EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 23.5.2008 
SEC(2008) 1900 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the   
 
Proposal for a Regulation of the Euro pean Parliament and of the Council 
 
laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of the construction products 
  
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
 
{COM(2008) 311 final} 
{SEC(2008) 1901} 
 
EN 2   EN ABBREVIATIONS 
The following abbreviations are used hereafter: 
ABs: EOTA Approval Bodies 
AoC :  Attestation of Conformity is the system 
for attesting the conformity of construction products to European technical specifications foreseen in 89/106/EEC 
CEN :  Comité Européen de Normalisation 
CPD : Construction Products Directive 
(Directive 89/106/EEC) 
CUAP :  Common Understanding of Assessment 
Procedures 
EC:  European Commission 
EFTA :  European Free Trade Association 
EN:  European Standard 
EOTA :  European Organisation for Technical 
Approvals 
ETA :  European Technical Approval 
ETAG :  European Technical Approvals 
Guideline 
EU:  European Union 
hEN :  Harmonised European Standard 
MS:  Member States 
NA: New Approach Directives 
NB:  Notified Body for AoC tasks (i.e. 
certification, inspection or testing bodies) 
NRF : New Regulatory Framework 
SCC : Standing Committee on Construction 
(Directive 89/106/EEC, Article 19) 
 
EN 3   EN  
1. SECTION 1: PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Context 
For more than eighteen years Council Dir ective 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the 
approximation of laws, regulations and administ rative provisions of the Member States 
relating to construction products1 (Construction Products Directiv e – CPD) has established the 
principles, provisions, rules, procedures and tool s to be followed with regard to the Internal 
Market for construction products, i.e. for thei r free movement, placing on the market and use 
in the territory of the European Economic Area.  During this time there has been only one 
amendment to adapt the direct ive to the terminology, general guidelines and procedures for 
conformity assessment and CE marki ng used in New Approach directives2. 
The simplification of the CPD is included in the Commission Better Regulation: 
Simplification Strategy3. The recast/simplification of the CPD is action Ref. No. 
2007/ENTR/001 in the Commission Work a nd Legislative Programme (CWLP) 2007. 
1.2. Organisation and timing 
General considerations undertaken in view of a potential revision of the CPD started in 2003. 
In October 2004, the Commission provided informa tion on the various options for a potential 
revision to the Competitiveness Council who, on 25/11/2004, adopted a list of Council priorities for simplification of Commun ity Legislation, which included the CPD. 
Consequently, in 2005, these various options con tinued to be discussed, together with a time 
plan and the formulation of milestones as fo llow-up and as a cont ribution to the above-
mentioned Simplification Strategy. In parallel the work preparing the revision of the New 
Approach was taken into account. Preparing th e revision of the CPD contributed, with 
concrete information regarding this Directive, to the Secretary General exercise on reducing 
administrative burden and costs. 
DG Enterprise and Industry launched a web- based public consultation in March 2006 (see 
http://ec.europa.eu/en terprise/construction/cpdrevision/cpd_cons_en.htm
) to provide the 
Commission with stakeholder views on various  identified policy optio ns and major policy 
elements with regard to a revision of the CPD.  Despite the official closing date of 31 May 
2006, replies were accepted and taken into account when received until 15 June 2006. 
Between December 2005 and November 2006 a contracted consultant4 undertook a study to 
evaluate the impact of the CPD on the inte rnal market for constr uction products and the 
competitiveness of EU construction sector, looki ng at the provisions, tools and instruments of 
the current CPD from an economic point of view and particularly  the issue of administrative 
                                                 
1 OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p.12 
2 Council Directive 93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993, OJ L 220, 30.8.1993, p.1 
3 COM (2005) 535 final: Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Implementing the Community 
Lisbon Programme: A Strategy for Simplification of the Regulatory Environment. 
4 PRC Consultants, The Netherlands 
 
EN 4   EN burden and cost-benefit effects of the direct ive. This included c ontacting the necessary 
representatives of public and priv ate stakeholders of the constr uction sector, at all relevant 
levels, in order to ascertain their views, in pa rticular with the help of four regional industry 
workshops in Paris, Copenhagen, Vienna and Bonn and via written st akeholder feed-back. 
Another external study on the re levant policy options was u ndertaken between October 2006 
and May 20075. The main objectives of this assignment were to identify problems with the 
implementation of the existing CPD, define optio ns available to address them and assess their 
implications. The results of the stakeholder c onsultation constituted one of the key inputs to 
the assessment undertaken in the framework of this study. 
A Commission Inter-service Steer ing Group to support the impact assessment of the CPD was 
established in December 2006. The following Comm ission DGs were invited to take part: 
Secretariat-General, Legal Se rvice, DG Competition, DG Employ ment and Social Affairs, 
DG Transport and Energy, DG Environment, DG Research, DG Internal Market, DG Health 
and Consumer Protection, DG Trade. The group met three times between mid-December 2006 and the end of March 2007 to provide guida nce to the consultant undertaking the study 
on the relevant policy options and to review  the development of a report. It had the 
opportunity to comment in writing on the final report of the study. 
Finally, a series of direct cons ultations with a vari ety of key stakeholde rs has taken place 
during the months of May and June 2007. This included three open one-day meetings with 
Member State authorities and European industry associations and stakeholder bodies as well 
as several individual confer ences with individual European  industry associations and 
stakeholder bodies. The bases for these Consul tations were two DG EN TR discussion papers 
(see Annexes II and III) 
1.3. Consultation and expertise 
(a) Consultation 
A summary report of the over 300 replies received during the we b-based public consultation, 
together with a statistical summary, (see A nnex I) was published on the Europa website 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterp rise/construction/cpdrevisi on/consultation_results_en.pdf
 and 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterpri se/construction/cpdrevision/ consultation_sta tistics_en.pdf  
The main findings can be summarised as follows. – Nearly all replies confirm the need for a harmonised legislative framework . 
Mutual recognition is generally regarded as not working well in its absence.  
– Absolute need for clarification . This concerns the fundamentals of the legislation: 
general approach (performance based vers us prescriptive; New Approach versus 
other; meaning and status (compulsory or not) of CE marking; acceptance of CE 
marking by the national authorities; ro le of standards and European Technical 
Approvals (ETAs), among other issues. 
– Clear scope for simplification.  The systems of attestati on of conformity should be 
simplified and their number reduced. The ETA  route for CE marking is perceived as 
                                                
 
5 by Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd (RPA), UK 
 
EN 5   EN necessary but the administrative procedures  for its delivery s hould be lightened. The 
ETAGs should disappear. The “non performance determined” (NPD) facility should be maintained but needs to be clearly  defined as a means of simplifying the 
application of the Directive and avoi ding unnecessary costs to companies. 
– Concern about the potential specific e ffects of the CPD on small and medium 
enterprises (SMEs), with particular em phasis on the need for an appropriate 
treatment to be used for non-series produc ts. Changes to the Directive should not 
place undue burden on their business activity. 
– Finally, unanimous request for reinforcing the credibility  of the system. This is 
seen as a necessary condition for the achieve ment of the internal market, mainly by 
an increased harmonisation of the proce dures and criteria fo r designation by the 
national authorities of the conformity a ssessment bodies and a better coordination of 
the market surveillance mechanisms. 
The wide-ranging public consultations have cont ributed to the assessm ent of policy options 
and are clearly reflected in such a combination of alternatives regarding approach, specific 
tools and procedures which can be considered most appropriate. If re levant, diverging views 
of main stakeholder groups are acknowledged throughout the impact assessment. Furthermore 
complaints, in the framework of the consulta tion or in addition to  it, as regards the 
implementation and malfunctioning of the cu rrent directive, c onfirmed the problems 
identified by the Commission services and indicated possible solutions. 
The Commission’s minimum standards rega rding consultation have been met. 
(b) Expertise 
Although the first external study un dertaken put major effort into  this issue, quantitative data 
provided by industry and compiled otherwise on economic facts and impacts, cost-benefit 
effects and administrative burden remain vague a nd unreliable. Despite these difficulties, the 
study managed to provide some rough indications  on the impact of the CPD on the internal 
market for construction products (the degree of competition) and on the competitiveness of 
EU construction sector (manufacturers and bu ilders), to conclude on its strengths and 
weaknesses and the potential for improvement  of its provisions,  with respect to 
competitiveness of the construction sector, and to make recommendations related to improving the impact of Community le gislation on this competitiveness. 
The external study on the relevant policy optio ns confirmed the main problems with the 
existing legislation (see below S ection 2) and considered four main policy options which were 
further explained with regard to choices for specific elements concerning principles, 
provisions, rules, procedures and tools to be followed, and analysed accordingly. The study 
assessed the impacts of the policy options a nd the related various choices for specific 
elements through mainly a qualita tive description (inc luding the size, timing and duration of 
impacts). Those impacts that could only be  described in qualitative and non-monetary 
quantitative terms were assigned a rating according to the expect ed magnitude of the impact. 
Many of the predicted impacts of the measures  proved to be only accessible to qualitative 
assessment, due to the lack of the more detail ed information that woul d have been necessary 
to provide quantitative estimates. Given these re strictions it was not pos sible to apply the EU 
net administrative cost model better than in the form of rough estimates. 
 
EN 6   EN 2. SECTION 2: PROBLEM DEFINITION  
2.1. What is the issue or proble m that may require action? 
The importance of the construction sector to the economy of the European Union is evident 
from its significant part of total European  GDP and employment. Annex IV contains two 
tables with data copied from the final report of external study on th e relevant policy options6 
which provide an idea on the st ructural set-up of the sector. 
Although with regard to the part of the construc tion products in this sect or, due to the nature 
of many of them that are suitable primarily  for local manufacture and distribution, their 
internal market potential is with often more limited than for many industrial and consumer 
products, it evident that the traditional setup with localised markets continues to prevail 
inappropriately and that the EU construc tion products market remains fragmented. 
Although statistics vary slightly over time, it is genera lly accepted that the EU constr uction industry accounts for 
some 6-7 % of total European GDP with the added value of construction materials representing some 2-3% of 
the total GDP. The value of the EU25 construction material production in 2005 was around €325 billion, some 
15% of EU total manufacturing output. The direct employment in the EU construction materials and building 
products industry was at the same time around 2.5 million. 
The first of the two external studies carried out to prov ide expertise for this assessment (see 1.2 b) indicates, on 
the basis of thirteen construction product families (see An nex V), that average intra-EEA  trade as a share of the 
apparent consumption for construction products has increased from 21% to 28% over the period between 1995 
and 2005. Products mostly trad ed are structural section steel (90% of th e apparent consumption in 2005). Nearly 
half to one-third of the ceramic tile s (45%), wood based panels (39%), thermal insulation products (36%), fire 
detection/extinguishers (33%) and sanitary appliances (32%) used are traded across EEA internal borders. 
Products relatively little-traded within the EEA are cem ent (8%), windows (6%) and masonry units (3%). 
During its sixteen years of im plementation Council Directiv e 89/106/EEC which aims at 
creating the Internal Market fo r these products has shown a l ack of clarity, controversial 
interpretation by Member States and other stakeholders, difficulties and delay of putting in place and applying its tools, burdensome proced ures, disproportionate administrative burden, 
and unsatisfactory implementation on the ground. As  a result, despite subs tantial progress, the 
internal market potential for construction product s has so far only been partly exploited, with 
an underdeveloped cross-border trade (f or indicative figures, see Annex V). 
In addition, there is a clear need to further develo p this legislation, in or der to address relevant 
developments on the market and in the regu latory field appropriat ely, for example the 
increased placing of “product kits” and “product systems” on the construction product market. 
The issues and problems that may require action regard a series of elements in the CPD, of 
which the principles, instruments, tools a nd procedures can be summarised as follows. 
– Construction products are intermediate product s, to which safety considerations apply 
differently than to end-products. The issue at stake is rather the safety of the works built 
with them than genuine properties of these pr oducts. This has resulted in the CPD being a 
mix of New Approach and non-New Approach legislation. 
                                                 
6 undertaken by Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd (RPA), UK 
 
EN 7   EN – The Community legislation recognises that construction is a field of clearly identified 
subsidiarity: Member States have exclusive competence for building regulations, i.e. the 
rules of design and building of works, while EU  legislation needs to ensure the Internal 
Market for the products used in the works. 
– To conciliate the competing issues above, th e CPD sets out a total of six Essential 
Requirements applicable to works which may in fluence the technical characteristics of a 
construction product which are se t out in European technical specifications. The necessary 
link between both is assured by so-called In terpretative Documents published by the 
Commission. 
– The European technical specifications for cons truction products can be of two kinds: a 
harmonised European standard (hEN) es tablished upon Commission mandate by 
CEN/CENELEC, on the one hand, and a European  Technical Approvals  (ETA) issued for 
specific individual products by one of the A pproval Bodies which are associated in the 
European Organisation for Technical Approval (EOTA), on the other hand.  
The usual type of technical specification is th at of hEN, while ETA is an exceptional one 
reserved to innovative produc ts and products differing signi ficantly from hENs. With 
regard to the latter the CPD assigns to th e Commission the role of issuing mandates for 
establishing a guideline (ETAG) and of authorising the issuing of an ETA in certain cases 
where such guideline does not exist. 
– Construction products subject to hEN or ETA must undergo an Attestation of Conformity 
(AoC) which leads, according to the case, to a certificate of conformity or a declaration of 
conformity entitling the manufacturer to a ffix the corresponding CE marking. AoC consists 
of two distinct elements: Init ial Type Testing (ITT) of the product, and Factory Production 
Control (FPC) which might also include additio nal product testing. Ther e are a total of six 
different levels of AoC procedure under the CP D which all are more or less significantly 
distinct from the modules defined under the New Approach.  
The administrative burden linked to the vari ous levels of AoC procedure under the CPD 
varies significantly. With the exception of one the various leve ls of AoC procedure require 
to a degree which depends on the level, th e involvement of Notified Bodies, i.e. a 
certification body, inspection body and/or test ing laboratory. The directive requires the 
least onerous possible procedure consistent with  safety to be chosen. However, in case of 
individual non-series producti on the simplest and less onerous of the six AoC procedures 
can always be applied, with the exception of some limited and clearly specified cases.  
For a given product or family of construction products the level of AoC procedure to be 
applied to series production needs to be sp ecified in a specific  Commission Decision. 
– Although not expressly provided for in the CPD,  CE marking is largely considered as 
mandatory when an applicable hEN or ETA exists. Member States may, however, exempt 
a product for a single  application.  
AoC and subsequent CE marking with referen ce to specifications other than hEN or ETA, 
e.g. directly to the E ssential Requirements or the related Interpretative Documents, are not 
possible.  
CE marking does not stand alone but must  be accompanied by varying amounts of 
additional information, including in dications to identify the tec hnical characteristics of the 
product. 
– CE marking of a construction pr oduct provides presumption of fitness for use in works in 
application of the national de sign and building rules to be respected. Construction products 
 
EN 8   EN bearing the CE marking must benefit from unrestricted free movement, placing on the 
market and use correspo nding to their fitness. 
– A Standing Committee on Construc tion assists the Commission in the management of the 
CPD, in particular with regard to the tools and instruments to be established and to be 
defined in detail. The committee has a functi on which is partly re gulatory and partly 
advisory. 
– Member States are competent for designating the Approval Bodies entitled to issue ETA 
and, in application of certain minimum c onditions, the Notified Bodies which may be 
involved in the Attestation of  Conformity. They are also exclusively responsible for 
ensuring correct use of CE marking, including market surveillance as well as initiating, 
where needed, and finally implementing the appl ication of the Safeguard Clause provided 
for in the CPD. 
Several of the problems identified when implemen ting these principles, instruments, tools and 
procedures are so important that they must be addressed, in orde r to enable further significant 
progress towards a functioning Internal Mark et for construction products. Awareness is 
growing that significant potential gains can be made from an improved functioning of this 
market, potentially offering advantages needed  to better compete in a globalised market. 
While Europe is by far the most important player on the global market for internationally contracting construction activities, also its trade balance for many families of construction products is positive, but often at low level. Although the global market can be only relevant 
and important for certain European construction  products, such as stru ctural steel, ceramic 
tiles and some relatively high added-value appliances and sy stems, potential for still doing 
better can be seen in fields such as insula tion products and certain specialised systems. 
In addition, there is a need to further develop this legislation, in order to address relevant 
developments on the market and in the regu latory field appropriat ely, for example the 
increased placing of “product kits” and “product systems” on the construction product market. 
To place the identified problems in  their proper context, it is necessary to bear in mind the 
particularities of the constructi on sector and the features of the CPD as summarised in the box 
above, not least what distinguishes it from  other EC legislation related to products. 
A fundamental issue is that Me mber States retain full contro l of establishing construction 
design rules in their respective te rritories (safety and security of  the citizens). Different rules 
generally relate to each type of construction wo rk, reflecting their specific features (buildings, 
bridges, dams, etc.). The construction works, and consequently also the products used and 
integrated, are extensively influenced by the de sign as determined by the designer (architect, 
engineer, etc). In short: design rules (building regulations) are set at MS level (even regional/ 
local level) and are generally not
 related to the performance of an individual product but 
rather to the performance of the entire works (or a major feature of  it) in which it is integrated. 
To support and strengthen the Internal Mark et in such a setup the related Community 
legislation on construction products must aim in the first place at establishing a common 
technical language  to be used by both the MS administrations when setting up and verifying 
the rules and by the manufacturer s producing their products. Su ch a system should enable 
professionals to determine whether a specific pr oduct, regardless of its origin, lives up to the 
required characteristics in order for it to be inte grated into a particular work according to the 
design chosen. To facilitate marketing and ve rification harmonised tec hnical specifications 
 
EN 9   EN are developed as explained. They constitute the above referred common technical language. 
CE marking, as a condition for free circulation on the internal market, is affixed when the 
product satisfies all the appli cable provisions of Community legislation and it can be 
demonstrated that conformity with the appli cable harmonised technical  specifications exists. 
2.2. What are the underlying drivers of the problem? 
During implementation of the CPD according to these principles it became clear that the 
Directive and its detailed wording as well as the modalities and variations of the national 
implementation mechanisms are usually the major drivers of the problems identified. 
However, the detailed issues, as presented below, generally represent complex and inter-
related problems, both to be reviewed separate ly as individual items and components and to 
be addressed with regard to potential mutual effects on each other and cumulative effects. 
A substantial part of the indicated probl ems are driven by misunderstandings among 
stakeholders of the overall objectives, concepts  and tools of the CPD as summarised in the 
box in 2.1. A major source of misunderstanding/conf usion has been the references to the CPD 
as being a New Approach act (NA). Although identic al or similar expressions are used in the 
CPD and the NA, their definitions and/or significance are not matching. Since the New 
Approach concept is currently undergoing a revision7 to address problems discovered during 
implementation, this simultaneous review of th e CPD offers a unique po ssibility to clarify 
misunderstandings, harmonise the language us ed and align the Community legislation 
regarding construction products a nd the Internal Market for them  better to the NA with regard 
to aspects (e.g. terminology employed, notified bodies, market surveillance etc) in common. 
The main identified underlyi ng problem drivers can be grouped under six headings: 
Issues associated with the implem entation mechanisms of the CPD : 
• The harmonisation work of the Internal Market  advances slowly due to substantial delays 
in the technical harmonisation work by CEN/CENELEC and Approval Bodies; 
• The application of the Attestation of Confor mity procedures is not always precise enough 
regarding the requir ed involvement of the Notified Bodies. This often leads to unnecessary 
burden for the manufacturers, which are submi tted to more testing than necessary. An 
example is when only the specific treatment of  one performance characteristic requires the 
involvement of a Notified Body. Then, it is not clear to what extent this body should also 
be involved in the treatment of the other characteristics. 
• Four Member States8 have brought into force provisi ons which make CE marking not 
mandatory; this creates a non-level playi ng field for manufacturers across the EU. 
• Unclear provisions in the curr ent directive are also  responsible for an important number of 
infringement proceedings, in particular rega rding issues in relation to CE marking (see 
below). The Commission services need substa ntial resources to follow up on infringement 
claims related to MS imposing differing and a dditional national requirements and to follow 
closely CEN work. 
                                                 
7 See COM(2007) 35 final 
8 Finland, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom 
 
EN 10   EN Issues related to harmonised European standards under the CPD (hENs)  
• Confusion exists regarding th e significance, meaning and cont ent of harmonised European 
standards under the CPD which are unduly iden tified with the “typical” New Approach 
harmonised standards. 
• Many hENs contain an unnecessary rigidity in the technical solutions proposed, in 
particular related to the strong reliance on testing as the only method for evaluating 
performances, without exploring the possibili ty for proposing other means for evaluating 
the performances less onerous than testing. 
Issues related to European Technical Approvals (ETAs)  
• Ambiguous CPD provisions make certain parties be lieve that it is mandatory to request an 
ETA in the absence of harmonised European st andards. The resulting differences in the 
implementation by various MS lead to c onfusion and distortions of the market. 
• Establishing Guidelines as a basis for gran ting an ETA is bureaucratic, cumbersome, takes 
much time and costs several hundred-thousand Eu ros for one Guideline. Therefore it is 
often replaced by another approach develope d by EOTA for achieving a common view of 
Approval Bodies, called Common Understa nding of Assessment Procedure, not 
specifically provided for by th e CPD. However there are some concerns, although to a 
lesser extent, that also the CUAP route is insufficiently transparent and too bureaucratic. 
• Manufacturers consider the cost of often se veral ten-thousand Euros or even more for 
obtaining an ETA too high, and that they are insufficiently involved when this type of 
particular technical spec ification is established. 
Issues related to Approval Bodies (ABs) and Notified Bodies (NBs)  
• Concerns over the functioning, neutrality, competence and transparency of certain 
Approval Bodies (ABs) whose designation is  exclusively based on national selection 
criteria. The CPD contains no criteria con cerning their designation and these issues. 
• There are even more frequently concerns ex pressed regarding the technical competence of 
NBs, the reliability of their work and their interest. This is mainly due to different 
interpretations by the MS of the inadequate i ndications of their role  and of weak minimum 
conditions for their designation in the CPD. 
Issues related to CE marking 
• Confusion as to the meaning of the CE marking under the CP D, often mistakenly thought 
to relate directly to safety, as in the New Approach di rectives. However, CE marking under 
the CPD does not indicate conformity of the product to the six Essential Requirements 
since these requirements are not related to th e product itself but to the entire works in 
which the product is incorporated. CE marki ng under the CPD indicate s that the certified 
or declared performance is accurate, reliable and stable and that the manufacturer has 
followed the AoC procedures foreseen in the applicable hEN or ETA. 
• This confusion has lead to erroneous interp retations of requirements by MS authorities 
involved at the various levels with enforcemen t of the CPD, resulting often in requiring 
 
EN 11   EN manufacturers to perform additional testing of the product which is both unnecessary and 
contrary to the provisions of  the CPD. The continuing re ference of new application 
standards in national regula tions and related national c onformity markings affects 
companies’ ability to place products on na tional markets with CE marking “only”.  
Moreover, once affixed, CE marking is in practice not fully accepted by various parties (public bodies, designers, contractors, building/ works owners, insuranc e companies, etc.). 
This seems to be due to (perceived) lacking consistency between the working of the Notified Bodies involved in Attestation of C onformity plus a lack of efficient market 
surveillance. In turn this leads to build ers and insurance companies not accepting CE 
marking as being reliable with  regard to produc t performances and to MS authorities 
continuing to refer to national or voluntar y marks in their national regulations.  
As a result, products very ofte n bear national marks costing se veral thousand Euros or even 
more to obtain in addition to the CE marki ng, the latter being perceived as generating 
added cost without added value rather than as a passport for the w hole European market, 
while further burden often exists for the compan ies to identify and fulfil the requirements 
of additional national requirements. 
Issues regarding products manufactured indi vidually/non-series and micro enterprises 
• As the cost of Attestation of Conformity and CE marking incr eases little with the number 
of product specimen manufactured, for products  manufactured in small number, often by 
very small enterprises/artisans the cost of A ttestation of Conformity and of CE marking 
potentially contributes more to total costs per product specimen compared with 
manufacturers producing big series with economies of scale.  
• Despite the general possibility  of applying, with some excep tions, in case of individual 
non-series production the simplest and less one rous of the six AoC procedures the CPD 
provisions and the technical spec ifications established under the CPD seem not to be the 
most appropriate tool to regul ate for individually manufactur ed products (for example type 
testing and factory production cont rol necessarily need to be d ealt with differently for these 
products than for products manufactured in series). The placing on the market of such 
individually manufactured products normally follows a specific and well-established 
agreement between the manufacturer and the client-user, and tech nical or regulatory 
obstacle impeding intra-Community tr ade are not relevant for them. 
Issue related to market surveillance : 
• A market surveillance system equally effective in all Member States does not exist. It is 
claimed that falsely CE marked products can  enter the EU market . Many stakeholders 
consider the absence of efficient market surv eillance as leading to abuses of the system. 
2.3. Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent? 
All operators on the construction market are directly affected by the Internal Market for 
construction products, i.e. besi des manufacturers of construc tion products also designers 
(architects and engineers), cont ractors (builders), clients (own ers/contract assigners) as well 
as public authorities at the various levels in various functions and sp ecific technical bodies. 
Manufacturers of construction products are most fundamentally affected at their activities by 
the tools and instruments provided for by legisl ation relating to these products, with direct 
effects on their costs. However, these effects ar e very different depending on the nature of the 
 
EN 12   EN product and the volume of the manufacturer’s pr oduction, on the one han d, and on the market 
area to which he is providing or wanting to provide his products as well as on the various 
national regulatory requirements in this  targeted market area, on the other hand. 
With regard to the market area, the effects on the costs of the pr oducts for an individual 
manufacturer can be found between the follo wing two extremes. The one extreme is a 
manufacturer targeting with a pr oduct manufactured in a single factory the entire EEA market 
or a large part of it w ith previously many diffe rent national requirements Æ this manufacturer 
has high cost savings through re ferring to harmonised technical  specifications instead of many 
different national ones and thr ough a single attestation of conformity followed by CE marking 
instead of many national attestations of conf ormity followed by different national markings. 
The other extreme is the frequent case of a manufacturer who provides to a market in the 
territory of only Member State which, furthermor e, might have rather low-profile regulatory 
requirements with regard to this product Æ this manufacturer does not  have cost savings from 
harmonisation which, moreover, might require  him to respect minimum specifications, 
attestation of conformity and marking, which we re not relevant for him and therefore mean 
new and additional cost and burden. The way in which manufacturers’ cost and burden are affected, and to what extent, therefore also de pend on to what extent products of the family 
concerned are traded within the EEA across national borders (see box below and Annex V), 
and on the national regula tory situation which exists or ha s existed before harmonisation in 
the market area targeted by an individual manufacturer. 
In addition, a well-functioning Internal  Market means busin ess opportunities for 
manufacturers which result from a larger ma rket, but also exposure to more competition. 
Depending on the case and the indi vidual business model, this mi ght result in expansion or 
new enterprises being set up, but al so in loss of clients and busin ess failure. As in most other 
sectors, for common products ratio nalisation and concen tration are likely to result, while new 
business opportunities and creation of new enterprises are more to be expected for specialised 
and innovative products and niche markets. 
For architects and engineers a well-functioning In ternal Market for construction products has 
the advantage of being able to choose among or refer to products to be used which originate 
from a larger geographical area. While these products must have performance characteristics according to harmonised technical specifications, and therefore can be easily compared, the geographically larger ma rket and the variety of products wi thin the limits of the harmonised 
technical specifications allow an optimal choi ce both in design and performance terms and in 
terms of cost-effectiveness. A wider choice also  from formerly unused origin does not mean 
necessarily more efforts to be invested by de signers. A larger market with harmonisation 
makes it more attractive for manuf acturers or other initiative part ies to provide designers with 
effort and cost cutting IT-based  tools facilitating their work. 
Contractors are usually in a comp arable situation: although most  of them use products usually 
marketed in their geographical area of activit y, they may in principle choose among products 
placed on the market anywhere in the EEA, tryi ng to improve their performance and to reduce 
costs generated by the construction products used
9. Furthermore, well-developed and 
                                                 
9 A generally accepted approximation says that about one third of the cost of a typical building is related 
to the cost of the building materials and products. Th e figures are more variable (but often higher) when 
it comes to civil engineering works. Indirectly all operators on the market, also occasional buyers of 
products and services, are affected by the functioning of this market. 
 
EN 13   EN commonly agreed technical specifications for c onstruction products and reliable attestation of 
conformity and marking based on them correspond to contractors’ general wish to be as far as 
possible discharged from liability for the deliverables of their activity. 
The contract assigners and/or owners of works as well as the users of the works are the final 
ones to bear the cost of construction and to benefit from the quality of works. In a construction market characterised by competiti on, improved performance and reliability and 
cost savings benefit at the end these operators. Their decisions are largely influenced by these 
factors, including prices. Available data (see reference in Annex VI) show important price 
variation between some EU countries for a number of common construction products 
delivered at the site. The highest variati ons were found for masonry products (common 
bricks) (up to 700%), structural steel (up to  300%) and cement (up to 200%). These price 
differences have to be taken cau tiously for several reasons: first,  for a given pr oduct, there is 
not “one price”, but a range of prices in  a country, second, the product concept is not 
necessarily covering the same reality trough th e different countries, for example, a common 
brick is defined by the authors of  the report as a “non facing brick usually applied in each 
country in residential buildings”. Such a br ick may obviously vary between countries. The 
quality may be different, but al so dimensions of common bricks  may vary between countries. 
So, it is obvious that pr ices of common bricks ar e not so easily comparable as in the case, for 
instance, of a pr oduct like cement.  
It can nevertheless be concluded that these figures indi cate important price differences 
between countries and that they mainly stem from a lack of competition either within the 
industry itself or in the downst ream distribution, stockholding a nd retail chain. Increased trade 
and choice of products and suppliers should create  pressure to reduce these price differentials. 
Potential gains from trade, or increase of comp etition, can be very big,  especially from the 
increased trade between the old and new Member States. 
Finally, there are many parties th at are indirectly a ffected: the construc tion sector plays a 
strategic role in providing the buildings and in frastructure underpinning the activities of the 
rest of the economy. 
From the above it is clear that measures im proving the resource use and performance of the 
construction sector including c onstruction products, could have significant potential impact on 
the EU economy as a whole. 
2.4. How would the problem evolve , all things being equal and taking into account 
actions already taken or planned by the EU, Member States and other actors? 
The likely developments under an option where th e CPD continues to be in force unchanged 
(‘no change option’, see chapter 4.1) would be in sufficient to fulfil in a satisfactory way the 
specified objective of fostering an in ternal market for construction products. 
This baseline option (CPD unchanged), implie s that only measures related to a natural 
evolution of the legislation in its current fo rm would be introduced. Some of the recent and 
current developments pointing towards some mo difications in the f unctioning/implementation 
of the CPD would lead to maintaining (or even worsening) the current problems related to the absence of a level-playing field within th e EU. Other measures initiated, however, are 
expected to reduce existing dive rgences in national requirement s as well as in testing and 
certification regimes. 
 
EN 14   EN Chapter 5.1 below contains more details of this evolution. With the detailed projected 
developments building on current trends, it became clear that even under the hypothesis of 
appropriate acts of the proposed New Legal Framework10 being in force and quickly 
implemented, with further modest steps towa rds greater convergence likely, an unchanged 
Community legislation regarding construction products would not allow the EU to live up to 
fostering the Internal Market and to properl y and fully address the problems as identified 
under 2.1 and 2.2. 
2.5. Does the EU have the right to act – T reaty base, ‘necessity test’ (subsidiarity) 
and fundamental rights limits? 
Community legislation on construction products has Article 95a (former 100a) of the Treaty 
establishing the European Economic Community as  a firm legal basis. In the 1980s, the CPD 
was developed following the Single Market Programme and White Paper on Completing the Internal Market
11. A new proposal for a revised legal act related to co nstruction products 
places itself in a similar logic of further st rengthening the Internal Market with direct 
reference to Article 95 of the Treaty  establishing the European Community. 
Although cross-border trade of construction pr oducts in the Internal Market shows big 
variations between very high and very low depending the fa mily of products concerned, 
technical barriers to trade in this  area are a very serious issue a nd continue to be so despite 16 
years of implementation of Counc il Directive 89/106/EEC). This constitutes a clear necessity 
for the EU to act. The existing Construction Pr oducts Directive (89/106/EEC) was developed 
as a measure for establishing mechanisms for a harmonised set of attestation procedures 
which enables multiple attestation to be re moved and national regulations on both products 
and works to use common language when expre ssing specifications. This approximation of 
national systems should provide an appropriate le vel of protection to health, safety and the 
environment whilst ensuring that the cost s imposed on business remain reasonable. 
Appropriately strict product regulations and enfor cement of such rules are expected to lead to 
more security about the consistency of perfor mance levels, but are overall also likely to 
increase costs for producers. 
To achieve a well-functioning Inte rnal Market for c onstruction products a nd the required legal 
certainty in technical terms as well as to a ddress the above-mentioned inherent conflicts of 
interest without fragmentation of  the markets, the issues relati ng to construction products need 
to be addressed at EU level. Th e principle of subsidiarity is fully respected by the fact that 
Member States not only are assigned appropr iate responsibilities with regard to the 
implementation of Community legislation on co nstruction products, but furthermore maintain 
exclusive competence for building regulations, i.e.  the rules of design and building of works. 
3. SECTION 3: OBJECTIVES  
3.1. What are the general policy objectives? 
The general policy objective is that of improvi ng the free circulation and use of construction 
products. More specifically, it is intended to achieve a less fragmented  construction products 
                                                 
10 COM(2007) 37 final, and COM(2007) 53 final 
11 COM (85) 310 final 
 
EN 15   EN market, which has a traditionally localised setup and consequent limited amount of cross-
border trade. This is expected to also ha ve significant consequences regarding more 
competition, in turn followed by higher product ivity development in the construction products 
sector and in the construction se ctor as a whole. To this end a number of problems need to be 
solved which seriously limit the advances towards an Internal Market and have been identified with regard to the implementati on of the current EU tool for improving the 
functioning of the market, i.e. Council Direct ive 89/106/EEC (Construction Products 
Directive -CPD). 
3.2. What are the more specific/operational objectives 
Ensuring better functioning of the Community le gislation in this field on the ground includes 
addressing difficulties, costs, etc. for individu al actors when attempting to understand and live 
up to stipulations of the Community legislat ion, as implemented in the Member States. 
Consequently, as indicated in the Commission initiative Better Regulation:  Simplification 
Strategy
12 of 2005, one important policy ob jective is to make this legislation less burdensome 
and easier to apply, in particular  for SMEs, while preserving the other EU policy objectives of 
this legislation. In line with this simplification initiative, the review of  the functioning of the 
existing Directive should include a decision as to whether the approach or iginally chosen (the 
format and functioning of the legislative tools) is the most effective in order to meet the 
objectives of the legislation. 
The Commission agrees with the view strongly e xpressed in the replies to its consultations, 
i.e. that the approach chosen  in the CPD to achieve the In ternal Market objective through 
technical harmonisation placing demands on both manufacturers of construction products and 
on public authorities as well as the general acquis  and technical specifications established 
under the CPD should be maintained. This means that: 
• manufacturers are expected to express the pe rformance characteristics of the product that 
they place on the European market using exclusively the harmonised technical language set 
in the technical specifications  relevant to that product; and 
• public authorities are obliged to use this ha rmonised language when defining the technical 
requirements of works, affecting directly or i ndirectly the products used in those works. 
3.3. Consistency of these objectives with other EU policies and horizontal objectives, 
such as the Lisbon and Sustainable De velopment strategies or respect for 
fundamental rights. 
As indicated above, the general policy objective and the more specific/operational objectives 
pursued are not only fully consistent with seve ral of the basic Community policies, but are 
even a direct and necessary consequence of th em, such as the Lisbon Strategy and the policies 
aiming at better and simplified regulation. 
They are also fully in line with the strategies related to Sustainable De velopment. For instance 
several of the Essential Requirements already set out in the current CPD and intended to 
continue as the basis for formulating technical  specifications for cons truction products, are 
                                                 
12 COM (2005) 535 final 
 
EN 16   EN directly related to the fields  of preserving the environm ent and ensuring environmental 
protection as well as achieving energy  economy, thus fighting climate change. 
It is important to underline that the technical language referred to above, needed for a proper 
functioning of the internal Ma rket, must be also a powerful  tool at the service of the 
environmental policies of the Union and of the Me mber States in the fi eld of construction and 
construction products. Harmonised technical specif ications must integrate this dimension and 
provide technical means to fulf il environmental requirements. 
Aspects of fundamental ri ghts are not concerned. 
4. SECTION 4: POLICY OPTIONS  
4.1. What are the possible options for meet ing the objectives and tackling the 
problem? 
Option 1 - No EU action: no change 
The baseline option is for Council Directive 89/106/ EEC, the CPD, to continue to be in force 
as it currently exists. No clarification or simplification of the requirements of the Directive other than those related to the natural evolution of the legislation in its current form and to legislation applicable to th is field beyond the CPD (see 2.4 above) would be undertaken.  
However, some of the existing divergences in national requirement s and in testing and 
certification regimes could be reduced through alr eady initiated means of administrative 
cooperation between national authorities. 
Option 2 - No legislation (non-regulatory option) 
This option would imply a repeal of Council Directive 89/106/EEC without any substitute, 
and a reversion to mutual recognition wh ile taking into account the current Commission 
proposal in this field as part  of the New Legal Framework
13.  
In practice the Internal Market would be ba sed exclusively on the pr inciple that a product 
lawfully marketed in one Member State can be marketed in any other Member State, even if 
the product does not fully comply w ith the technical rules of the destination Member State, as 
long as a Member State has not sufficiently ju stified reasons for banning the product on the 
market in its territory.  This approach, facilitating the free movement  of goods and services  without a need to 
harmonise Member States’ national legislation, should receive serious consideration as seems 
to be well-suited for the construction sector based on national/regional rules regarding the 
technical design of works. 
                                                
 
13 COM(2007) 36 final 
 
EN 17   EN Option 3 - Revision of the Community legisl ation on construction products (the CPD) 
This option would consist of  clarifications, expansions and re visions, in order to address all 
the problems identified (see 2.1 and 2.2 above). Unde r it a wide range of various alternatives 
with regard to principles, provisions, rules,  procedures and tools to be followed can be 
explored.  The external study on the relevant policy op tions undertaken from December 2006 to May 
2007
14 has largely entered into this explor ation and roughly grouped them under two 
alternatives as separate options, i.e. either bringing the Community legislation on construction 
products fully into line with the New Approach  or not doing so. However, since major parts 
of the New Legal Framewor k proposed in February 200715 will need to be integrated or taken 
into account also in a revised Community legi slation on construction products, it would be 
misleading to continue considering thes e alternatives as separate options.  
Nevertheless, the analysis of this option starts  by assessing the potential  for fully aligning the 
revised legal document with the New Approach. 
4.2. Which options have been discarded at an early stage and why? 
Despite the fact that the Comm ission has announced in several official documents a proposal 
for a recast (revision) of C ouncil Directive 89/106/EEC, no opt ion has in principle been 
excluded beforehand. Each of the three main po licy options is assessed in Section 5 below 
with reference to the problems identified in S ection 2 above and the objectives of the CPD, in 
particular supporting the free circulation and use of cons truction products throughout the 
Internal Market by means of technical harmonisation. 
5. SECTION 5: ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
Hereafter the following four issues have been dealt which comprehensively without 
addressing them in separate chapters16: 
5.1. What are the likely economic, social a nd environmental impacts of each of the 
short-listed options? 
5.2. Positive and negative impacts, direct and indirect, including outside the EU. 
5.3. Uncertainties and how impact may be a ffected by changes in parameters 
(uncertainty and sensitivity analysis). 
5.4. Include impacts in the EU and outside the EU. 
5.5. Specify which impacts are likely to change over time and how. 
The impacts were analysed using a step by step approach , starting with the degree to which 
the different policy options could address th e problems identified in Section 2 above while  
                                                 
14 by Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd (RPA), UK 
15 COM(2007) 35 final, COM(2007) 37 final, and COM(2007) 53 final 
16 As these issues are inter-related and influencing each ot her at the level of findings, they have been dealt 
with simultaneously. Separating them would have meant significant repetition of statements. 
 
EN 18   EN strengthening the general polic y objective related to fosteri ng an Internal Market for 
Construction Products. The three main policy op tions identified were assessed, and despite 
uncertainty and lack of quantitat ive data it was also possible to  indicate trends according to 
which impacts are rather lik ely to change over time. 
As policy option 3 - Revision of the Community  legislation on constr uction products (the 
CPD), was found to have the highest  potential of strengthening the abilities to live up to the 
Internal Market objective while addressing th e problems identified, the subsequent analysis 
focused on the detailed impact assessment and the comparison between the large number of possible measures falling under Option 3. 
Subsequently, a series of detailed possibl e measures under Option 3 were defined and 
examined, all potentially addres sing one or several of the id entified problems. This provided 
the starting point for defining comprehensive revision alternatives. The implications of 
implementing the defined measures were assess ed both individually and in combination, in 
order to identify a preferred p ackage of revision measures.  
The environmental impact category has been excluded from this analysis, since the main 
objective of the Community legislation in questi on is to establish an Internal Market through 
technical harmonisation. As stated before, this  objective is fully compatible with the 
environmental objectives to the extent that th e instrument used for achieving the Internal 
Market must also integrate the environmental objectives both at European and Member States 
level. This is why the technical specifications  for construction products cannot be dissociated 
from environmental aspects and implications even if the provisions included in this revised Community legislation or the other options do not in them selves have environmental 
implications as in any case they take th e environmental issues into account.  
Nevertheless, it has to be underlined that th e proposal significantly extends the scope of the 
former Directive as far as the environmenta l aspects are concerned. The draft CPR covers 
now effects on the environment that occur duri ng the work’s entire lif ecycle. This is done 
through an important modification of the Basic Work Requirement  n° 3 (BR 3). Furthermore, 
a BR 7 is added to cover aspects related to the sustainable use of natural resources. 
It is important to add that th e proposal will require even more from the harmonised technical 
specifications in so far as the scope of the basic requirement number 3 has been extended to 
cover also the external air and not only the indoor air as it is the case in the present directive. The effect of the revision is then positive for the environment taken in to account that the 
emissions to the external air, CO2 or other, could be taken into account in the mandates for 
standards and in the European  Technical Assessments.  
On the other hand, it can be argu ed that the expected  increase in the intra-community trade 
flows will result in an increase of transport flow s and then in negative impact on environment. 
These considerations are of course very importa nt but they have to be placed in the general 
discussion of the sustainable growth. It is assumed here that the positive economic and welfare (including the resulting increased safety ) effects will largely compensate the induced 
negative environmental effects. 
• Social impacts are not considered as part of the detailed assessment either, as they do not 
depend on the legal approach and provisions at  Community level under which construction 
 
EN 19   EN products are specified, placed on the market and their free movement and use guaranteed. 
Instead, these impacts together with potential  economic impacts at th e level of the macro-
economy are considered together in the light  of the final combination of measures 
identified as being the preferred pol icy option for the revised legislation. 
The impact categories considered in this assessment have been selected through a screening of 
possible impacts against the impact categories listed in the Impact Assessment Guidelines which are relevant to this case. This has i nvolved considering each impact type against the 
stakeholder groups that would be affected and the options to identify those impact categories 
that should to be considered in this study. Th e impacts against which the measures have been 
assessed are as follows: 
• operating costs and conduct of business; 
• administrative costs on businesses; 
• competitiveness, trade and investment flows; 
• competition in the internal market; 
• innovation and research. 
Although both the big variations  depending on the various indi vidual specific conditions and 
the lack of quantitative data ma ke it impossible to assess sufficien tly in monetary  terms any of 
the many effects that would result from the three basic options, it was tried to roughly 
estimate administrative costs
17 incurred under each of them w ith the help of the very limited 
data available from the two exte rnal studies undertaken . Since the data available did not allow 
a calculation by applying the Core equation of the cost model18 as foreseen in the updated 
Section 10 of the Annexes to the Impact Assess ment Guidelines, EU net cost model could not 
be used. Nevertheless the undertaken global quantitative estimates were compared and 
aggregated for each option. It should be noted th at without further proof all three options are 
considered to be cost-neutral in terms of admi nistrative burden for contr act assigners, owners 
and users of works. 
The lack of relevant data is mostly explained by the big complexity of the issue. The number 
of sectors (families of products) involved, the numb er of different uses for a given family of 
products and the number of different regulator y situations that can apply to a given 
use/product, explain, for instance,  that there is not a “type” of  European Technical Approval 
representative of the “ normal” cost of such approval. This  explains as well the enormous 
range observed in the interview based estimati ons of both, costs and benefits of a given 
measure. 
                                                 
17 Please note that in the context of administrative  costs measurement and reduction, terms administrative 
"costs" and administrative "burden" are used interc hangeably in the sense that the term “costs” is 
preferred when burden has a measurable economic consequence. 
18 Administrative costs should be a ssessed on the basis of the average cost of the required action (Price) 
multiplied by the total number of actions performe d per year (Quantity). The average cost per action 
will be generally estimated by multiplying a tariff (based on average labour cost per hour including 
prorated overheads) and the time required per action.  Where appropriate, other types of costs such as 
equipment or supplies’ costs will be taken into accoun t. The quantity will be calculated as the frequency 
of required actions multiplied by the number of entities concerned. 
 
EN 20   EN Figures provided in annex V are a good illustration of this. Original data has been obtained 
from surveys realised by PRC and RPA studies, directly on the stakeh olders. They show the 
complexity of the issue and give some valuable indication of the range of the values that can 
take some important components of  the cost of the CE marking. 
5.5.1.  Option 1 - No EU action: no change 
Option 1 is assumed to be characterised by th e following developments and effects for the 
period from 2007 to 201519: 
i) The development of a critical mass of harm onised standards begins to take effect, for 
example improving the standing of the CE marking. The present programme of hENs 
should be completed over the next 3-5 year s, with all hENs being effective by 201520 
ii) The tool of European T echnical Approval (ETA) will be used and accepted more 
widely, generally based on Common Unde rstanding of Assessment Procedures 
(CUAP). It can be assumed that there wi ll be no or only very  few new European 
Technical Approval Guidelines (ET AGs) mandated by the Commission. The 
opposite scenario is also possible: the volunt ary character of ETAs together with the 
costly and bureaucratic nature of the pro cedures could result in a lower confidence in 
such system and stronger position for national marks and systems. 
iii) CE marking continues to be mandatory in most Member States and voluntary in four 
others, including differences in interpreta tion with regard to when CE marking is 
required and for what products . The current concerns rega rding a level playing field 
would remain in principle. However, Court rulings in the case of current 
infringement proceedings could result in convergence and force the remaining four 
Member States also to make CE mark ing for construction products mandatory. 
iv) New voluntary quality marks continue to de velop to enable product differentiation in 
relation to characteristics or performances  not covered by hENs. Voluntary marks or 
national technical approvals may still be in use for new, innovative products or 
traditional products with specific characteristics of interest to the market. 
v) Initial steps towards co-ordinated market  surveillance might be taken based on the 
administrative cooperation of Member State authorities as  initiated. This could be 
reinforced by the implementation of mechanisms of the proposed New Legal Framework
21. 
vi) Some steps towards creating increased confidence in the competency of Notified 
Bodies (NBs) could develop through the in troduction of new requirements for their 
designation and notification, etc., in partic ular as soon as appropriate acts of the 
proposed New Legal Framework17 are in force and implemented. 
                                                 
19 The period 2007-2015 is seen as appropriate in order for ongoing developments to produce tangible 
results, notably those related to “completing the development of standards” and “the using of the tools of the existing directive to take steps towards more harmonized implementation across the EU”. 
20 Currently, 319 out of a total of 463 ‘concerned’ standards have been referenced as hENs in the OJEU. 
21 COM(2007) 37 final, and COM(2007) 53 final 
 
EN 21   EN vii) The Commission gradually shifts the emphasis of its work from managing the 
process of developing standards (gra dually finalised) towards enforcement 
concerning the obligations of public aut horities under the CPD, including follow-up 
to complaints. This shift could lead to greater pressure for national marks and approval systems to gradually be redu ced, including a reductio n in the use of 
insurance-related marks. 
The assessment of whether co ntinuing with the CPD in its current form – including the 
assumptions i) to vii) above – would address the main identified problems as discussed in 
Section 2 shows that without further clarifying  the key aspects of the CPD – such as its 
objective, the meaning of CE marking, and th e obligations of both manufacturers and public 
authorities – it will be difficult to improve the functioning of the Directive and to meet the 
internal market objective of the CPD. 
During stakeholder consultations and other in formation fora there has been a unanimous 
strong request (across all stak eholder groups and all countrie s) for clarification of CPD 
provisions, including several fundamental concep ts regarding the general approach, such as 
clearly indicating/distinguishing the CPD concep ts from those of the New Approach, defining 
the meaning and the status of the CE marki ng, the acceptance of the CE marking by National 
authorities and by private econom ic actors, the role of the standards and the European 
Technical Approvals (ETA’s ), among other issues. 
It is also clear that a series of further measures  need to be undertaken if many of the identified 
problems, as listed, are to be addressed. 
The assessment also indicates the remaining issues/steps that w ould need to be addressed in 
order to overcome the identified problems related to the implementation of the CPD. These include using definitions from the New Legal Framework
22 and making links to the proposed 
forthcoming legislation on the accreditation of notified bodies and on market surveillance 
which would require an adjusted legal docum ent. These measures are likely to help 
addressing issues regarding the confidence in  the CE marking, but would not necessarily 
make the meaning of CE marking clearer or ensure that the dua l obligations of  manufacturers 
and public authorities were fulfilled. 
Consequently, many of the current problems, su ch as the unclear meaning of CE marking, 
different approaches to CE marking in diffe rent MS (mandatory, non-mandatory), others 
related to the system of attestation of confor mity, etc., would continue to exist. Thus, the 
Community legislation would continue to f ace serious impediments meeting its Internal 
Market objective. 
This assessment indicates that continuing with the CPD in its current form, even with the 
changes that are predicted to occur in the s cenario up until 2015, would not be sufficient to 
address the identified problems. 
                                                 
22 For example, the proposed Decisi on of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common 
Framework for the Marketing of Prod ucts [COM(2007) 53 final] sets out definitions for key concepts 
such as ‘placing on the market’, and ‘manufacturer’. Some of these are relevant to the existing CPD, 
while the differences between the CPD and the NA would make adoption of the proposed definitions 
concerning a harmonised standard and a technical specification inappropriate. 
 
EN 22   EN The impacts which this option would have on i ndividual stakeholders can be summarised as 
follows. 
Manufacturers:  to a certain extent co ntinued undue costs of manu facturers when placing 
products on the market (from more testing than  necessary, unnecessarily high costs of ETAs 
and much time needed for their delivery, near ly no flexibility in how to demonstrate 
compliance), offset by advantages, if any, from th e Internal Market which are lower than they 
could be.  As the experience with the CPD shows, and can to  some extent also be expected for the other 
options, there would be variati ons in the impacts de pending on the kind of  the product, on the 
one hand, and the category of ma nufacturer and his marketi ng area, on the other hand. The 
kind of product influences the impact mainly b ecause of the specific level of Attestation of 
Conformity determined for the pr oduct, which can be more or le ss costly, possible difficulties 
with the official or market acceptance of the CE marking and consequently needed additional testing and marking, which can be different  depending on the product, and whether the 
product is of high or of low ma nufacturing added value. Furt hermore the general level of 
intra-EEA trade as a share of the apparent consumption is largely product-specific (see box on 
page 12)  For individual manufacturers, in cluding those located outside the EEA, not only some of the 
potential net benefits from the Internal Ma rket would not be obtained with this option, 
perhaps even entirely , but it is also not unusual that there be particular situations in which 
this option generates net costs for EU manufa cturers which are not offset by savings when 
compared to the option of mutual recognition only. In such a comparison roughly large EU 
manufacturers and the non-EU ma nufacturers rather benefit from  the CPD in the place of 
mutual recognition. But for manu facturers whose products  are distributed in a marketing area 
which does not cross borders, in par ticular a big share of the about 90% smaller and crafts 
enterprises  among the manufacturers, and particularly  those who are located in the territory 
of a Member State with low requirements as long as harmonised technical specifications 
under the CPD do not apply, undifferentiated implementati on of the CPD generates 
additional costs  through the need of complying with  its provisions and its implementation 
instruments which are not offset by any savings th ey could realise, as the Internal Market for 
construction products is not relevant for them. 
Professional users : no tangible cost effects compared to  the current situa tion, but gradually 
over time CE marking should be considered as an advantage and provide benefits from a 
wider range of products to choose from, and pot ential savings, despite the remaining problems 
with the CPD system. 
Member State public authorities : no tangible effects compared  to the current situation. 
European Commission : saving of costs which a revision would generate as administrative 
task, but no tangible cost effects in the mana gement of legislation compared to the current 
situation and continued administra tive costs due to complaints and to certain difficulties with 
hENs which could be avoided with  a better functioning legislation.  
Standardisation bodies (CEN) : at first no tangible effects compared to the current situation, 
but afterwards less standardisation ac tivity or a shift to periodic revision. 
Approval Bodies (EOTA) : continued income from quite demanding procedures for obtaining 
ETAs, but in a situation where the ETA route remains partly unattractive. 
 
EN 23   EN Notified Bodies : continued income from partly onerous  Attestation of Conformity mainly 
based on physical testing, gradually increasing as further hENs are established and ETAs 
continue to be issued. When in force and implemented accre ditation as proposed under the 
New Legal Framework will generate for some No tified Bodies additional costs of complying 
with the accreditation framework and increased  competency requirements, while some of 
them may not succeed in obtaining accreditation. 
In an attempt of quantification it can be estim ated that Option 1- No EU action: no change 
would lead to maintaining certain unneces sary costs of manufacturers from undue 
administrative burden at a total amount of up to  € 50 million a year. While these costs would 
entirely be offset by Internal Market advant ages, these advantages would be lower than 
possible, with estimated benefits that could not  be realised possibl y totalling up to € 200 
million a year.  
Against this, overall effects on costs in form of administrati ve burden of the various other 
stakeholder categories (professiona l users, authorities, specifi cation writers and bodies related 
to attestation of conformity) are negligible. 
However, continued undue costs of manufac turers placing products on the market, in 
particular in the territory of  a number of Member States, c ould be expected to become 
relatively less important over time when the practice of the current CPD system is further improving. But with an increasing number of ha rmonised European standards there are also 
increasing numbers of cases wher e enterprises manufacture cons truction products  distributed 
in a marketing area which does not cross border s and to which requirements less burdensome 
than those under the CPD system applied, and for which the CPD generates additional costs 
through the need of complying with its provisi ons and its implementation instruments which 
are not offset by savings at a sa me rate. But in relative terms, i.e. compared to the overall 
market for construction products, this probl em should be less important over time.  
For the various other stakeholder categories ch anges in impact related to Option 1 over time 
are not significant enough to be considered, with the exception of more or less steadily 
increasing advantages and benef its for professional users and activity and income of Approval 
Bodies and Notified Bodies. 
5.5.2.  Option 2 - No legislation (non-regulatory option) 
Repealing Council Directive 89/10 6/EEC could lead to Member States re-introducing very 
different systems and technical specifications  for the placing on the market and use of 
construction products. The mutual recognition prin ciple based exclusivel y on Article 28 of the 
Treaty establishing the Europ ean Economic Community and in future also on an act as 
proposed in the context of the New Legal Framework
23 would largely correspond to the 
situation in place for construction products prior to the introduction of the CPD and, de facto , 
remains relevant for products for which harmoni sed technical specifications (hEN or ETA) do 
not (yet) exist. Although such an  approach, i.e. facilitating fr ee movement without a need to 
harmonise provisions and rules would seem to suit the construction sector based on national or regional rules regarding the technical design of  the works, it must be emphasised that this 
                                                
 
23 COM(2007) 36 final 
 
EN 24   EN approach is limited to free movement and placi ng on the market of construction products, but 
does not cover their use24 as both, Option 1 and Option 3 do. 
In the context of the construction sector mu tual recognition on its own, as illustrated by the 
example in the box below, faces problems when trying to live up to these objectives mainly 
due to the widely varying technical language an d rules applied in the Member States and the 
differing design and construc tion practices that apply. 
Products in contact with Drinking Water (Industry views on mutual recognition)  
Although with variations according to  materials groups, stakeholders indicate that the large number of de facto  
regulatory requirements in the MS has led to a wide ra nge of different tests to be undertaken before products 
could be accepted for use in different MS, with huge differences in costs fo r the necessary testing. The overall 
conclusion from the reactions of manufacturers consul ted on this specific issue is clearly in favour of 
harmonisation at EU level, in order to significantly reduce the economic and admi nistrative burden for the 
manufacturers, in particular the sub-sector using organic materials. 
The April 2006 Commission public consultation con cerning the future of the Internal Market 
and the mutual recognition principles identified  that, although many stak eholders are pleased 
with the achievements that have been made, difficulties still exist. In particular, national 
technical rules are still c onsidered to constitute important barriers to free trade, in particular in 
non-harmonised product sectors25. The conclusion of the Commission proposal for a 
regulation aimed at strengthening the day to da y implementation of the principle of mutual 
recognition in the context of the New Legal Framework and the related impact assessment26 
point to the serious problems faced by the mutu al recognition principle, “specifically for 
technically complex products or products wh ich can pose safety or health problems”, 
including construction produc ts not covered by existing harmonisation regulations. 
Due to serious delays in developing some of the harmonised standards under the CPD, mutual 
recognition was and is still relevant for nume rous construction products. The experience in 
this respect makes it possible to assess with a high degree of reliability the consequences of 
Option 2 for the period from 2007 to 2015 as indicated hereafter. 
i) There could be a limited reversion in some countries to national standards and 
certification requirements, incl uding the use of lists of a pproved products. Its degree 
should be limited by the precedence that European standards should take over national ones as recognised in key legi slation such as the Public Procurement 
Directive. 
ii) ETAs would become a tool not necessar ily recognised. Existing ETAs might not be 
accepted anymore, with national technical approvals required in their place. There 
would be no legal basis for extending the validity of existing ETAs or issuing new 
ones. In contrast, most existing hENs woul d probably continue to be used by industry 
as non harmonised European standards (in partic ular, this is likely  to be the case for 
those well accepted within a given sector  and which are linked to common design 
rules). In some sectors, voluntary industry-le d self-regulation may lead to the further 
development/completion of harmonised standards. 
                                                
 
24 As one of many examples can be indicated experien ces regarding testing of external Fire Performance 
for Roof elements, where there are at least four (4) distinct test methods that need to be used when testing using the product in the UK, the Nordic Countries, France and Germany. 
25 See SEC(2006) 1215 
26 SEC (2007)112 
 
EN 25   EN iii) Where reversion to nationa l standards takes place, attestation requirements across 
countries and products are li kely to diverge gradually. 
iv) There would be an increase in the number  of national approvals and in the number of 
national or characteristic  based quality marks.  
v) Depending on the degree to which countries  revert to national standards, some 
manufacturers are likely to re-focus on smaller markets, leading to less intra-EU trade. 
Although some of the problems associated with  the current CPD woul d disappear with the 
withdrawal of the Directive and its replac ement with an approach based on mutual 
recognition, a detailed assessment highlights th e fact that reliance on mutual recognition 
would generate other problems that would be  detrimental to the free circulation of 
construction products in the Internal Market. 
The impacts which this option of repealing Co uncil Directive 89/106/EEC and a reversion to 
mutual recognition without new specific Comm unity legislation on construction products 
would have on individual stakeholde rs can be summarised as follows. 
Manufacturers:  increase in the costs of  manufacturers placing produc ts on the market in the 
territory of more than one Member State (from observing different national rule and multiple 
testing, attestation of conformity). In benchmark to the baseline option (continuing the CPD) 
this can be estimated in total at around € 100 million for the time-being, amounting to several hundred million Euro when the harmonisation eff ects that could be achieved with the CPD 
and the improvement of these effects are completely realised.  As for the other options, the impact of this option varies considerably depending on the type 
of product and the category of manufacturer  and his marketing area. Manufacturers 
distributing products in more than  one country would be those fo r which this option instead of 
continuing with the CPD would increase costs, in particular large EU manufacturers and non-
EU manufacturers, and among them  those for whom the testing a nd attestation of conformity 
of their products is relatively expensive comp ared to the added value of manufacturing the 
product. But advantages from th e Internal Market fo r construction products only marginally 
concern the large number of manufact urers, among them in particular smaller and crafts 
enterprises , who distribute their products in a market ing area that does not cross borders. In 
certain cases the option of mutu al recognition would help this category of manufacturers to 
avoid costs generated by the implementation of and compliance with specific Community 
legislation for harmonisation in this field, if this legislation requires more than a single 
Member State national legislation in th e situation of mutu al recognition.  
However, very rough estimates show that the tota l costs avoided (only in certain cases) for the 
manufacturers limited to the market in the te rritory of one single Member State do not equal 
more than two-third of the parallel total in crease of costs for t hose manufacturers who are 
placing products on the market  in the territory of more than one Member State. 
Professional users : avoiding short-term adaptation costs from loss of national marks, but it 
would not be possible to gain long-term benef its from a wider range of products to choose 
from, and to make potential savings. 
Member State public authorities : in general slight general sa vings in administrative costs 
from not needing to undertake further efforts towards harmonisation. But these savings would 
be likely to be offset by co sts generated from adapting/re versing harmonisation already 
 
EN 26   EN undertaken to a situation again characterised by national systems. In the longer term effects 
would very much depend on the national syst em to which the individual Member State 
reverts: the cost of administ ering a strong and demanding nationa l system would be more or 
less equal to that of administ rating at the national level the system provided for by the CPD, 
while a light national system certainly  would means noticeably less cost.  
However, even without CPD, provisions and m easures to ensure mu tual recognition in 
compliance with Community law generate certain administrative costs for national authorities. 
European Commission : saving the costs of administering the CPD and its tools and 
deliverables, and of undertaking measures he lping its good implementation. But with this 
option the number of complaints is rather likely  to be even higher than with the CPD, leading 
to additional costs of case handling. 
Standardisation bodies (CEN) : While at European level (CEN ) costs of writing standards or 
establishing them as harmonised instead of voluntary would be saved, this saving would be 
offset many times over by the costs of nationa l standardisation bodies having in parallel many 
individual Member Stat e standard systems. 
Approval Bodies (EOTA) : While at European level (EOTA Approval Bodies) there would 
no longer be income from issuing ETAs, depe nding on the national system and requirements 
national approval bodies would flourish and in to tal across the EEA gain income higher than 
that lost from European activities. 
Notified Bodies : in total considerably increasing thei r income from the need of multiple 
attestation of conformity in the case of products placed on the market in th e territories of more 
than one Member State, but with considerable  variations depending on the national system 
and requirements. Certification bodies, inspec tion bodies and testing la boratories established 
in Member States reverting to a light national system would even  lose part of their business. 
Costs incurred as administrative burden under Option 2 - No legi slation (non-regulatory 
option) can be roughly estimated as follows:  
Balancing the increase in cost s of manufacturers pl acing products on the market in the 
territory of more than one Member State with the potential avoidance, in certain cases, of 
costs no longer being generated by the impl ementation of and compliance with specific 
Community legislation in the field of harm onisation for manufacturers with a very limited 
marketing area, the net additional administra tive burden which this option would cause for 
manufacturers can be estimated at costing at  least € 50 million a year in comparison to 
baseline Option 1, with a tr end increasing until 2015.  
For professional users and authorities at the vari ous levels this option would mean in the short 
term avoiding some administrative burden, but in  the longer term it would add costs different 
to that avoided, so that by the year 2015 the ne t cost in the form of  not realised potential 
savings or of administrative bur den can be estimated for thes e types of stakeholders as 
slightly higher than their ne t cost from administrative burd en under baseline Option 1.  
The necessarily higher activity of standard isation bodies, Approval Bodies and Notified 
Bodies, while shifting back to a national level dimension, would result for the EEA as a whole 
in a net increase in standardisation costs of se veral million Euro a year  and a net increase in 
income of bodies involved in issuing approvals and in attestation of conformity. Logically, the 
latter net increase in income largely correspon ds to the net additional administrative burden 
caused for manufacturers and estimated at costing them at least € 50 million a year. 
 
EN 27   EN Under Option 2 all new negative impacts as well as increases needed in the activity of 
approval bodies and bodies invol ved in attestation of confor mity would not particularly 
change over time. But in benchmark to baseline Option 1 (continuing the CPD) they would become ever more important, as the CPD syst em would be expected to work better at the 
same time. In parallel, the contribution of mutual recognition to manufacturers saving costs 
because of a national legislati on in their limited marketing area which is less demanding than 
the CPD would gain importance over time in absolu te terms but less in relative terms. Finally, 
there would be some non-recurring admini strative costs (publ ic authorities and 
standardisation bodies) at the beginning from re verting to mutual recognition and returning to 
national provisions, rules a nd technical specifications. 
The likely increases of employment related to administrative and service tasks in the wider 
sense (MS public authorities, specification write rs and bodies involved in attestation of 
conformity) which would result from re-nat ionalisation under this option would not be 
important enough to match the losses of s cale effects and EU competitiveness for 
manufacturers placing constructi on products on the market in th e territory of more than one 
Member State and in the longer term fo r professional users of these products. 
In summary, it is clear that a reversion to mutual recognition neither helps to strengthen the 
Internal Market for construc tion products nor reduces overal l burden for manufacturers, 
although it might do so for certain  categories of in particular smaller and crafts enterprises 
who do not distribute their produc ts across national bo rders. It does not  truly facilitate 
activities of other professi onals in the constr uction sector and is  not in the intere st of contract 
assigners, owners and users of works. Prev ious and ongoing implementation of the mutual 
recognition principle in this field has demons trated the fundamental problems stemming from 
the use of incompatible technical language be tween Members States. A return to nationally 
based systems is also likely to create new diffe rences rendering attempts by manufacturers to 
penetrate MS markets others than their home mark et more difficult. For all these reasons this 
option is not retained. 
5.5.3.  Option 3 – Revision of the Community legislation on construction products 
As an initial step, mainly based on the analysis of the identified problems (Section 2), 
indications from stakeholders and respondents to the internet  consultation, findings from 
investigation, a total of 65 possi ble solutions for addressing th ese problems through a revision 
of the Community legislation on construction pr oducts have been formulated. In cases where 
problems could be addressed through provisi ons proposed in the New Legal Framework 
(NLF), this has been taken in to particular consideration. 
New Approach directives have the dual purpo se of ensuring the free movement of goods 
through technical harmonisation of  entire product sectors, and of  guaranteeing a high level of 
protection of public interest objectives referred to  in Article 95 paragraph 3 of the EC Treaty. 
Innovative features of this legislative technique  include the definition of mandatory essential 
requirements for the goods, the setting up of a ppropriate conformity assessment procedures 
and the introduction of CE marking. Business an d industry are given a wide choice of how to 
meet their obligations while the European st andards bodies have the task of drawing up 
technical specifications which o ffer one route to complying with  these essential requirements. 
 
EN 28   EN In February 2007 the Commission has presented a Ne w Legal Framework (NLF) mainly related to the New 
Approach, with proposals for acts27 representing a horizontal legislative approach to harmonisation. Practice has 
shown problems in the implementation of the existing Ne w Approach legislation, which are fully in line with 
some of the main issues identified in relation to the im plementation of the CPD, or even more pronounced for 
the CPD, and which need to be addressed in a revised Community legislation for construction products. In order 
to overcome these problems, the NLF proposals complete the existing legal instruments by putting forward 
reinforced Community policies on mark et surveillance and accreditation; brin ging coherence to existing sector 
instruments with horizontal instruments that can be applie d to all sectors regardless of whether they are "old" or 
"new" approach. 
A full alignment of the Community legislat ion on construction products with the New 
Approach as completed by the New Legal Fr amework defining one concept valid for all 
product sector legislation theref ore offers in principle poten tial considerable advantages. 
However certain fundamental particularities of the construction activity and sect or and of the 
market for construction products, such as the need to link the constr uction products and the 
works that they are used in, make it impossible to fully follow the New Approach in this field. 
In this period of simultane ous discussion of the Commi ssion’s New Legal Framework 
proposals and presenting a propos al to review of the Commun ity legislation on construction 
products it seems pertinent to l ook at whether these differences  can be overcome, paving the 
way for a revision leading to a full alignm ent of the latter with the New Approach. 
A thorough assessment into the matt er has resulted in the conclusion that a full alignment is 
not possible. The MS rules to protect the safety and health of their citizens remain in principle 
on the level of the construction works. Construc tion products themselves are neither safe nor 
unsafe, neither healthy nor unhealthy. It depends on their concrete use in the works what is 
the level of safety, health and other features that achieved with  them. Therefore the need to 
have a clearly established direct  link between the products and thei r use will continue to exist, 
and in the sector the view prev ails that the essen tial requirements should be defined at the 
level of the works and not the products. This has as a consequence that the NA modules for 
Attestation of Conformity would need to be modified before they can be used for construction 
products, i.e. no real alignment can take place fo r the AoC. In view of their activities, those 
related to the use of construction products (designers, contractors, authorities and 
permitting/receiving bodies etc.) require from  the market of these products, i.e. the 
manufacturers of the products, reliable in formation on product characteristics and 
performances to be able to select and use pr oducts appropriately when designing, authorising, 
constructing and receiving the works. Thus, the Community legislation on construction 
products cannot readily become  fully aligned with the NA. 
However, since some of the problems faced in th e NA setup are similar to those of the CPD, it 
would be most appropriate to draw on elements  of the proposed New Legislative Framework 
as means of addressing some of the problems encountered with the implementation of the 
current CPD while increasing coherence between  the different instruments influencing the 
construction product market. Using common de finitions, tools, etc. facilitates the 
understanding by all actors present on markets where the NA applies. 
                                                 
27 Proposal for a Regulation on accreditation and market surveillance [COM(2007) 37 final], and proposal 
for a Decision of the European Parliament and th e Council on a common frame work for the marketing 
of products [COM(2007) 53 final]. 
 
EN 29   EN In a second step a screening regarding effectiv eness, efficiency, versatility, consistency and 
feasibility of the 65 formulated solutions has b een undertaken. This has resulted in three basic 
findings: 1) there are solutions formulated to address the iden tified problems which can be 
effective and efficient, which are flexible and can be adapted to the specific nature of the 
problem, and which are consistent and generally feasible; 2) a s ubstantial number of them can 
be addressed through using provisions proposed in the NLF; and 3) a revision of the 
Community legislation on construction products is possible to be fully compatible with 
meeting the overall objective to strengthen the internal market for these products. 
However, before formulating a detailed revi sion package made up of the most suitable 
solutions regarding provisions, rules, proced ures and tools to be followed, the Commission 
services in extensive consultation with stakehol ders revisited some principles. This led to: 
(c) retaining the basic philosophy followed by the CPD regarding subsidiarity in 
the field of construction, i.e.. the Community legislation lays down the 
Essential Requirements (ERs) applicable  to works, while Member States 
remain exclusively competent for regulating (or not) construction works and for doing so as they consider necessary.  Nevertheless, the development of a co mmon (harmonised) technical language 
for expressing the performances of the products facilitates placing construction 
products on the national markets, and th eir free circulation and use, throughout 
the EEA. However, free circulation and use can only be achieved if national building requirements are expressed in a way compatible with such a common 
technical language  and based upon it. 
(d) retaining the current performance ba sed approach while strengthening its 
implications, which means emphasising th e obligation for Member States to 
adapt the way they express building requir ements, so that these are consistent 
and compatible with the agreed harmoni sed technical specifications, and to 
require Member States to ensure such  consistency and compatibility through 
technical adaptations wherever necessary; 
(e) preferring the form of a regulation
 and not a directiv e for the Community 
legislation on construction products. In the various consultations undertaken 
(see 1.2 a)), manufacturers have come out very strongly in favour of a regulation as a tool to achieve a leve l-playing field across the Union, while a 
number of Member States have expr essed a preference for the form of a 
directive.  A regulation enforces implementation of  provisions in the same manner across 
the entire EU and EEA, t hus reducing the po tential for interpretations which 
would differ depending on the Member Stat e. This should increase consistency 
in application and help en sure that barriers to trad e across national borders in 
the EEA do not arise due to differe nces in national implementation.  
Finally, taking account of these ba sic features, in a third step the revision package with a 
shortlist of most suitable main solutions (with va riations for some of the) has been established 
as in the table below, for final analysis assessment. For each of the short-listed solutions, the existence of the alternative of doing nothing should  be noted, i.e. the pos sibility to make no 
changes to the current version of the legislat ion and its relevant tools or instruments. 
 
EN 30   EN Option 3 – Revision of the Community legisl ation on construction products: shortlist  
most suitable main solutions without  variations 
Clarification of the objective, scope and terms28, including clarificati on of provisions on the 
application, non-application and pa rtial application of technical specifications, on Attestation 
of Conformity in the case of individual non- series production, and on th e extent and way in 
which the provisions apply to kits , systems and parts of works. 
Clarification of specific definitions and concep ts such as ‘No Performance Determined’ or 
‘Cascading Testing’. 
Simplification of the routes for ETA, with no fu ture use of ETAGs, simplification of process 
for obtaining a CUAP, strengthening of co mpetency requirements for Approval Bodies. 
Strengthening Attestation of Conformity that  needs no or only reduced physical testing. 
Improvement of market survei llance and requiring necessary accreditation of Notified Bodies.
Introduction of stronger EU control over harmonisation of standards. 
most suitable main solutions with  variations  
Variation package 1 Variation package 2 Variation package 3 Variation package 4 
CE marking  
Provision of 
mandatory CE marking but with flexible scope. Provision of non-
mandatory CE marking but with flexible scope. Provision of 
mandatory CE marking without flexibility   Provision of 
mandatory CE marking without flexibility 
Attestation of Conformity  
Reduction of number 
of AoC levels from 6 to 4. Moving to NA 
modules as basis for AoC. Reduction of number 
of AoC levels from 6 to 4. Moving to NA 
modules as basis for AoC. 
Use of IT tools for provision of inform ation that must accompany CE marking  
Providing for the use 
of IT tools for provision of a limited amount of information  Providing for an 
expanded use of IT tools for provision of most information. Providing for the use 
of IT tools for provision of a limited amount of information. Providing for an 
expanded use of IT tools for provision of most information. 
 
5.5.4. Identified problems, proposed measures and expected effects  
                                                 
28 It is self-evident that the revise d legislation will contain the full set of definition of terms used in it. 
 
EN 31   EN Before entering in the analysis of  the different packages, it is useful to present the suitable 
main solutions in front of the problems they are due to answer in order to have an idea of the 
expected effect of each proposed measure. This is what is intended with the following table. 
 
 Problems, proposed measures and expected effects 
The issue Problem definition Proposed measures Effects 
CE-marking meaning Meaning explicitly 
defined  No direct effects; 
positive indirect effects expected from clarification 
 Status: it is not 
clearly stated in the CPD if the CE marking is compulsory or not.  Will be made 
compulsory inside the scope of the CPR Will introduce more 
transparency in the markets which should result in increased levels of competition (positive effects). 
.Some additional cost 
for “marginal” (not applying the CE marking) manufacturers in the 4 countries where now CE marking is not compulsory. 
 Delays in technical 
specifications Stricter deadlines to 
be imposed to EOTA in the definition of CUAPS (Commission decision implementing the Regulation) and also to CEN (Improving working methods) Positive effects to be 
expected from quicker work in CEN and EOTA 
 Reluctance in 
accepting the CE marking by Nat. authorities and users Stricter notification 
criteria for NB and improving the Market surveillance Increased costs for 
national administrations. 
Increased costs for 
NB (cost of accreditation). 
Significant savings 
 
EN 32   EN for manufacturers by 
the fact that national marks and certification will not be any longer necessary. = Important 
simplification  
effects = 
Harmonised 
standards Confusion on the 
meaning and the content due to the wrongly identification with the NA standards Introduce 
clarification (in the recitals) about the exact role of the CPR standards: performance based  This should facilitate 
the direct access of the manufacturer to the reading and interpreting the standards whereby lowering the cost of such an access. = 
Simplification  
effects = 
 Rigidities in the way 
the technical solutions are proposed (almost only by testing) . Encourage to 
introduce technical classes where appropriate 
. Encourage to 
foresee as far as practicable other methods less onerous than testing Important savings for 
manufacturers are expected when demonstrating the performances of the products they place on the market = 
simplification  
effects = 
ETA system Long, complex and 
expensive procedures . Eliminate the 
Guideline route for ETAs and foresee only the redefined CUAP route. 
. Introduce deadlines 
(global and intermediary) in the CUAP procedure. 
. Redefine the 
common and individual responsibilities of Assessment bodies in the process of issuing an ETA.  All these measures 
will result in important cost savings for manufacturers using this route  
= simplification  
effects = 
 
EN 33   EN Introduce 
transparency elements: CUAPs references will be a published in the OJEU 
Suppress the green 
light procedure to reduce the delays caused by unjustified bureaucratic procedures.  
Attestation of conformity Confusion with 
meaning of conformity assessment in the NA, which is not at all the same concept. 
Some imprecision as 
far the distribution of tasks between the manufacturer and the NB, in particular concerning the so-called “cumulative” character of the AoC. Clarify definition and 
introduce all the necessary details to avoid any ambiguity in this field. 
Probable elimination 
of the system “2”, used only once. 
 Savings for the 
manufacturers can be expected but not significant. 
= some 
simplification  effect 
= 
Notified Bodies Linked with the 
above mentioned reluctance on the acceptance of the CE marking Introduction of new 
and stricter criteria for designation and notification of NB (accreditation) Positive effects on 
the system but maybe some increase in the cost of the CE marking can be expected 
Approval Bodies No harmonised 
criteria for their designation results in an ETA system with too many bodies and heavy functioning procedures.  Introduction of strict 
and harmonised criteria for designation, notification and controlling of the AB Increased confidence 
on the ETA system and increased efficiency are expected. 
In principle, no direct 
effect on the cost structure is expected. 
Market surveillance Practically inexistent 
contributing to the 
above mentioned Harmonised criteria 
for Market 
surveillance will be Significant positive 
effects are expected 
for the well 
 
EN 34   EN reluctance to accept 
the system introduced following 
the Horizontal framework regulation. functioning of the 
system. 
 Micro enterprises,  
Individual products 
and non-series products,… The obligation of CE 
marking poses sometimes disproportionate cost problems to small manufacturers  . SCOPE: CE 
marking will be made voluntary for those products which are not submitted to any regulatory requirement in their traditional markets.  This applies very 
much to real “local” products which are traditionally placed in the market without any performance statement.  
Artisans and micro 
enterprises are the direct beneficiary of this measure. = 
simplification  
effects = 
 Incorrect use of  the 
“NPD” clause. 
Explanation:  
1)While this facility 
is an option of the manufacturer, a wrong interpretation has conditioned its use, under the CPD, to a specific provision which had to be foreseen in the corresponding Technical specification, whereby limiting the possibility of using it by submitting the use to the fulfilment of specific conditions and procedures. 
2) One of the 
conditions for the use of this clause under the CPD is to explicitly mention in the labelling of the product, all the characteristics for which the NPD is 1. Correct definition 
of the concept of declaration of conformity in order to permit to the manufacturer an appropriate use of the facility “Non Performance Determined” (NPD);  
2)In the proposal, the 
manufacturer will declare the values/classes of performance for the characteristics he will have decide, taking account of the applicable regulatory requirements, and he will not be obliged to mention other characteristics foreseen in the technical specification and for which he is not providing information. These measures will 
facilitate the use of this important clause and will result in important costs savings in particular for the SMEs, by reducing accordingly the obligation to perform unnecessary testing. = 
simplification  
effects = 
 
EN 35   EN used, whereby 
discouraging its use. 
 Excessive burden 
originated in testing. The proposal 
introduces special measures aiming at reducing as far as possible the testing part in the evaluation of the product-type. 
 With the same 
purpose, standards writers are encouraged to introduce other and less onerous means for evaluating the performances of the products. 
Specific measures for 
micro-enterprises and for the individual and non-series products are also foreseen. All these new 
measures will contribute to significantly reduce the cost of the CE marking and then the cost of placing products on the market. = important 
simplification  
effects = 
As it can be seen from the table most of the measures foreseen under this option are expected 
to produced important simplification result s, not only, but specially for the SMEs. 
Furthermore, in order to avoi d imposing unnecessary burden to companies, the proposal will 
let open the possibility of combining the option of the revision with th e one of no legislation. 
In fact, the definition of the scope is flexible and entitles  the Commission, together with 
Member States, to exclude from it the families of construction products for which it is considered that no obstacles to the free circulat ion remain which can justify the application of 
the harmonising legislation.   
Analysis and assessment of  the short-listed solutions
 
When analysing and assessing the impacts of  each of the short-listed measures (and 
comparing the sub-alternatives listed under th em), the following five steps were included: 
(1) identifying which impact categories (from those included in the IA Guidelines) are 
seen to be relevant to the revision of the Community legisla tion on construction 
products; 
(2) screening the impacts by identifying the imp act types (positive and negative) that may 
result from each option for each of the stakeholder group(s); 
 
EN 36   EN (3) describing the impacts of each option qualitat ively using matrices of option versus 
impact category (e.g. competitiveness, tr ade, administrative burden, etc.); 
(4) validating preliminary assessments of imp acts through consultation with expert bodies 
and individuals and cross-check against re sponses to the Commission consultation; 
and 
(5) quantifying impacts, as far as possible using the EU net administrative cost model and 
other approaches as appropriate. 
The information on the impacts of the individual op tions then fed into the identification of the 
preferred combination of solutions.  
◊ Identification of the appr opriate impact categories  
Each impact category was provisionally screen ed against the stakeholder groups that would 
potentially be affected (for a definition of the stakeholders see below) The impacts against 
which the solutions have been assessed are as follows: 
• operating costs and conduct of business; 
• administrative costs on businesses; 
• competitiveness, trade and investment flows; 
• competition in the internal market; 
• innovation and research. 
◊ Potential stakeholders affected  
The first provisional screening of  impact against different stake holder groups (see 2.3) led to 
the identification of the groups that potentially might be dir ectly affected by the individual 
options. It also showed that some of these groups  needed to be further broken down to enable 
a proper assessment of impact. The stakeholder groups considered with  respect to direct 
affects have been defined as follows: 
• EU manufacturers  of construction products , subdivided into i) micro business, ii) small 
and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)  and iii) larger manufacturers; 
• non-EU manufacturers  exporting construction products  to the Internal Market; 
• professional users  involved in the design and constructi on of works, including the range of 
activities carried out by engineers, architects, and designers as well as  the contractors;  
• public sector bodies , Member State authorities an d the European Commission; 
• standardisation bodies  (CEN and CENELEC) and approval bodies  (including EOTA as an 
organisation); and 
• notified bodies  (certification bodies, inspection bo dies and testing laboratories). 
 
EN 37   EN The impacts from Community legislation on cons truction products are in overall quantitative 
terms primarily related to intra-EU stakehol ders. But non-EU manufactur ers already active on 
or with an ambition to enter the EU market for construction products are on an individual and 
cumulative basis very significantly affected with regard to costs for pl acing their products on 
the EEA market and business opportun ities in this market. As thes e effects might be in nature 
and individual importance considerably different  from those for EU manufacturer, they have 
been considered for the assessment as a separa te stakeholder group where particular concerns 
regarding the external dimension have been  assessed. However, it should be noted that, 
independent of the origin of manufacturers, the effects on them  differ according to size, 
specialization and role. 
◊ Analysis and comparison of the im pacts of the short-listed solutions  
Due to the fact that despite the serious attempts undertaken within and beyond the two studies 
gathering external expertise it was impossible to obtain detailed information in monetary or 
other otherwise quantitative terms , the impacts of the short- listed solutions  can only be 
assessed qualitatively. Thus, impacts are rather  described in qualitative terms and assigned a 
rating according to the expected magnitude of  the effect, taking into account the likely 
duration of the effect (short term versus longer-term and ongoing). A rating scale with the 
following seven levels was applied, while consid ering also potential slight positive/slight 
negative impact due to uncertainty: 
→ may have a major negative impact (>30% change) 
→ may have significant nega tive impact (>10% change) 
→ may have slight negative impact (<10% change) 
→ may have no/negligible impact 
→ may have a slight positi ve impact (<10% change) 
→ may have a significant positive impact (>10% change) 
→ may have a major positive impact (>30% change) 
In line with the statement on lack of relevant data above, the notional percentage change as 
indicated in the scale above, serv ed as guidance, but normally without being verifiable against 
quantitative data. However, linking the ratings to percentage changes in this way helps ensure 
a certain equivalence of significance of imp acts regardless of the size of organisation, 
turnover, value, etc. 
The comparative assessment of the four comprehe nsive packages (each of them consisting of 
the most suitable main solutions without  variations + most suitable main solutions with  
variations according to one of the va riation packages) was done as follows: 
• the ratings assigned to the impacts arising unde r the individual measures were combined to 
generate an overall score for each of the pack ages, based on assigning an equal weight to 
impacts on the different stakeholder groups  and to the different impact types; 
 
EN 38   EN • a sensitivity analysis was then undertaken to determine the effect that different weighting 
systems would have on the ra nking of the packages, and 
• based on the results of the sensitivity analysis , the ‘preferred’ comprehensive revision was 
identified. 
From the comparative assessment was concluded that Revision Package 1 is to be preferred. 
Only if clearly disproportionate weights are assigned to the interests of large manufacturers or 
professional users (e.g. six time s more important than other manufacturers) package 3 would 
be preferred over package 1 while the other tw o packages (2 and 4) come out significantly 
less well under any assumption, so that none of them were preferred under any conditions included in these sensitivity analyses. 
◊ Overall impacts of the preferred Revision Package 1
 
The preferred Revision Package 1 would help re move barriers to trade through clarifications, 
while at the same time reducing burden. 
The total savings, mainly du to less administ rative burden, of Option 3 - Revision of the 
Community legislation on construction product s are estimated at around € 1.8 billion in 
present value terms over a 15-year period. This  equates to savings of around € 160 million a 
year, or some 0.08% of the value of annua l production of construction products. These 
savings are offset by estimated additional costs of around € 190 million in present value 
terms, or roughly € 16 million a year when di scounted over 15 years at 4%, again with the 
majority of these realised by manufacturers.  Although it has not been possible to place 
estimates on all of the savings and additional costs that may arise from the preferred package, 
net benefits of around € 140 million a year is the best possible estimate in this situation of 
uncertainty characterised by seri ous lack of monetary data.  
The majority of the savings result from ne t reduction of administrative burden for 
manufacturers compared to baseline Option 1, mainly incurred by those placing products on 
the market in the territory of more than one Member State. Professional users would in the 
long term gain benefits in the field of admi nistrative costs as well,  while those of public 
authorities and for standardis ation would slightly  increase but only for an amount not 
significant compared to the net re duction of cost from administ rative burden for the private 
economy. Also overall effects on income and ad ministrative costs of Approval Bodies and 
Notified Bodies are expected to be insi gnificant as to be nearly negligible. 
It is likely that on a competitive market these cost savings will lower the prices of products 
placed on the market accordingly and theref ore reduce the costs for constructing works 
between some more than 0.01% and some le ss than 0.04%, depending on the case. The final 
benefit of this reduction will fall in one way or another to contract assigners, owners and users 
of the works and in the end represent savings fo r the entire economy a nd society in general. 
The impacts from this option on individual st akeholders can be summarised as follows. 
Manufacturers:  reduction in the costs of manufactur ers when placing products on the market 
(from reduced testing costs, reduced costs of  ETAs and increased flexibility in how to 
demonstrate compliance).  However, it is necessary to mention the pred ictable enormous varia tions in these impacts 
depending on the kind of the product, on the one hand, and the category of manufacturer and 
his marketing area which are often correlated, on the other hand. While compared to the 
 
EN 39   EN baseline option of continuing with the CPD as  it is, probably no ma nufacturer would have 
additional net costs from this Revision Packag e, and number of them would realise net 
savings across all kinds of produc ts, manufacturer categories an types of marketing area, the 
situation is rather different compared to th e option of mutual recognition only. In such a 
comparison roughly large EU manufacturers and the non-EU manufacturers benefit from this 
Revision Package in the place of mutual r ecognition. But for the large number of 
manufacturers whose products ar e distributed in a marketi ng area which does not cross 
borders, in particular the smaller and crafts enterprises , mutual recognition is of no concern 
whereas additional costs generated for them by the implementation of and compliance with this Revision Package despite a certain reducti on of administrative cost and burden is not 
offset by any savings they could realise, as the Internal Market for construction products is 
not relevant to them. In the best case the costs genera ted by the Revision Package for 
them can be estimated equal to those if the na tional system was to continue to exist.  
Therefore, as a conclusion from this assessment, further specific provisions have been 
included in the final revision proposal . This has been done for the purpose of ensuring 
even more flexibility and excluding remaining risk of disproportio nate and uncontrolled 
administrative costs , thus corresponding to concerns abou t the potential specific effects on 
SMEs, in particular micro and crafts enterp rises manufacturing cons truction products, and 
with regard to the need for an appropriate treatment to be used for non-series products. 
Professional users : short-term increase in costs from loss of national marks, but increased 
confidence in CE marking should minimise thes e costs and provide benefits from a wider 
range of products to choose  from, and potential savings. 
Member State public authorities : limited increase in administrative costs associated with 
market surveillance and the setting up of ac creditation schemes pl us revising building 
regulations (or equivalent). 
European Commission : costs of the revision as administrative task and of explaining it but 
reduced administrative costs due to a decrease in the number of complaints. There may also 
be costs of verifying that standards are appr opriate for publication but there may be net 
savings from not having difficulties with these standards later. 
Standardisation bodies (CEN) : additional costs from having to revise standards (but could 
be done when standards are due for periodic revision). CEN may also incur additional costs 
with re-writing standards not accepted for public ation (but such short-term costs may be 
minimised with increasing clarification). 
Approval Bodies (EOTA) : reduction in income from le ss cumbersome procedures for 
obtaining ETAs, and some Approval Bodies may fall short of fu lfilling strengthened 
competency requirements (maybe offset to so me degree as less cumbersome procedures and 
strengthened competency requirements make the ETA route more attractive). 
Notified Bodies : reduction in income from less onero us Attestation of Conformity, in 
particular less physical testing, (m aybe offset to some degree as  further hENs are established 
and more ETAs issued). Costs include the additi onal ones of complying with the accreditation 
framework and increased competency requireme nts, while some bodies may not succeed in 
obtaining accreditation. 
Since the revision of the Community legislati on on construction products would not result in a 
system at full cruising speed from the begi nning, all positive impacts of Option 3 can be 
 
EN 40   EN expected to gradually increas e over time during a 5 to 10-y ear period of implementation. 
While this could also be expected for the lim ited additional costs and negative impacts, their 
relative importance for the entire market of cons truction products is likely to decrease over 
time. There is even certain likeliness that even  in absolute terms they would by the year 2015 
or soon afterwards remain at a stable level. 
5.6. Specify which social groups, economic sect ors or particular regions are affected. 
The more a social group or an  economic sector is concerned by construction products, in the 
first place, by the construction of works, in th e second place, and by their use in the third 
place, the more this group or sector is conc erned by the relevant Community legislation. 
Besides national authorities and Commission serv ices administrating implementation of this 
legislation, and largely independe nt of the three options cons idered, these are the following 
stakeholder groups in decrea sing order: EU manufacture rs of construction products, 
specialised organisations and bodies prov iding key services needed for entitling 
manufacturers to legally  place construction products on th e market and for ensuring their 
appropriate use (standardisation bodies, Appr oval Bodies and Notified Bodies), non-EU 
manufacturers of construction products, other professionals of the construction sector 
(designers, contractors and buildi ng authorities), clients of the c onstruction sector and user of 
works. 
The PRC study has evaluated the impact of harmonisation on 12 families of products 
following the standards route to CE marking. The study distinguishes  three types of effects: 1) 
direct cost/benefits for certification and tes ting, 2) effects on trade and competition and 3) 
possible efficiency benefits (r estructuring & dynamic effects) in the manufacturing industry. 
It has to be underlined that the study does not take into account the effects that the 
simplification measures, proposed under the option 3, will produce on administrative burden 
of enterprises. This is an indirect route to cl early show which sectors should, in prin ciple, be 
the most positively affected by such measures. The more they suffer from the situation today, 
the more they are expected to benefit from simp lifying measures to be pr oposed, in particular 
if, like in the windows case, the presence of SMEs is important. 
As far as trade and competition and efficiency  effects are concerned, it can be assumed that 
the PRC reported effects will be accelerated an d improved as a consequence of the measures 
foreseen in option 3.  Summary of estimated direct costs an d benefits for manufacturers in EEA 
Industry sector Initial + transition costs  Direct annual cost/benefit 
  Production 
value EEA 
(€M) €M % of production 
value €M % of production 
value 
Cement 14.000 -11 0,1% 0 to +32  0 to 0.2% 
Structural steel           
- steel products 9.000 -4 0,0% 0 to +1 0 to 0.01% 
- steel structures & components 47.000 -100 0,2% 0 to +20 0 to 0.04% 
Rebar 15.000 -1 0,0% 0 to +8 0 to 0.05% 

 
EN 41   EN Masonry 12.000 -50 0,4% 0 to +20 0 to 0.2% 
Thermal insulation 12.000 -24 0,2% -3 to +1 -0.03 to 0.01% 
Wood-based panels 18.000 -30 0,2% 0 to +6 0 to 0.03% 
Ceramic tiles 10.000 -13 0,1% 0 to +8 0 to 0.1% 
Sanitary appliances 7.000 -10 0,1% 0 to +24 0 to 0.3% 
Windows 30.000 -76 0,3% -10 to 0 -0,03 to 0%  
Geotextiles 800 -0.5 0,1% 0 to +4 0 to 0.5% 
Chimneys 1.700 -16 0,9% 0 to +4 0 to 0.2% 
Fire fight. Systems 8.000 -14 0,2% 0 to +70 0 to 0.9% 
 
Note: The table shows estimated total direct co sts/benefits (in €million) for all manufacturers 
in the EEA (aggregated to the whole industry sector) for intr oduction of CE-marking in their 
business 
Note: benefits are +, costs are - . All co sts are order of magnitude estimates and 
cost/benefits are expressed as a range . 
Initial and/or transition costs for the sector s range between €1 million to ca. €250 million – all 
very small compared to the potential internal  market benefits from increased trade and 
competition. They are low for sectors like steel products which have few producers and already have sophisticated testing and certifica tion systems, but higher for the windows sector 
with very many small firms, most of which ha d no or much less onerous  previous conformity 
assessment systems.  
After the initial costs, however,  CE-marking is expected to lead to annual savings in the costs 
for testing and certification fo r almost every industry sector . The fire fighting and fire 
detection industry, the ge otextiles industry and the sanitary  appliances industry appear to 
benefit most, with annual benefit up to +0.9% /year (as percentage of production value). The 
annual benefit in cash terms is less in those sectors where industry expects some of the 
national testing and certification systems to pers ist, because of lack of agreement on testing 
(insulation, tiles, chimneys), be cause application rule s are important (insul ation, masonry) or 
because the initial costs are particularly high because some of the testing requirements are 
largely new (masonry, tiles). 
Some companies in the insulation materials indu stry may face some increase in annual costs, 
because CE-marking in this sector may not l ead to significant reduction of (voluntary) 
national ‘application approval’ marks, and many national firms had no mandatory attestation 
requirements before. The CE-marking costs for such firms may or may not be outweighed by 
the significant savings for multinational firms which would otherwise face multiple national 
conformity marks.  
The windows industry faces possible additional long term costs from CE-marking, because 
CE-marking requires continued costs for ITT re newals and ITT of new products for many 
smaller companies where this was not or less needed previously. Initial ITT and FPC costs 
 
EN 42   EN may also be significant 29. Even though we assume most small firms will benefit from shared 
or cascaded ITT so the costs for individual firm s are very small, there are many thousands of 
small firms, so the aggregate costs are relativel y high (but still insignificant compared to the 
internal market benefits. These costs for small local firms are likely to be higher than the 
savings enjoyed by the relatively small number of firms trading across borders. (However, 
since energy conservation standard s and related regulations are incr easing, it is likely that new 
or stricter testing and certification requiremen ts would be introduced anyway in the anti-
monde, so the additional cost cannot be ascribed just to CE-marking. Nevertheless, CE-marking makes it compulsory to make  these investments at present.) 
In the case studies only the cost savings fo r EEA manufacturers were calculated. But it should 
be noted that there would al so be savings for non-EEA firm s which sell in several EEA 
member states. 
Impact on trade and competition CPD CE-marking will lead to increased and s tiffer competition within EEA markets, both 
because of increased trade or  threat of trade across borders, and because of increased 
transparency in the performance of products a nd reduction in the prot ectionist effect of 
national approvals and quality marks. This will lead to lower prices and/or increased quality. This is turn will lead to a shift in producti on towards lower cost producers (in lower costs 
locations or to more efficient producers within a location) and consequent  restructuring of the 
industry sectors, analysed in the next section. 
As discussed in Annex 4, this increased comp etition does not necessarily result in a large 
increase in trade, or of trade over long distan ces: there will be increased trade across border 
regions which have a cascading effect across the EEA, but also increased competition within 
local areas.  
CPD CE-marking can also open markets in countr ies outside the EEA in the future, if these 
countries adopt the ENs and hENs, or accept th e CE-marking. It will also make it easier for 
some non-EEA producers to compete within EEA (because CPD CE-marking removes any regulatory barriers to trade and makes the perfor mance of their products transparent) but can 
also cause additional costs for them because  they may now need CE-marking and may not 
have easy access to a notified body. 
                                                
 
29 Most companies had or have some sort of quality management system in force before CE-marking. CE-marking 
will not bring about large extra costs in that case. But compared to FPC requirements in the hENs, this quality 
management system is for many very small firms very rudimentary, mainly based on the master’s eye. To comply 
with the FPC requirements these enterprises have to do so mething more like record keeping of inspections, written 
procedures, action taking, etcetera, even under AoC 4. So, in general these companies w ill have additional initial 
costs in upgrading their qu ality management system.  
 
EN 43   EN The following table summarizes the observations from the case studies. 
Impact on trade and competition 
 Potential trade and compe tition benefits inside  EEA 
(€million) Potential trade and competition benefits outside  EEA 
Cement large Potential very large savings from price 
competition at retail level. 
EEA-market could become more attractive for 
producers of common low priced cements from 
outside EEA. negligible Limited to none: production plants of the 
‘big 9’ exist all over the world. Production 
costs in EU are high in comparison to most 
other countries 
Structural steel up to 500 From reduced steel prices: easier for steel 
producers to respond to ad hoc orders from other 
EEA countries: increased competition between 
distributors some Potential for ENs and Eurocodes to be 
adopted in Russia, China, Africa, Asia - 
improved safety and better engineering for 
them; trade benefits for EEA.  
Rebar up to 400 The likely levelling of prices would lead to a big 
saving for steel users, from competition between 
distributors. some Potential for adoption of the CE system in 
other countries, because some countries are 
seeking a better system of control of the 
quality of steel. 
Masonry up to 
1,000 More competition, so price reductions and more 
choice for architects/ users. Some more local 
cross-border trade, possibly leading to cascade 
effect of reduced prices across EEA. not expected 
in near future 
Thermal 
insulation ~ 100 to 
1,000 Price impact - benefit for users some Potential for CE-marking to displace the US-
based FM and UL markings in world 
markets 
Wood-based 
panels up to 
40M  More extra-EEA competitors entering the EEA-
market; stiffer competition and lower prices for 
consumers. high, but no 
foreseen 
before 2010 Adoption of ENs and hEN in other markets; 
opening new markets outside EEA 
Ceramic tiles up to 
30M More extra-EEA competitors entering the EEA-
market; stiffer competition-lower prices.  high, but not 
foreseen 
before 2010 CE-marking has no effects yet on extra EEA 
trade because the mark is still unknown but 
could possibly open ne w markets outside 
EEA 
Sanitary 
appliances poss. 
very 
important More standardisation in design (WC pans, 
flushing cisterns), and also more competitors 
entering the EU market leading to more choice and better price/quality for consumers. potentially 
high, but not 
foreseen 
before 2010 Removal of barriers to export by 3rd party 
certification schemes outside EEA. 
Windows not 
foreseen 
before 
2010 Potential benefits by more standardisation in 
design. Some restructuring of the industry, 
SME-firms leaving the market. Not foreseen 
before 2010 Probably no significant increase of trade by 
CE-marking 
Geo-
textiles Negligibl
e Very limited: tailor made products are either 
produced in West-Europe and shipped all over 
the world or produced in local plants owned by 
multinationals Negligible Sector is quite well structured with 
multinationals playing a dominant role, 
especially for tailor made products. 
Therefore negligible effect. 

 
EN 44   EN  Potential trade and compe tition benefits inside  EEA 
(€million) Potential trade and competition benefits outside  EEA 
Chimneys not 
foreseen 
before 
2010 Little trade, due to the product 
(material/dimensions), but competition is increased or is expected to increase by CE-marking.
 Limited Only in cases of low 
transportation costs for common products
 
Fire 
fighting 
systems Up to 50 More standardisation in design; more 
transparency; more competitors entering the 
EEA market; stiffer competition-lower prices. High Acceptance of CE-marking in other markets; 
opening new markets outside EEA 
 
In several case studies, industry respondents e xpect price reductions to result from stiffer 
competition (more competitors entering the market).  It is often observed that for construction 
products in general there is a high dispersion of the prices of produc ts between countries, 
which indicates in general market segmentation and barriers to free competition For some sectors (steel, cement, masonry) there is inde ed evidence of inexplicable dispersion in the 
retail prices, but little reported difference in ex -works prices, indicatin g wide differences in 
the apparent mark up between ex-works prices and prices to end-users. Therefore, no 
definitive conclusions can be drawn as to whethe r the apparent price dispersion is due to lack 
of competition within the industr y sector itself, or lack of  competition in the downstream 
distribution, stockholding and retail chain. In creased trade, and choice of products and 
suppliers for users, however, should create market  pressure to reduce these price differentials. 
These potential gains from trade (or increase of competition) can be very big, to be measured in hundreds of millions of Euros. This may particularly be the cas e if there is increased trade 
from new member states to old Europe.  
There are also potential trade and competition benefits outside EEA. Some case studies report 
on the opening of new markets outside EEA by acceptance of CPD CE-marking in those 
markets. It could for example displace the US-b ased FM and UL marking in world markets, 
or the CE-system can be adopted  in other countries because those countries are seeking a 
better system of control of the quality of the product.
  
Possible efficiency benefits (restructuring & dy namic effects) in the manufacturing industry 
Increased competition and pressure on prices a nd quality will lead to industry restructuring. 
Trade improvement and benefits, however, will flow from restructuring in construction 
products sectors, irrespective of CE-marking. For example, the merger between Arcelor and 
Mittal would permit more trade between Mittal’s  Polish and Czech plants and the French and 
Spanish markets; other conso lidation and rationalisation is also likely. CPD CE-marking has 
no direct impact on such rationalisation, but CE-marking does facilitate the process, by 
enabling restructured companies to achieve  economies of scale an d rationalisation in 
production, distribution, logistic s, and marketing. CE-marking is  thus at least a necessary 
condition for (re)structuring to continue.  
The following table presents the analysis of poten tial restructuring and efficiency benefits in 
each of the case studies. Overall benefits ac ross all sectors are likel y to be in the high 
hundreds of million euros, and possibly in billi ons, and outweigh the direct cost impact of 
product assessment costs. 
 
EN 45   EN  Possible efficiency benefits (restructuring & dynam ic effects) in the case study sectors. 
 Efficiency benefits 
(€Million) Comment 
Cement None Industry is well structur ed with a limited number of players 
dominating market and capital intensive 
Structural steel Negligible Already restruct ured industry. Slightly simplified marketing 
and sales literature 
Rebar 25 –100 From shift of production to low cost producers  
Masonry  Up to 100 Rationalisation of plants and production in border regions. 
Transfer of technology and new investment resulting from 
consolidation 
Thermal insulation Small Some benefit from new investment in older plants (e.g. in 
new MSs), but industry is gene rally modern and efficient. 
Possible increased competition from more transparent 
product performance data. 
Wood-based panels Small Further consolida tion by mergers; economies of scale; but 
also relocation to low cost producers 
Ceramic tiles Negligible Industry already highly consolidated; no direct effects from 
CPD 
Sanitary appliances Negligible i ndustry already highly consolidated 
Windows Up to 100 Restructuring a nd efficiency improvement; more 
competition in ‘border’ areas; fewer small producers ; shift of production to more efficient producers 
Geotextiles Negligible Producti on process is very efficien t, innovation / tailor made 
products will be restricted due to ITT costs and 
interpretation of hENs. 
Chimneys Some Possibly some restruct uring. Efficient production processes 
will be stimulated  
Fire fight. systems Negligible i ndustry already highly consolidated  
Most respondents in the industrie s concerned did not foresee signi ficant market benefits from 
CE-marking, and many were concerned about th e likely increase in competition, especially 
from non-EEA suppliers. Respondents to questi onnaires and interviewees, however, were 
mainly those responsible for quality and testing, and did not have a wider perspective of the industry strategy, and the impact of increased competition could be much wider than the 
industries anticipate. For three sectors in partic ular there are substant ial benefits expected: 
reinforcing and prestressing steel, masonry an d windows, from the shift of production to 
lower cost or more efficient producers.  The effects and impacts of the three options concern these stakeholder groups to varying 
degrees without geographically-related region al distinction all over Europe. However, 
differences among Member States could be qu ite important dependin g on three principle 
factors: the share of production of construction products consum ed in the country and that 
exported to the rest of the EEA, the volume of construction products consumed which are 
imported in particular from the rest of the EEA , and the severity of the national provisions, 
 
EN 46   EN rules and technical specifica tions before applying those under the CPD or a revised 
Community legislation and when re verting to mutual recognition.  
The more construction products manufactured in a Member State are placed on the market in 
the territory of this state and not exported to the rest of the EEA, the more important the 
advantages of mutual recognition and the admi nistrative burden related to harmonisation, and 
the less interesting the advantages from the Internal Market for these products.  The more construction products us ed in the terri tory of a Member State are imported from the 
rest of the EEA, the more administrative effort s are needed to implement mutual recognition 
in a way not infringing the Treaty, but the more it is also likely that national approval bodies 
and bodies involved in attestation of  conformity have opportunities.  
Finally, it could be erroneously  concluded that the less severe  the national provisions, rules 
and technical specifications before applying those under the CPD or a revised Community 
legislation have been, and would be when reve rting to mutual recogn ition, the higher is on 
average unnecessary administra tive burden generated by harmoni sation for manufacturers in 
this country who do not export to the rest of the EEA and, for those who do so, the cost of 
adaptation to comply with the harmonised syst em, and the easier it should be to import under 
a system of mutual recognition from the outside  onto the market in the territory of this 
Member State. And, in the opposite  case, that particularly seve re national pr ovisions, rules 
and technical specifications, harmonisation generates no more than little additional administrative burden even for manufacturers w ho do not export to the rest of the EEA, the 
cost of adaptation to comply with the harmonised system is in general relatively low, but it would need quite significant efforts to achie ve under a system of mutual recognition the 
acceptance and use of products imported from the out side onto the market in the territory of 
this Member State. 
Due to the flexible character of the harmonising legislation in the field of construction 
products, these conclusions would not have co rresponded to the reality. In fact, in order 
precisely to avoid unnecessary testing, the proposal under option 3, as we ll as under option 1, 
entitles the manufacturer to adju st the number of tests to be done to the requirements of the 
countries where the product is placed on the mark et. It can be concluded that, all thinks being 
equal, in particular, for unchanged national re gulatory frameworks, adjustment costs could 
even be higher for manufacturers placing produc ts on the market in the latter category of 
countries. 
Outside Europe, non-EU manufacturers of cons truction products are the most concerned. But 
the EU system can also have some eff ect on the exports of construction products 
manufactured by EU enterprises and on other professionals of the construction sector 
established in the EU but active in third countries. In some cases even related authorities and 
services as well as clients and us ers can be affected in  third countries, in pa rticular when these 
countries are geographically close to the EU and/or have Mutual Recognition Agreements or other relevant arrange ments with the EU. 
5.7. What are the potential obstacles to compliance? 
There do not seem to be real obstacles  to compliance depending on the option. 
Despite its disadvantages Option 1 would be rela tively easy to comply with as it means no 
change and continuing what ha s been practiced for many years. With the exception of the 
identified problems not being solved sufficiently and the fact of being not the best potential 
option and an inappropriate policy choice, there would be no imperative requirement to give 
up the CPD. 
 
EN 47   EN Although Option 2 would mean a rather radical ch ange from the current  situation, and has 
important net disadvantages, ther e would be no principle obstacl es to comply with mutual 
recognition in the field of construction products. The necessary legal base exists in the Treaty, 
experience with construction products to whic h no harmonised technica l specifications apply 
is plentiful, and additional Community legisl ation laying down proce dures relating to the 
application of certain national technical rule s to products lawfully marketed in another 
Member State is scheduled to be in force in near future. 
Option 3 would not lead to poten tial obstacles to compliance either. It largely continues what 
has been developed under the CPD, but improves it at decisive points, and fully addresses the 
problems identified. The fact of its clear net advantages, both with regard to overall impact and reducing administrative burden must be expect ed to facilitate compliance. This option is 
likely to be the most favoured and ac cepted across all stakeholder groups. 
6. S
ECTION 6: COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
6.1. Indicate how positive and negative impact s have been weighted for each short-
listed option and 
6.2. Results of the weighting 
An equal weighting has been assumed, i.e. the positive and negative impacts estimated as 
precisely as possible in monetary terms, in the absence of sufficient information and data that 
would give a methodologically bett er result, have been summed up to one total. As for all 
three options one-off costs and bene fits are also incurred over several years, and such costs 
and benefits are in relative terms nearly negligib le compared to overall impact, they have been 
integrated as an average into annual costs a nd benefits. All global co sts and benefits amounts 
for which no annual figure could be obtained othe rwise have been discounted over 15 years at 
4%. However, where in the tables below a range of amount is given, the first figure 
corresponds to the beginning of a hypothetical imp lementation of the option and the second 
figure to when annual costs and/or  benefits have become more or  less stable, or to the end of 
the assumed 15-year period. 
Based on the more detailed assessment of Optio n 3 according to a descriptive approach in 
qualitative terms assigning a rating according to the expected magnitude of the effect, the package with the highest number of positive impacts and the lowest number of negative impacts would be considered to have the greate st net benefit (lowest net costs). In addition, 
the sensitivity of the results to different weightings was assessed when bringing together the different solutions into packages to act as comprehensive revision package. 
Note that based on the ratings, and taking into account the fact that impacts may arise from 
the combined effect of individual solutions, only  the change in administrative and other costs 
after combining individual solutions to a pot ential revision package have been assessed. 
Impacts have also been distinguished into one-off and annual negative and positive effects. 
6.3. Aggregated and disaggregated results 
It is recalled that due to the lack of quanti tative data and the big variations depending on the 
various individual specific conditi ons, for which certain examples are given in Annex VII, it 
has been impossible to assess monetary impacts res ulting from the three policy options 
 
EN 48   EN otherwise than in the form of rough global estimates . More specifically, the poor 
information available did not allow a calculation by a pplying the Core equation of the 
cost model  of Section 10 of the Annexes to the Imp act Assessment Guidelines, so that also 
the EU net cost model could not be used . 
     Table 1 Aggregated administrative and non-admi nistrative costs and benefits of options 
estimated in monetary terms (Benchmark = Option 1) 
 annual 
benefits 
(€ million) annual costs 
(€ million) net annual 
benefits (+) 
or costs (–)
(€ million) 
Option 1- No EU action: no change  (continue with the current CPD) 185 / 430 110 / 145 +75 / +285 
Option 2 - No legislation: non-regulatory option 
(repeal CPD and reverse to mutual recognition) 275 / 265 170 / 320 +105 / –55 
Option 3 - Revision of the Community 
legislation on construc tion products (the CPD) 245 / 685 100 / 130 +145 / +555 
 
EN 49   EN Table 2.1 Administrative and non-administrativ e costs and benefits of Option 1 estimated 
in monetary terms 
Stakeholder group annual benefits 
(€ million) annual costs 
(€ million) 
Manufacturers 130 / 230 80 
Professional users 0 - 40 - 
Member State public authorities - 9 
European Commission - 1.5 
Standardisation bodies (CEN) 6 6 
Approval Bodies (EOTA) and Notified Bodies 55 / 155 12 / 50 
TOTAL (rounded) 185 / 430 110 / 145 
Table 2.2 Administrative and non-administrativ e costs and benefits of Option 2 estimated 
in monetary terms 
Stakeholder group annual benefits 
(€ million) annual costs 
(€ million) 
Manufacturers 100 150 / 300 
Professional users 10 / 0 0 / 5 
Member State public authorities 5 5 / 0 
European Commission 1 - 
Standardisation bodies (national level) - 15 
Approval Bodies and Notified B odies (in curren t terms) 160 - 
TOTAL (rounded) 275 / 265 170 / 320 
 
Table 2.3 Administrative and non-administrativ e costs and benefits of Option 3 estimated 
in monetary terms 
Stakeholder group annual benefits 
(€ million) annual costs 
(€ million) 
Manufacturers 190 / 500 55 
Professional users 0 / 60 5 / 0 
Member State public authorities - 12 
European Commission - 2 
Standardisation bodies (CEN) 6 10 
Approval Bodies (EOTA) and Notified Bodies 50 / 120 15 / 50 
TOTAL (rounded) 245 / 685 100 / 130 
 
EN 50   EN 6.4. Indicate if the analysis confirms wheth er EU action would have an added value. 
Options 1 of no action and Opti on 2 of repealing the directive and reverting to mutual 
recognition respectively would have considerably less bene fits. While Option 1 would 
produce constantly only about half of the be nefits of Option 3, Option 2 would in the 
beginning range in the middle of these two options  but in the longer term even result in cost 
being higher than benefits. Thus the analysis  confirms that EU ac tion of an appropriate 
revision of the CPD will have added value, wh ile at the same time re ducing overall costs and 
increasing overall benefits in co mparison to the baseline option. 
6.5. Highlight the trade-offs and synergies associated with each option. 
For all options there is a potential trade-off between the nature and level of impact on 
manufacturers who distribute their products only in  the territory of one Member State, notably 
micro and crafts enterprises, a nd therefore have no bene fits from the Internal Market but risk 
incurring in certain cases additional costs if specific Community provisions for harmonisation 
are not sufficiently tailored to their specific si tuation and implemented in their favour, and the 
net benefits which other manufacturers and,  at least at the longer term, most other 
stakeholders will gain from specific Community legislation on  construction products (Option 
1), in particular when appropria tely revised (Option 3), or would lose in the case of mutual 
recognition (Option 2) which beco mes for some even a net cost. 
There is for all options a synergy with th e Commission proposals regarding the New Legal 
Framework. Under Option 2 this would be li mited to the proposed Regulation laying down 
procedures relating to the applic ation of certain nati onal technical rules to  products lawfully 
marketed in another Member State30. While these provisions have  also some relevance for 
Option 1 and Option 3 as long as there remain construction products placed on the market to which harmonised technical speci fications do not (yet) apply, there would be a particular 
synergy between these two options and the prop osed Regulation setting out the requirements 
for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products
31. Moreover, a 
revision of the Community legislation on constr uction products (Option 3) will need to take 
into account the proposed Decision on a commo n framework for the marketing of products32. 
6.6. If possible, rank the options in term s of the various evaluation criteria. 
Independently of whether the options are ranked  according to horizontal objectives, such as 
the Lisbon strategy, and more general policy ob jectives, such as simp lification and reduction 
of administrative burden, or according to a se t of non-monetary criteri a and more technical 
criteria proper to the construc tion sector, or finally in terms of a rough cost-benefit analysis 
which must remain an estimate because of the lack  of data and the difficulties to apply the EU 
net-cost model, the result is always the same : Option 3 is clearly preferred against Option 1 
and Option 2, the latter to be  qualified as being contrary  to the objectives pursued. 
The only difference would be if the Options were assessed exclusively on the basis of criteria 
relating to manufacturers, in pa rticular micro and crafts ente rprises, who distribute their 
products only in the territory of one Member  State and for whom therefore the Internal 
                                                 
30 COM(2007) 36 final of 14.2.2007 
31 COM(2007) 37 final of 14.2.2007 
32 COM(2007) 53 final of 14.2.2007 
 
EN 51   EN Market is of no concern. In this case, a cl ear picture cannot be obt ained, and under certain 
assumptions Option 2 could be preferred agai nst Option 3 and even more against Option 1. 
6.7. If possible and appropriate, set out a preferred option. 
Option 3 to revise the Community legislation a ppropriately is the pref erred option consisting 
of a package that mirrors the existing necessity a nd scores best in the Im pact Assessment. It is 
the only one fully corresponding to the issues an d problems requiring action as well as to the 
findings of the stakeholder consultation undertaken  in this respect. It  addresses the main 
identified underlying problem drivers in an optimal way and allows the best possible 
improvements with regard to t hose who are affected. With Opti on 3 it is possible to best 
achieve both the general policy ob jectives and the more specific and operational objectives. 
At the same time, it ensures the desired legal continuity by maintaini ng the approach chosen 
in the CPD to achieve the Internal Market objective through technica l harmonisation placing 
demands on both manufacturers of  construction products and on pub lic authorities as well as 
the general acquis  and technical specifications estab lished under the CPD. Finally it also 
continues the good subsidiarity balance achieved in the field of construction, i.e. Member 
States are competent for the rules of design and building of works, while EU legislation 
ensures the Internal Market for the products used in the works. 
The preferred option foresees the revision by  re-casting the Comm unity legislation on 
construction products into the legisl ative tool of a regulation which 
– - lays down a common technical language wh en dealing with construction products and 
establishes the obligation to  exclusively use this comm on language in relation to 
construction works and products; 
– - brings about the further cl arification missing under the cu rrent CPD and reinforces the 
credibility of the system; 
– - lays down the rules and procedures to be followed by manufact urers when placing 
construction products on the EU market, and at the same time; 
– - sets out the obligations to be respected by national authorities when regulating on 
construction works, and when acting in impl ementation of this Community legislation; 
– - provides the basis needed for establis hing harmonised technical specifications 
regarding construction products; 
– - provides for the legal basis and specific tools needed for ensuring a well-functioning 
Internal Market for construction products, including accreditation, designation and notification of the bodies involved, market surveillance and safeguard clauses; and 
– - at the same time shapes them more appropriately, such as a reduced number of 
simplified systems of attestati on of conformity and lightened administrative procedures for 
ETAs. 
The proposal contains further specific provisions to ensure flexibility and proportionality and 
to keep administrative costs as low as possi ble, also corresponding to concerns about the 
potential specific effects on SMEs, in particul ar micro and crafts enterprises manufacturing 
construction products, and with rega rd to the need for an appropriate treatment to be used for 
 
EN 52   EN non-series products. Moreover, it integrates pr ocedures to follow for dealing with innovative 
products as far as their placi ng on the market is concerned. 
7. SECTION 7: MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
7.1. What are the core indicators of prog ress towards meeting the objectives? 
Monitoring and evaluating progress towards mee ting the objectives is considered only in 
relation to the performance of the preferred co mprehensive revision Option 3. Annex VIII sets 
out the approach which is structured around the main objective of the CPD (i.e. to facilitate 
the free circulation and us e of construction products in the Internal Market), plus the more 
general aims of the Commission in terms of simplif ication. It also presents a set of general 
indicators and possible means of verification which can be utilised to track performance. The 
indicators will need to be adapted to the legal instrument finally adopted but cover the main areas which will need to be m onitored and evaluated over time. 
7.2. What is the broad outline for po ssible monitoring and evaluation 
arrangements? 
Distinction needs to be made  between continuous and periodic monitoring and evaluation. 
Continuous monitoring is suggested to be done in the context of the Commission’s continuous 
activities of administer ing this legislation, starting from the date when it comes into force 
(which will a clear-cut point as the legi slation is proposed to be a Regulation). 
At the time of the revised legislation coming in to force also a baseline state of the art for 
periodic monitoring and evalua tion should be established (e. g. on cross-border trade, number 
of national marks, time needed to establish harmonised standards, previous complaints 
relating to the then former CPD, number of ETAs requested/issued per year and costs and 
time needed to have them, burden and cost for Attestation of Conformity and CE marking, 
and market surveillance) as baseline  for future monitoring and evaluation. 
Periodic monitoring measures and periodic ev aluation based on both c ontinuous and periodic 
monitoring is proposed to be fore seen in two-to-three-y ear intervals. At this  occasion it should 
also be decided to which extent the monitori ng and evaluation approach  and its details should 
be adapted for working still better. Exercises of periodic evaluation would need to prepare 
reporting/examination/evaluation as finally provid ed for by the legislation put into force. 
Periodic evaluation between su ch regulatory reporting/examin ation/evaluation could be 
considered of taking the form of  an evaluation “light” not addressing all issues with the same 
intensity. 
7.3. How has the opinion of the IA board of 10.09.2007 been taken into account? 
(1) The expected simplification and administ rative burden benefits for stakeholders 
should be better presented. Section 5.5.4 includes now a table and comments where the 
main identified problems are presented together with the proposed measures and the expected 
results. Latter, in the same section, specific  instruments are presented with there expected 
effects in so far as they should alleviate the administrative burden of companies and, in 
particular, of SMEs. 
(2) The IA report highlights significant pri ce variations across the internal market and 
the significance of this should be asse ssed and possibly carried forward in the 
 
EN 53   EN subsequent steps in the impact analysis.  In section 2.3 a paragra ph has been introduced to 
qualify the empirical findings concerning the price differences between countries in particular 
commenting on the difficulties in comparing the obs erved variations due, for example, to the 
difficulties in having comparable product de finitions. A second paragraph has been 
introduced in section 5.6 when commenting on the expected effects on economic sectors and 
regions affected and more precisely as one aspect of the impact on trade and competition. 
(3) The analysis of impacts sh ould better illustrate differen tiated impacts across product 
groups and across producers from different countries. Extensive comments on the effects 
across sectors and countries have been added in section 5.6. These comments are manly based 
on the PRC external study mentioned above . They go through 13 economic sectors and 
analyse the direct cost/benefit effects of the CE marking and the impact on trade and 
competition and the possible longer run effici ency benefits. The section ends with an 
additional comment on the expect ed impacts across countries.  
(4) The report should elaborat e on environmental impacts. The environmental impact is 
considered shortly in section 5.5. Some noticeable  comments have been added in that section 
to explain the mechanisms of the expected enviro nmental impact. In partic ular, it is, explained 
there that the scope of the basic work requi rement number 3 has been significantly extended 
to cover, notably, lifecycle aspects, the out door air and greenhouse gases. In addition, basic 
requirement n° 7 has been added to cover recycl ing aspects and the sustainable use of natural 
resources. 
(5) Procedure and presentation. As requested, the two external  studies from RPA and PRC 
have been loaded in the site of the Construction Unit:  
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/construction   
 
EN 54   EN Annex I  
 
 
EN 55   EN 
 
 
EN 56   EN 
 
 
EN 57   EN 
 
 
EN 58   EN 
 
 
EN 59   EN 
 
 
EN 60   EN 
 
 
EN 61   EN 
 
 
EN 62   EN Statistics  
 
 
EN 63   EN Annex II  
Summary data on number and size of en terprises in the construction industry 
No. of enterprises Turnover €billion 
Size of enterprise 
Manufacturers Designers Contractors Manufacturers Designers Contractors 
self-employed n.a. 400,000 5,000,000? n.a. 25 n.a. 
small/micro 60,000 36,500 2,570,000 200 29 560 
med/large 5,000 3,490 89,000 200 44 520 
multinationals 100 10 1,000 100 2 200 
TOTAL 
non-self-employed 65,100 40,000 2,660,000 500 75 1,280 
 
Number and size of manufacturers by selected product family 
Size of enterprise 
Product family 
micro/small med/large multinationals No. of plants No. of 
products 
Cement 0 10 9 150 500 
Steel  50 12 120 10,000 
Steelwork fabrication  2,000 20 2,000 bespoke 
Rebar, etc.  40 4 80 500 
Masonry - 400 210 13 1,300 11,500 
Wood panels  25  400 5,000 
Tiles 600 50  700 20,000 
Sanitary appliances  20 4 100 10,000 
Doors/windows 50,000 500 10 60,000 100,000 
Geotextiles  20 10 50 1,000 
Plastics and chemical products 1,000 100 10 2,000 10,000 
Misc. hardware 5,000 500  6,000 6,000 
Other 3,000 1,500 8 5,000 5,000 
TOTAL 60,000 5,025 100 77,900 179,500 
 
 
EN 64   EN Annex III  
 
Output and trade trends for selected construction products 
 
 
 
 
EN 65   EN  
 
Notes:  
1. Source: “Study to evaluate the internal market and comp etitiveness effects of the 
CPD”, Final report, April 2007, PRC B.V. 
2. Data are generated from the PRODCO M (PRODuction COMmunautaire) database 
on production statistics and from CN/H S (Combined Nomenclature/Harmonised 
System) database on trade statistics from Eurostat. 
3. 2005 estimated 
 
EN 66   EN Annex IV 
  Data on price dispersion for three common construction products 
The tables show the high price countries (in blue), the median  countries (green) and the low 
price countries (in yellow) 
Notes:  
Data from Gardiner & Theobald and Spon’s studies. 
The data represent ex-works pr ices (delivered at the site).
 
For further details, see “Study to evaluate the internal 
market and competitiveness effects of the CPD”, Final report, April 2007, PRC B.V.
 
Common ciment, €/tonne      
  1987 Jan. 
1991 1992 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
  Spon'
s Spon's G&T G&T G&T G&T G&T G&T G&T 
Portugal 78 72 102 -- -- -- -- -- -- 
Spain 55 106 102 65 97 102 78 90 95 
Sweden 80 -- 113 108 102 107 -- 112 104 
Finland -- 100  103 108 103 105 107 108 
Italy 63 75 118 91 105 103 103 107 113 
Ireland 95 100 131 109 231 115 -- 130 130 
Greece 37 52  60 71 90 -- 162 158 
France 59 106 146 113 139 146 152 162 165 
UK 73 96 116 131 145 149 141 154 190 
Norway 82 157  158 -- 190 -- 185 190 
Netherlands 65 82 -- 101 110 113 -- -- 190 
Germany 70 121 164 103 102 192 -- -- -- 
Austria 76 91  137 -- -- -- -- -- 
Denmark 157 137  163 231 182 -- -- -- 
Belgium 60 191  -- -- -- -- -- -- 
Minimum value 37 52 102 60 71 90 78 90 95 
Maximum value 157 191 164 163 231 192 152 185 190 
Median value 70 100 118 108 108 113 105 130 158 
range% 428% 366% 161% 270% 325% 213% 195% 206% 200% 
max/median 225% 191% 139% 151% 214% 170% 145% 142% 120% 
 
  
     
 
EN 67   EN Structural steel, €/tonne 
  1987 jan. 
1991 1992 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
  Spon's Spon's G&T G&T G&T G&T G&T G&T G&T 
Portugal -- -- 740 -- -- -- -- -- -- 
Italy -- -- 1230 859 577 560 560 560 770 
Denmark -- --  902 497 491 -- -- -- 
UK -- -- 750 1001 808 785 750 1021 878 
Greece -- --  1075 646 450 -- 950 950 
Netherlands -- -- 1820 1289 1402 1448 -- -- 960 
Sweden -- -- 1500 947 678 -- -- 1121 1072 
Ireland -- -- 670 1305 1030 1350 -- 1150 1250 
France -- -- 1360 1044 984 990 1030 1240 1277 
Spain -- -- 1120 618 [336] 690 900 1050 1350 
Germany -- -- 750 820 646 1116 -- -- -- 
Finland -- --  1028 1064 1082 1140 1352 1407 
Norway -- --  1710 1800 1966 2000 2343 2414 
Austria -- --  -- -- -- -- -- -- 
Belgium -- --   -- -- -- -- -- -- 
Minimum value     670 618 497 450 560 560 770 
Maximum value     1820 1710 1800 1966 2000 2343 2414 
Median value     1120 1001 678 990 900 1121 1250 
range%     272% 277% 362% 437% 357% 418% 314% 
max/median     163% 171% 265% 199% 222% 209% 193% 
 
 
Common bricks, €/1000      
  1987 jan. 
1991 1992 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
  Spon's Spon's G&T G&T G&T G&T G&T G&T G&T 
Spain -- -- 395 111 61 78 90 99 102 
Poland -- -- 107 172 192 173 148 133 141 
Greece -- --  230 297 70 -- -- 167 
Italy -- --  82 105 150 150 140 170 
UK   385 294 291 306 321 284 293 
France -- -- 423 358 -- 370 384 407 413 
Ireland -- -- 572 372 451 380 -- 195 474 
Norway -- --  488 -- 678 -- 740 774 
Netherlands -- -- 212 175 186 194 -- -- -- 
Sweden -- -- 376 315 297 374 -- -- -- 
 
EN 68   EN Germany -- -- 227 330 326 493 -- -- -- 
Denmark -- --  363 231 -- -- -- -- 
Portugal -- -- 399 -- -- -- -- -- -- 
Austria -- --  -- -- -- -- -- -- 
Belgium -- --  -- -- -- -- -- -- 
Finland -- --   -- -- -- -- -- -- 
Minimum value     107 82 61 70 90 99 102 
Maximum value     572 488 451 678 384 740 774 
Median value     385 294 291 306 150 195 293 
range%     535% 598% 734% 969% 427% 747% 759% 
max/median     149% 166% 155% 222% 256% 379% 264% 
 
 
EN 69   EN Annex V  
 
Information and assumptions used for roughly estimating monetary impacts 
A. Number and costs of European Technical Approvals (ETAs) issued 
During the last 9 years an incr easing number of ETAs have b een issued, which corresponds to 
an increase in the number of ETA Guidelin es established and ma nufacturers’ generally 
growing interest in ETAs for construction prod ucts not covered by harmonised standards, in 
order to benefit from the advant ages of the Internal Market. 
YEAR  No. of ETAs issued
 7 
 9 
 4 
 13 
 32 
 57 
 121 
 276 
 247 
For different reasons under each of the two policy options 1 and 3 it can be assumed that the 
choice of either Option 1 or Option 3 will not have a significant influence on the number of 
ETAs requested/issued in future. In a rough glob al estimate across all types and families of 
product it is assumed that this figure will st abilise at circa 500 ETAs a year, with a higher 
figure expected under Option 3 than under Option 1. 
The cost of an ETA depends on the complexity of the product / kit and on the number of tests 
established by the reference assumed for the assessment (ETAG or CUAP). In the past, 
depending on the nature of the product, the aver age cost of an ETA us ually varied between 
€ 10,000  and € 80,000 . While Option 1 is considered to  have no effect on reducing this 
amount, a decrease of this cost is in tended to be achieved with Option 3.  
Note : The cost of an ETA does not include that of  the subsequent Attest ation of Conformity. 
However, some Approval Bodies with test facil ities are able to offer special arrangements to 
manufacturers (their clie nts) for a combined ETA-AoC package if appointed as Notified Body 
undertaking the AoC after having issued the ETA. 
The counter-running estimates for the two factors a bove (Option 1: less future increase in the 
number of ETAs, but at more or less the same cost per ETA as in the past; Option 2: higher 
future increase in the number, but at a lower cost per ETA) means that its is not possibly to 
significantly differentiate between the global estim ates made for each of the two options with 
regard to the annual overall costs of ETAs incurred by manufacturers and overall benefits 
(income) that Approval Bodies gain from this activity. 
 
EN 70   EN B. Costs of Attestation of Conformity (A oC) needed to CE mark construction 
products  
AoC costs  
The efforts to be undertaken, the deliverables required and the degree  of involvement, and 
therefore in total the costs involved, depend ve ry much on the product an d the system of AoC 
specified for the given construction produc t in the applicable  Commission Decision. 
Random figures provided by industry indicate that in app lication of harmonised technical 
specifications under the CPD the one-off cost s for Initial Type Testing are usually 
significantly lower than the total of the recurring costs of Factory Production Control. The same figures suggest that in the case of most demanding AoC systems with in addition a 
particularly significant involvement  of third parties (Notified Bodi es), the overall costs related 
to AoC can total as much as € 50,000 or even more over an estimated 3-to-5-year duration of 
practical validity (see box below) of the AoC for one singl e product (e.g. a ba sic product for 
making concrete). For other products this cost is lower (e.g. cases of € 40,000 for an estimated 
3-year duration or € 24,000 for an estimated 5-y ear duration). But there is also information 
that leads to the conc lusion that this cost may total no more than € 5,000 over an estimated 5-
year duration of practical validi ty of the AoC in the case of relatively simple products if the 
least onerous system of AoC applies. 
In principle the AoC is valid for CE marking for an un limited duration as long as all parameters taken into 
account (the product, but also e.g.  the production line and incoming mate rials, the technical specification 
assumed as reference, etc.) remain unchanged. 
But minor or important changes in these parameters could affect the AoC and/or its results, thus requiring its 
renewal or the repetition of parts of it, again depending on the required AoC system. Practice shows that usually 
the natural evolution in these respects takes place in a way such that the after an average period of 4 to 6 years  
for more traditional construction products an AoC cannot no longer be considered to be valid for CE marking . 
The innovative character of some construction products could imply that this period is reduced to 2 to 3 years . 
From the above it must be concluded that, de pending on the product, the average annual cost 
related to AoC can vary as much as between roughly € 1,000 and € 20,000. When this amount 
is low, usually Notified Bodies are not involved in the AoC, whereas part of it usually pays 
for their services and flows to them as  income when this amount is higher. 
The above, which is the best information ava ilable to the Commission and is only based on 
past practice under the current CPD , can only supply a general idea of AoC costs and 
certainly cannot serve as a basis fo r even an approximate calculation. 
Cost relation between EU system and national systems  
In a system under which exclusiv ely national provisions would be  applicable to construction 
products (national approvals, cert ificates of conformity against national standard s, type-tests 
against national standards, et c.), the compliance costs could be roughly estimated, for an 
"average" country and an average product, as being 10% to 40% less  than those originated in 
a system that follows specific EU legislati on on construction products for establishing the 
Internal Market for these products. 
 
EN 71   EN However, if a manufacturer is interested in obtaining the "validation" of the national 
documents covering his product, despite Article 28 of the Treat y he is in practice usually 
faced with one of the two following situations: 
1. If the manufacturer’s commercial intere st is directed towards markets where no 
provisions or provisions simila r to those in his own count ry are to be observed, he 
may use what is valid for his own country. In such a case in practice nevertheless 
some minor additional administrative costs are needed in order to be entitled to 
distribute the product on these markets, above  those (if any) orig inated by quite usual 
specific requests of potential clients on these “foreign” markets. Even this case can 
be estimated to bring the total of the costs for placing products on the market in the territory of the own Member State, as well as that of one or several Member States 
with no or similar provisions, at more or less the same level  of those under a system 
that follows specific EU legislation in this field. 
2. If the manufacturer’s commercial interest is  directed towards markets where different 
/ more demanding national provisions are to  be observed, the costs for obtaining 
technical clearance of the produc t must be assumed as being at least of the same 
magnitude  (often higher) as those already incurred in the country of origin , even 
if originated by simple repetition of assessm ents and tests already performed. In this 
case it can be estimated that placing products  on the market in the territory of his 
own Member State as well as that of one or  several other Member States results in 
costs for observing the various  national systems which are at least 50%, maybe 
100% or even several times higher  than comparable cost s under a system that 
follows specific EU legislation in this field. 
In principle no geographical differences can be no ticed that would be wo rth considering as to 
where the first or the second situ ation could be found in the EEA. However, it is more likely 
to find the first situation in parts of the market  area with relatively little importance for the 
kind of product in question, and the reverse for the second situation. Altogether, this could 
lead to the very rough estimate that for an average case and an average cons truction product 
placed on the market in the territor y of more than one Member State
 the costs induced for a 
manufacturer in respect of administrative acceptance by a system under which exclusively 
national provisions are applicable to construction products would be about twice  the cost 
needed for the same case under a system that fo llows appropriate specific EU legislation for 
establishing the Internal Mark et for construction products. 
Share in number of products33 placed on the market in  the territory of more  than one Member 
State 
Based on the very limited information available, the global families of construction products 
can be distinguished into three very rough clas ses regarding the share in number of products 
of such a family placed on the ma rket in the territory of more  than one EEA Member State: 
                                                 
33 Refer also to Annex II, second table, and to Annex III.  
Note:  
products, not production. As in the case of none of the products it is likely that its entire production is 
placed outside the territory of the Member State where the product is manufactured, the share in number 
of products placed on the market in the territory of more than one EEA Member State is usually higher 
than that recorded in Annex III as “intra-EEA trade as a share of apparent consumption" 
 
EN 72   EN • Families for which a very high share or near ly all products are potentially consumed in 
more than one Member State. The only obvious  example is that of structural steel. 
• Several families for which a considerable share of products in this family (roughly 
estimated between 50% and 70% of the total) are potentially consumed in more than one 
Member State. Examples are ceramic tiles and certain wood products. 
• Some families for which only a low share of pr oducts in this family (often only 10% or 
less) are consumed in more than one Member  State. Examples are masonry units and the 
large family of common (without specia l protective function)  doors and windows. 
It would not correspond to market reality to assume a general co rrelation between the size of 
manufacturing enterprises and th e extent to which they place products on the market in the 
territory of more than one EEA Member State. Nevertheless, for most product families medium-sized and large enterprises manufactur ing construction products are more likely than 
small ones to be active in a market area in the territory of more than one Member State. However, this does not mean that they distribute in this market area products manufactured in 
a single plant. It is not unusual,  in particular for large enterprises and brands, to manufacture 
more or less identical products  in several plants in variou s countries. In this case, the 
Attestation of Conformity also unde r an EU system largely needs to  be done per plant, at least 
with regard to Factory Production Control. 
Annex VI
 
  
 
Monitoring and evaluation indicators  
Objective Indicators Means of verification 
Internal Market 
Free circulation and use of 
construction products in the Internal Market Uptake of CE marking 
  
 
Reduction in number of national 
marks Data and information on the 
evolution of cross-border trade 
Number of national marks 
withdrawn or made voluntary only 
Use of a common technical 
language relating to construction products Reduction in number of different 
ways of expressing the same performance characteristics 
Decrease in time needed to agree 
harmonised standards  
 
Reliance on hENs in specifying public procurement requirements Changes made to national building 
regulations/ requirements in line with common technical language 
Recorded (average) time between 
mandate and publication of harmonised standards 
Sample data and information from 
public tenders 
Better Regulation and Simplification - general 
 
EN 73   EN Annex VI  
  
 
Monitoring and evaluation indicators  
Objective Indicators Means of verification 
Less burdensome legislation easier 
to implement and thus more 
effective, while also preserving EU 
policy objectives Better and easier compliance with 
EU legislation 
 
 
Change in uptake of ETA route and in costs and time required to obtain 
ETA Change in number of meetings 
needed to be held to ease 
implementation and in number of 
complaints and time spent replying 
to them 
Evolution of number of ETA 
requested/issued per year or, better, 
of data on cost for ETAs and on the time between requesting and 
issuing an ETA 
Clear provisions and reduced 
administrative burden, in particular for SMEs Reduction of administrative burden 
/ costs of CE marking  
Uptake of CE marking by micro 
enterprises and SMEs Sample data and information on 
burden and cost for Attestation of Conformity and CE marking 
Sample data and information on the 
experiences of SMEs 
(both e.g. obtained through 
associations at EU level)  
(continued) 
  
Monitoring and evaluation indicators 
Objective Indicators Means of verification 
Better Regulation and Simplification – specific tools 
Increased flexibility in the 
formulation and use of technical specifications Inclusion within standards of to 
more easily conformity demonstrate (i.e. without 
testing/without further testing)  Number of standards including 
means of demonstrating compliance easier than testing 
Elimination of implementation obstacles Greater confidence in CE marking Resources put into market 
surveillance 
Information from professional 
users to assess their confidence in 
CE marking as the only marking (from random sources and obtained 
from questionnaires distributed 
through associations)