their total turnover in 2014. Micro-enterprises face the highest costs as a share of their turnover (1.3%)³. Distributors incur fewer costs and other construction operators (e.g. architects, builders and developers) consulted during the supporting studies, do not perceive any costs generated by the Regulation⁴.

Compared to the situation with the previous Construction Product Directive the possibility to supply an electronic DoP has reduced the burden by up to 50% compared with the paper-based version⁵.

So far, simplification provisions and derogations have been scarcely used and, therefore, seem to have created few benefits for manufacturers⁶. Moreover, persisting national testing requirements have been mentioned as a barrier to the realisation of the Internal Market for construction products⁷.

A majority of professional end-users indicated new potential market opportunities and increased availability of some categories of products thanks to the regulation, along with improved provision of information and comparison of products⁸. However, the impacts on cross-border trade remain low but are more noticeable for high value niche products⁹. In sum, the effects on trade of the Regulation have been so far very limited and the benefits for the rest of the construction value chain and buildings investors/owners have yet to materialise¹⁰.

¹ VVA Europe, DTI & TNO (2016) Economic Impacts of the Construction Products Regulation.

² Economisti Associati, Milieu and CEPS (2016). Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation.

³ VVA Europe, DTI & TNO (2016) Economic Impacts of the Construction Products Regulation.

⁴ VVA Europe, DTI & TNO (2016) Economic Impacts of the Construction Products Regulation.

⁵ Economisti Associati, Milieu and CEPS (2016). Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation.

⁶ Economisti Associati, Milieu and CEPS (2016). Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation.

⁷ VVA Europe, DTI & TNO (2016) Economic Impacts of the Construction Products Regulation.

⁸ VVA Europe, DTI & TNO (2016) Economic Impacts of the Construction Products Regulation.

⁹ Economisti Associati, Milieu and CEPS (2016). Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation.

¹⁰ Economisti Associati, Milieu and CEPS (2016). Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation.