Commission staff working document accompanying the proposal for a Regulation of the European 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}
Date: 2008-05-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EC conformity marking, approximation of laws, building, construction policy, free movement of goods, quality label, technical rule

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 23.5.2008 
SEC(2008) 1900 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying the  

Proposal for a Regulation of the European 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 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The following abbreviations are used hereafter: 

ABBREVIATIONS 

ABs: 

AoC:  

CEN:  

CPD: 

CUAP:  

EC:  

EFTA:  

EN:  

EOTA:  

ETA:  

ETAG:  

EU:  

hEN:  

MS:  

NA: 

NB:  

NRF: 

SCC: 

EOTA Approval Bodies 

Attestation of Conformity is the system 
for attesting the conformity of 
construction products to European 
technical specifications foreseen in 
89/106/EEC 

Comité Européen de Normalisation 

Construction Products Directive 
(Directive 89/106/EEC) 

Common Understanding of Assessment 
Procedures 

European Commission 

European Free Trade Association 

European Standard 

European Organisation for Technical 
Approvals 

European Technical Approval 

European Technical Approvals 
Guideline 

European Union 

Harmonised European Standard 

Member States 

New Approach Directives 

Notified Body for AoC tasks (i.e. 
certification, inspection or testing 
bodies) 

New Regulatory Framework 

Standing Committee on Construction 
(Directive 89/106/EEC, Article 19) 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

SECTION 1: PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Context 

For  more  than  eighteen  years  Council  Directive  89/106/EEC  of  21  December  1988  on  the 
approximation  of  laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions  of  the  Member  States 
relating to construction products1 (Construction Products Directive – CPD) has established the 
principles, provisions, rules, procedures and tools to be followed with regard to the Internal 
Market for construction products, i.e. for their 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  directive  to  the  terminology,  general  guidelines  and  procedures  for 
conformity assessment and CE marking used in New Approach directives2. 

The  simplification  of  the  CPD  is  included  in  the  Commission  Better  Regulation: 
Simplification  Strategy3.  The  recast/simplification  of 
is  action  Ref.  No. 
2007/ENTR/001 in the Commission Work and Legislative Programme (CWLP) 2007. 

the  CPD 

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 information 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  Community  Legislation,  which 
the  CPD. 
Consequently, in 2005, these various options continued to be discussed, together with a time 
plan  and  the  formulation  of  milestones  as  follow-up  and  as  a  contribution  to  the  above-
mentioned  Simplification  Strategy.  In  parallel  the  work  preparing  the  revision  of  the  New 
Approach  was  taken  into  account.  Preparing  the  revision  of  the  CPD  contributed,  with 
concrete information regarding this Directive, to the Secretary General exercise on reducing 
administrative burden and costs. 

included 

DG  Enterprise  and  Industry  launched  a  web-based  public  consultation  in  March  2006  (see 
the 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/construction/cpdrevision/cpd_cons_en.htm) 
Commission  with  stakeholder  views  on  various  identified  policy  options  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. 

to  provide 

Between December 2005 and November 2006 a contracted consultant4 undertook a study to 
evaluate  the  impact  of  the  CPD  on  the  internal  market  for  construction  products  and  the 
competitiveness of EU construction sector, looking at the provisions, tools and instruments of 
the current CPD from an economic point of view and particularly the issue of administrative 

1 
2 
3 

4 

EN 

OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p.12 

Council Directive 93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993, OJ L 220, 30.8.1993, p.1 

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. 

PRC Consultants, The Netherlands 

3 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
burden  and  cost-benefit  effects  of  the  directive.  This  included  contacting  the  necessary 
representatives  of  public  and  private  stakeholders  of  the  construction  sector,  at  all  relevant 
levels, in order to ascertain their views, in particular with the help of four regional industry 
workshops in Paris, Copenhagen, Vienna and Bonn and via written stakeholder feed-back. 

Another external study on the relevant policy options was undertaken between October 2006 
and  May  20075.  The  main  objectives  of  this  assignment  were  to  identify  problems  with  the 
implementation of the existing CPD, define options available to address them and assess their 
implications. The results of the stakeholder consultation constituted one of the key inputs to 
the assessment undertaken in the framework of this study. 

A Commission Inter-service Steering Group to support the impact assessment of the CPD was 
established  in  December  2006.  The  following  Commission  DGs  were  invited  to  take  part: 
Secretariat-General,  Legal  Service,  DG  Competition,  DG  Employment  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 guidance 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  consultations  with  a  variety  of  key  stakeholders  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  conferences  with  individual  European  industry  associations  and 
stakeholder bodies. The bases for these Consultations were two DG ENTR 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 web-based public consultation, 
together with a statistical summary, (see Annex I) was published on the Europa website 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/construction/cpdrevision/consultation_results_en.pdf and 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/construction/cpdrevision/consultation_statistics_en.pdf 

The main findings can be summarised as follows. 

– 

– 

– 

5 

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  versus  prescriptive;  New  Approach  versus 
other;  meaning  and  status  (compulsory  or  not)  of  CE  marking;  acceptance  of  CE 
marking  by  the  national  authorities;  role  of  standards  and  European  Technical 
Approvals (ETAs), among other issues. 

Clear scope for simplification.  The  systems  of  attestation  of conformity should be 
simplified and their number reduced. The ETA route for CE marking is perceived as 

by Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd (RPA), UK 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
necessary but the administrative procedures for its delivery should 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 avoiding unnecessary costs to companies. 

– 

– 

Concern  about  the  potential  specific  effects  of  the  CPD  on  small  and  medium 
enterprises  (SMEs),  with  particular  emphasis  on  the  need  for  an  appropriate 
treatment  to  be  used  for  non-series  products.  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 achievement of the internal market, mainly by 
an  increased  harmonisation  of  the  procedures  and  criteria  for  designation  by  the 
national authorities of the conformity assessment bodies and a better coordination of 
the market surveillance mechanisms. 

The  wide-ranging  public  consultations  have  contributed  to  the  assessment  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 relevant, diverging views 
of main stakeholder groups are acknowledged throughout the impact assessment. Furthermore 
complaints,  in  the  framework  of  the  consultation  or  in  addition  to  it,  as  regards  the 
implementation  and  malfunctioning  of  the  current  directive,  confirmed  the  problems 
identified by the Commission services and indicated possible solutions. 

The Commission’s minimum standards regarding consultation have been met. 

(b) 

Expertise 

Although the first external study undertaken 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 and 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  builders),  to  conclude  on  its  strengths  and 
to 
weaknesses  and 
competitiveness  of  the  construction  sector,  and  to  make  recommendations  related  to 
improving the impact of Community legislation on this competitiveness. 

its  provisions,  with  respect 

the  potential  for 

improvement  of 

The  external  study  on  the  relevant  policy  options  confirmed  the  main  problems  with  the 
existing legislation (see below Section 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  and  the  related  various  choices  for  specific 
elements through mainly a qualitative description (including 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 expected 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 detailed information that would have been necessary 
to provide quantitative estimates. Given these restrictions it was not possible to apply the EU 
net administrative cost model better than in the form of rough estimates. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
2. 

SECTION 2: PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1.  What is the issue or problem 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 the relevant policy options6 
which provide an idea on the structural set-up of the sector. 

Although with regard to the part of the construction products in this sector, 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 construction products market remains fragmented. 

Although statistics vary slightly over time, it is generally accepted that the EU construction 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 provide expertise for this assessment (see 1.2 b) indicates, on 
the basis of thirteen construction product families (see Annex 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 traded are structural section steel (90% of the apparent consumption in 2005). Nearly 
half to one-third of the ceramic tiles (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 cement (8%), windows (6%) and masonry units (3%). 

During  its  sixteen  years  of  implementation  Council  Directive  89/106/EEC  which  aims  at 
creating  the  Internal  Market  for  these  products  has  shown  a  lack  of  clarity,  controversial 
interpretation  by  Member  States  and  other  stakeholders,  difficulties  and  delay  of  putting  in 
place and applying its tools, burdensome procedures, disproportionate administrative burden, 
and unsatisfactory implementation on the ground. As a result, despite substantial progress, the 
internal market potential for construction products has so far only been partly exploited, with 
an underdeveloped cross-border trade (for indicative figures, see Annex V). 

In addition, there is a clear need to further develop this legislation, in order to address relevant 
developments  on  the  market  and  in  the  regulatory  field  appropriately,  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 and procedures can be summarised as follows. 

–  Construction  products  are  intermediate  products,  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 products. 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 

6 

   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,  the  CPD  sets  out  a  total  of  six  Essential 
Requirements  applicable  to  works  which  may  influence  the  technical  characteristics  of  a 
construction product which are set out in European technical specifications. The necessary 
link  between  both  is  assured  by  so-called  Interpretative  Documents  published  by  the 
Commission. 

–  The  European  technical  specifications  for  construction  products  can  be  of  two  kinds:  a 
harmonised  European  standard  (hEN)  established  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  Approval  Bodies  which  are  associated  in  the 
European Organisation for Technical Approval (EOTA), on the other hand. 
The usual type of technical specification is that of hEN, while ETA is an exceptional one 
reserved  to  innovative  products  and  products  differing  significantly  from  hENs.  With 
regard  to  the  latter  the  CPD  assigns  to  the  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 affix the corresponding CE marking. AoC consists 
of two distinct elements: Initial Type Testing (ITT) of the product, and Factory Production 
Control (FPC) which might also include additional product testing. There are a total of six 
different levels of AoC procedure under the CPD which all are more or less significantly 
distinct from the modules defined under the New Approach. 
The  administrative  burden  linked  to  the  various  levels  of  AoC  procedure  under  the  CPD 
varies significantly. With the exception of one the various levels of AoC procedure require 
to  a  degree  which  depends  on  the  level,  the  involvement  of  Notified  Bodies,  i.e.  a 
certification  body,  inspection  body  and/or  testing  laboratory.  The  directive  requires  the 
least onerous possible procedure consistent with safety to be chosen. However, in case of 
individual non-series production 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 specified 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 reference to specifications other than hEN or ETA, 
e.g. directly to the Essential 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 indications to identify the technical characteristics of the 
product. 

–  CE marking of a construction product provides presumption of fitness for use in works in 
application of the national design and building rules to be respected. Construction products 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
bearing  the  CE  marking  must  benefit  from  unrestricted  free  movement,  placing  on  the 
market and use corresponding to their fitness. 

–  A Standing Committee on Construction 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  function  which  is  partly  regulatory  and  partly 
advisory. 

–  Member States are  competent  for designating the Approval Bodies entitled to issue ETA 
and,  in  application  of  certain  minimum  conditions,  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 application of the Safeguard Clause provided 
for in the CPD. 

Several of the problems identified when implementing these principles, instruments, tools and 
procedures are so important that they must be addressed, in order to enable further significant 
progress  towards  a  functioning  Internal  Market  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  structural  steel,  ceramic 
tiles  and  some  relatively  high  added-value  appliances  and  systems,  potential  for  still  doing 
better can be seen in fields such as insulation 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  regulatory  field  appropriately,  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 construction 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  Member  States  retain  full  control  of  establishing  construction 
design rules in their respective territories (safety and security of the citizens). Different rules 
generally relate to each type of construction work, reflecting their specific features (buildings, 
bridges,  dams,  etc.).  The  construction  works,  and  consequently  also  the  products  used  and 
integrated, are extensively influenced by the design 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  Market  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  manufacturers  producing  their  products.  Such  a  system  should  enable 
professionals to determine whether a specific product, regardless of its origin, lives up to the 
required characteristics in order for it to be integrated into a particular work according to the 
design  chosen.  To  facilitate  marketing  and  verification  harmonised  technical  specifications 

EN 

8 

   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  applicable  provisions  of  Community  legislation  and  it  can  be 
demonstrated that conformity with the applicable 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 separately 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  problems  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/confusion has been the references to the CPD 
as being a New Approach act (NA). Although identical 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  the  CPD  offers  a  unique  possibility  to  clarify 
misunderstandings,  harmonise  the  language  used  and  align  the  Community  legislation 
regarding construction products and 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 underlying problem drivers can be grouped under six headings: 

Issues associated with the implementation 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 Conformity procedures is not always precise enough 
regarding the required involvement of the Notified Bodies. This often leads to unnecessary 
burden  for  the  manufacturers,  which  are  submitted  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  provisions  which  make  CE  marking  not 

mandatory; this creates a non-level playing field for manufacturers across the EU. 

•  Unclear provisions in the current directive are also responsible for an important number of 
infringement proceedings, in particular regarding issues in relation to CE marking (see 
below). The Commission services need substantial resources to follow up on infringement 
claims related to MS imposing differing and additional national requirements and to follow 
closely CEN work. 

7 
8 

See COM(2007) 35 final 
Finland, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Issues related to harmonised European standards under the CPD (hENs) 

•  Confusion exists regarding the significance, meaning and content of harmonised European 
standards  under  the  CPD  which  are  unduly  identified  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  possibility  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 believe that it is mandatory to request an 
ETA in the absence of harmonised European standards. The resulting differences in the 
implementation by various MS lead to confusion and distortions of the market. 

•  Establishing Guidelines as a basis for granting an ETA is bureaucratic, cumbersome, takes 
much  time  and  costs  several  hundred-thousand  Euros  for  one  Guideline.  Therefore  it  is 
often replaced by another approach developed by EOTA for achieving a common view of 
Approval  Bodies,  called  Common  Understanding  of  Assessment  Procedure,  not 
specifically  provided  for  by  the  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  several  ten-thousand  Euros  or  even  more  for 
obtaining  an  ETA  too  high,  and  that  they  are  insufficiently  involved  when  this  type  of 
particular technical specification 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 concerning their designation and these issues. 

•  There are even more frequently concerns expressed 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 indications 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 CPD, often mistakenly thought 
to relate directly to safety, as in the New Approach directives. 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  the  product  itself  but  to  the  entire  works  in 
which the product is incorporated. CE marking under the CPD indicates 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  interpretations  of  requirements  by  MS  authorities 
involved  at  the  various  levels  with  enforcement  of  the  CPD,  resulting  often  in  requiring 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
manufacturers to perform additional testing of the product which is both unnecessary and 
contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  CPD.  The  continuing  reference  of  new  application 
standards  in  national  regulations  and  related  national  conformity  markings  affects 
companies’ ability to place products on national 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, insurance companies, etc.). 
This  seems  to  be  due  to  (perceived)  lacking  consistency  between  the  working  of  the 
Notified  Bodies  involved  in  Attestation  of  Conformity  plus  a  lack  of  efficient  market 
surveillance.  In  turn  this  leads  to  builders  and  insurance  companies  not  accepting  CE 
marking  as  being  reliable  with  regard  to  product  performances  and  to  MS  authorities 
continuing to refer to national or voluntary marks in their national regulations.   
As a result, products very often bear national marks costing several thousand Euros or even 
more  to  obtain  in  addition  to  the  CE  marking,  the  latter  being  perceived  as  generating 
added cost without added value rather than as a passport for the whole European market, 
while further burden often exists for the companies to identify and fulfil the requirements 
of additional national requirements. 

Issues regarding products manufactured individually/non-series and micro enterprises 

•  As the cost of Attestation of Conformity and CE marking increases little with the number 
of product specimen manufactured, for products manufactured in small number, often by 
very  small  enterprises/artisans  the  cost  of  Attestation  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  exceptions,  in  case  of  individual 
non-series  production  the  simplest  and  less  onerous  of  the  six  AoC  procedures  the  CPD 
provisions  and the technical specifications established under the CPD seem not to be the 
most appropriate tool to regulate for individually manufactured products (for example type 
testing and factory production control necessarily need to be dealt 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  technical  or  regulatory 
obstacle impeding intra-Community trade 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 surveillance 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.  besides  manufacturers  of  construction  products  also  designers 
(architects  and  engineers),  contractors  (builders),  clients  (owners/contract  assigners)  as  well 
as public authorities at the various levels in various functions and specific technical bodies. 

Manufacturers of construction products are most fundamentally affected at their activities by 
the  tools  and  instruments  provided  for  by  legislation  relating  to  these  products,  with  direct 
effects on their costs. However, these effects are very different depending on the nature of the 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
product and the volume of the manufacturer’s production, on the one hand, 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  products  for  an  individual 
manufacturer  can  be  found  between  the  following  two  extremes.  The  one  extreme  is  a 
manufacturer targeting with a product manufactured in a single factory the entire EEA market 
or a large part of it with previously many different national requirements (cid:198) this manufacturer 
has high cost savings through referring to harmonised technical specifications instead of many 
different national ones and through a single attestation of conformity followed by CE marking 
instead of many national attestations of conformity 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, furthermore, might have rather low-profile regulatory 
requirements with regard to this product (cid:198) this manufacturer does not have cost savings from 
harmonisation  which,  moreover,  might  require  him  to  respect  minimum  specifications, 
attestation  of  conformity  and  marking,  which  were  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 depend 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  regulatory  situation  which  exists  or  has  existed  before  harmonisation  in 
the market area targeted by an individual manufacturer. 

In  addition,  a  well-functioning  Internal  Market  means  business  opportunities  for 
manufacturers  which  result  from  a  larger  market,  but  also  exposure  to  more  competition. 
Depending  on  the  case  and  the  individual  business  model,  this  might  result  in  expansion  or 
new enterprises being set up, but also in loss of clients and business failure. As in most other 
sectors, for common products rationalisation and concentration 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 Internal 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 market and the variety of products within the limits of the harmonised 
technical specifications allow an optimal choice 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  designers.  A  larger  market  with  harmonisation 
makes it more attractive for manufacturers or other initiative parties to provide designers with 
effort and cost cutting IT-based tools facilitating their work. 

Contractors are usually in a comparable situation: although most of them use products usually 
marketed in their geographical area of activity, they may in principle choose among products 
placed on the market anywhere in the EEA, trying to improve their performance and to reduce 
costs  generated  by  the  construction  products  used9.  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. The 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 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
commonly agreed technical specifications for construction 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 competition, 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  variations  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 cautiously for several reasons: first, for a given product, 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 the 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  brick  may  obviously  vary  between  countries.  The 
quality may be different, but also dimensions of common bricks may vary between countries. 
So, it is obvious that prices of common bricks are not so easily comparable as in the case, for 
instance, of a product like cement.  

It  can  nevertheless  be  concluded  that  these  figures  indicate  important  price  differences 
between  countries  and  that  they  mainly  stem  from  a  lack  of  competition  either  within  the 
industry itself or in the downstream distribution, stockholding and 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  competition,  can  be  very  big,  especially  from  the 
increased trade between the old and new Member States. 

Finally,  there  are  many  parties  that  are  indirectly  affected:  the  construction  sector  plays  a 
strategic role in providing  the  buildings and infrastructure underpinning the activities of the 
rest of the economy. 

From the above it is clear that measures improving the resource use and performance of the 
construction sector including construction 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 the CPD continues to be in force unchanged 
(‘no change option’, see chapter 4.1) would be insufficient to fulfil in a satisfactory way the 
specified objective of fostering an internal market for construction products. 

This  baseline  option  (CPD  unchanged),  implies  that  only  measures  related  to  a  natural 
evolution of the legislation in its current form would be introduced. Some of the recent and 
current developments pointing towards some modifications in the functioning/implementation 
of the CPD would lead to maintaining (or even worsening) the current problems related to the 
absence  of  a  level-playing  field  within  the  EU.  Other  measures  initiated,  however,  are 
expected  to  reduce  existing  divergences  in  national  requirements  as  well  as  in  testing  and 
certification regimes. 

EN 

13 

   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  towards  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  properly  and  fully  address  the  problems  as  identified 
under 2.1 and 2.2. 

2.5. 

Does  the  EU  have  the  right  to  act  –  Treaty  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  Market11.  A  new  proposal  for  a  revised  legal  act  related  to  construction  products 
places  itself  in  a  similar  logic  of  further  strengthening  the  Internal  Market  with  direct 
reference to Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. 

Although  cross-border  trade  of  construction  products  in  the  Internal  Market  shows  big 
variations  between  very  high  and  very  low  depending  the  family  of  products  concerned, 
technical barriers to trade in this area are a very serious issue and continue to be so despite 16 
years of implementation of Council Directive 89/106/EEC). This constitutes a clear necessity 
for the EU to act. The existing Construction Products 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  removed  and  national  regulations  on  both  products 
and  works  to  use  common  language  when  expressing  specifications.  This  approximation  of 
national  systems  should  provide  an  appropriate  level  of  protection  to  health,  safety  and  the 
environment  whilst  ensuring  that  the  costs  imposed  on  business  remain  reasonable. 
Appropriately strict product regulations and enforcement of such rules are expected to lead to 
more  security  about  the  consistency  of  performance  levels,  but  are  overall  also  likely  to 
increase costs for producers. 

To achieve a well-functioning Internal Market for construction products and the required legal 
certainty  in  technical  terms  as  well  as  to  address  the  above-mentioned  inherent  conflicts  of 
interest without fragmentation of the markets, the issues relating to construction products need 
to  be  addressed  at  EU  level.  The  principle  of  subsidiarity  is  fully  respected  by  the  fact  that 
Member  States  not  only  are  assigned  appropriate  responsibilities  with  regard  to  the 
implementation of Community legislation on construction 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 improving the free circulation and use of construction 
products. More specifically, it is intended to achieve a less fragmented construction products 

10 
11 

COM(2007) 37 final, and COM(2007) 53 final 

COM (85) 310 final 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
market,  which  has  a  traditionally  localised  setup  and  consequent  limited  amount  of  cross-
border  trade.  This  is  expected  to  also  have  significant  consequences  regarding  more 
competition, in turn followed by higher productivity development in the construction products 
sector and in the construction sector 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  implementation  of  the  current  EU  tool  for  improving  the 
functioning  of  the  market,  i.e.  Council  Directive  89/106/EEC  (Construction  Products 
Directive -CPD). 

3.2.  What are the more specific/operational objectives 

Ensuring better functioning of the Community legislation in this field on the ground includes 
addressing difficulties, costs, etc. for individual actors when attempting to understand and live 
up  to  stipulations  of  the  Community  legislation,  as  implemented  in  the  Member  States. 
Consequently,  as  indicated  in  the  Commission  initiative  Better  Regulation:  Simplification 
Strategy12 of 2005, one important policy objective 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 originally 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  expressed in the replies to its consultations, 
i.e.  that  the  approach  chosen  in  the  CPD  to  achieve  the  Internal  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 performance 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 harmonised language when defining the technical 
requirements of works, affecting directly or indirectly 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  Development  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  several  of  the  basic  Community  policies,  but  are 
even a direct and necessary consequence of them, 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 Development. 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  construction  products,  are 

12 

COM (2005) 535 final 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
directly  related  to  the  fields  of  preserving  the  environment  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  Market,  must  be  also  a  powerful  tool  at  the  service  of  the 
environmental policies of the Union and of the Member States in the field of construction and 
construction products. Harmonised technical specifications must integrate this dimension and 
provide technical means to fulfil environmental requirements. 

Aspects of fundamental rights are not concerned. 

4. 

SECTION 4: POLICY OPTIONS  

4.1.  What  are  the  possible  options  for  meeting  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 this field beyond the CPD (see 2.4 above) would be undertaken.   
However,  some  of  the  existing  divergences  in  national  requirements  and  in  testing  and 
certification  regimes  could  be  reduced  through  already  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  while  taking  into  account  the  current  Commission 
proposal in this field as part of the New Legal Framework13. 
In  practice  the  Internal  Market  would  be  based  exclusively  on  the  principle  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 with the technical rules of the destination Member State, as 
long as a Member State has not sufficiently justified 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 

16 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Option 3 - Revision of the Community legislation on construction products (the CPD) 

This option would consist of clarifications, expansions and revisions, in order to address all 
the problems identified (see 2.1 and 2.2 above). Under 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  options  undertaken  from  December  2006  to  May 
200714  has  largely  entered  into  this  exploration  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 Framework proposed in February 200715 will need to be integrated or taken 
into  account  also  in  a  revised  Community  legislation  on  construction  products,  it  would  be 
misleading to continue considering these 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 Commission has announced in several official documents a proposal 
for  a  recast  (revision)  of  Council  Directive  89/106/EEC,  no  option  has  in  principle  been 
excluded  beforehand.  Each  of  the  three  main  policy  options  is  assessed  in  Section  5  below 
with reference to the problems identified in Section 2 above and the objectives of the CPD, in 
particular  supporting  the  free  circulation  and  use  of  construction  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 and environmental impacts of each of the 

short-listed options? 

5.2. 

5.3. 

Positive and negative impacts, direct and indirect, including outside the EU. 

Uncertainties  and  how  impact  may  be  affected  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  the  problems  identified  in  Section  2  above  while 

14 
15 
16 

EN 

by Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd (RPA), UK 

COM(2007) 35 final, COM(2007) 37 final, and COM(2007) 53 final 

As these issues are inter-related and influencing each other at the level of findings, they have been dealt 
with simultaneously. Separating them would have meant significant repetition of statements. 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
strengthening  the  general  policy  objective  related  to  fostering  an  Internal  Market  for 
Construction  Products.  The  three  main  policy  options  identified  were  assessed,  and  despite 
uncertainty and lack of quantitative data it was also possible to indicate trends according to 
which impacts are rather likely to change over time. 

As  policy  option  3  -  Revision  of  the  Community  legislation  on  construction  products  (the 
CPD), was found to have the highest potential of strengthening the abilities to live up to the 
Internal  Market  objective  while  addressing  the  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  possible  measures  under  Option  3  were  defined  and 
examined, all potentially addressing one or several of the identified problems. This provided 
the  starting  point  for  defining  comprehensive  revision  alternatives.  The  implications  of 
implementing  the  defined  measures  were  assessed  both  individually  and  in  combination,  in 
order to identify a preferred package of revision measures.  

The  environmental  impact  category  has  been  excluded  from  this  analysis,  since  the  main 
objective of the Community legislation in question 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  the  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  themselves  have  environmental 
implications as in any case they take the environmental issues into account.  

Nevertheless, it has to be underlined that the proposal significantly extends the scope of the 
former  Directive  as  far  as  the  environmental  aspects  are  concerned.  The  draft  CPR  covers 
now  effects  on  the  environment  that  occur  during  the  work’s  entire  lifecycle.  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 the 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  into  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 argued that the expected increase in the intra-community trade 
flows will result in an increase of transport flows and then in negative impact on environment. 
These considerations are of course very important 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 

18 

   EN 

 
products are specified, placed on the market and their free movement and use guaranteed. 
Instead, these impacts together with potential economic impacts at the level of the macro-
economy  are  considered  together  in  the  light  of  the  final  combination  of  measures 
identified as being the preferred policy 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  involved  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. The 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 individual specific conditions and 
the lack of quantitative data make it impossible to assess sufficiently in monetary terms any of 
the  many  effects  that  would  result  from  the  three  basic  options,  it  was  tried  to  roughly 
estimate administrative costs17 incurred under each of them with the help of the very limited 
data available from the two external 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 Assessment 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 that without further proof all three options are 
considered to be cost-neutral in terms of administrative burden for contract 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 number of different uses for a given family of 
products  and  the  number  of  different  regulatory  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  estimations  of  both,  costs  and  benefits  of  a  given 
measure. 

17 

18 

Please note that in the context of administrative costs measurement and reduction, terms administrative 
"costs"  and  administrative  "burden"  are  used  interchangeably  in  the  sense  that  the  term  “costs”  is 
preferred when burden has a measurable economic consequence. 

Administrative costs should be assessed on the basis of the average cost of the required action (Price) 
multiplied  by  the  total  number  of  actions  performed  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 account. The quantity will be calculated as the frequency 
of required actions multiplied by the number of entities concerned. 

EN 

19 

   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 stakeholders. 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  the  following  developments  and  effects  for  the 
period from 2007 to 201519: 

i) 

ii) 

iii) 

iv) 

v) 

vi) 

19 

20 
21 

The development of a critical mass of harmonised 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 years, with all hENs being effective by 201520 

The  tool  of  European  Technical  Approval  (ETA)  will  be  used  and  accepted  more 
widely,  generally  based  on  Common  Understanding  of  Assessment  Procedures 
(CUAP).  It  can  be  assumed  that  there  will  be  no  or  only  very  few  new  European 
Technical  Approval  Guidelines  (ETAGs)  mandated  by  the  Commission.  The 
opposite scenario is also possible: the voluntary character of ETAs together with the 
costly and bureaucratic nature of the procedures could result in a lower confidence in 
such system and stronger position for national marks and systems. 

CE marking continues to be mandatory in most Member States and voluntary in four 
others,  including  differences  in  interpretation  with  regard  to  when  CE  marking  is 
required and for what products. The current concerns regarding 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 marking for construction products mandatory. 

New voluntary quality marks continue to develop 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. 

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 
Framework21. 

Some  steps  towards  creating  increased  confidence  in  the  competency  of  Notified 
Bodies (NBs) could develop through the introduction of new requirements for their 
designation  and  notification,  etc.,  in  particular  as  soon  as  appropriate  acts  of  the 
proposed New Legal Framework17 are in force and implemented. 

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”. 

Currently, 319 out of a total of 463 ‘concerned’ standards have been referenced as hENs in the OJEU. 

COM(2007) 37 final, and COM(2007) 53 final 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
vii) 

The  Commission  gradually  shifts  the  emphasis  of  its  work  from  managing  the 
towards  enforcement 
process  of  developing  standards  (gradually  finalised) 
concerning the obligations of public authorities under the CPD, including follow-up 
to  complaints.  This  shift  could  lead  to  greater  pressure  for  national  marks  and 
approval  systems  to  gradually  be  reduced,  including  a  reduction  in  the  use  of 
insurance-related marks. 

The  assessment  of  whether  continuing  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 the 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  information  fora  there  has  been  a  unanimous 
strong  request  (across  all  stakeholder  groups  and  all  countries)  for  clarification  of  CPD 
provisions,  including  several  fundamental  concepts  regarding  the  general  approach,  such  as 
clearly indicating/distinguishing the CPD concepts from those of the New Approach, defining 
the meaning and the status of the CE marking, the acceptance of the CE marking by National 
authorities  and  by  private  economic  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 would 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 Framework22 and making links to the proposed 
forthcoming  legislation  on  the  accreditation  of  notified  bodies  and  on  market  surveillance 
which  would  require  an  adjusted  legal  document.  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 dual obligations of manufacturers 
and public authorities were fulfilled. 

Consequently,  many  of  the  current  problems,  such  as  the  unclear  meaning  of  CE  marking, 
different  approaches  to  CE  marking  in  different  MS  (mandatory,  non-mandatory),  others 
related  to  the  system  of  attestation  of  conformity,  etc.,  would  continue  to  exist.  Thus,  the 
Community  legislation  would  continue  to  face  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 scenario up until 2015, would not be sufficient to 
address the identified problems. 

22 

For  example,  the  proposed  Decision  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  a  common 
Framework for the Marketing of Products [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 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The impacts which this option would have on individual stakeholders can be summarised as 
follows. 

Manufacturers:  to  a  certain  extent  continued  undue  costs  of  manufacturers  when  placing 
products on the market (from more testing than necessary, unnecessarily high costs of ETAs 
and  much  time  needed  for  their  delivery,  nearly  no  flexibility  in  how  to  demonstrate 
compliance), offset by advantages, if any, from the 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 variations in the impacts depending on the kind of the product, on the 
one  hand,  and  the  category  of  manufacturer  and  his  marketing  area,  on  the  other  hand.  The 
kind  of  product  influences  the  impact  mainly  because  of  the  specific  level  of  Attestation  of 
Conformity determined for the product, which can be more or less 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  manufacturing  added  value.  Furthermore  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, including those located outside the EEA, not only some of the 
potential  net  benefits  from  the  Internal  Market  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  manufacturers  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  manufacturers  rather  benefit  from  the  CPD  in  the  place  of 
mutual recognition. But for manufacturers whose products are distributed in a marketing area 
which does not cross borders, in particular 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  implementation  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 they could realise, as the Internal Market for 
construction products is not relevant for them. 

Professional users: no tangible cost effects compared to the current situation, 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 potential 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  management  of  legislation  compared  to  the  current 
situation and continued administrative 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 activity 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 

22 

   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  accreditation  as  proposed  under  the 
New Legal Framework will generate for some Notified 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  estimated  that  Option  1-  No  EU  action:  no  change 
would  lead  to  maintaining  certain  unnecessary  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  advantages,  these  advantages  would  be  lower  than 
possible,  with  estimated  benefits  that  could  not  be  realised  possibly  totalling  up  to  €  200 
million a year.  
Against  this,  overall  effects  on  costs  in  form  of  administrative  burden  of  the  various  other 
stakeholder categories (professional users, authorities, specification writers and bodies related 
to attestation of conformity) are negligible. 

However,  continued  undue  costs  of  manufacturers  placing  products  on  the  market,  in 
particular  in  the  territory  of  a  number  of  Member  States,  could  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 harmonised European standards there are also 
increasing numbers of cases where enterprises manufacture construction products distributed 
in a marketing area which does not cross borders 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 provisions and its implementation instruments which 
are  not  offset  by  savings  at  a  same  rate.  But  in  relative  terms,  i.e.  compared  to  the  overall 
market for construction products, this problem should be less important over time.  
For the various other stakeholder categories changes 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 benefits 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  89/106/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 principle based exclusively on Article 28 of the 
Treaty  establishing  the  European  Economic  Community  and  in  future  also  on  an  act  as 
proposed  in  the  context  of  the  New  Legal  Framework23  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 harmonised technical specifications (hEN or ETA) do 
not (yet) exist. Although such an approach, i.e. facilitating free 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 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
approach is limited to free movement and placing 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 mutual 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 and rules applied in the Member States and the 
differing design and construction 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  range  of  different  tests  to  be  undertaken  before  products 
could be accepted for use in different MS, with huge differences in costs for the necessary testing. The overall 
conclusion  from  the  reactions  of  manufacturers  consulted  on  this  specific  issue  is  clearly  in  favour  of 
harmonisation  at  EU  level,  in  order  to  significantly  reduce  the  economic  and  administrative  burden  for  the 
manufacturers, in particular the sub-sector using organic materials. 

The April 2006 Commission public consultation concerning the future of the Internal Market 
and the mutual recognition principles identified that, although many stakeholders are pleased 
with  the  achievements  that  have  been  made,  difficulties  still  exist.  In  particular,  national 
technical rules are still considered 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  day  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  mutual  recognition  principle,  “specifically  for 
technically  complex  products  or  products  which  can  pose  safety  or  health  problems”, 
including construction products 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  numerous  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) 

ii) 

24 

25 
26 

There  could  be  a  limited  reversion  in  some  countries  to  national  standards  and 
certification requirements, including the use of lists of approved products. Its degree 
should  be  limited  by  the  precedence  that  European  standards  should  take  over 
national  ones  as  recognised  in  key  legislation  such  as  the  Public  Procurement 
Directive. 

ETAs would become a tool not necessarily 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 would probably continue to be used by industry 
as non harmonised European standards (in particular, 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-led self-regulation may lead to the further 
development/completion of harmonised standards. 

As one of many examples can be indicated experiences 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. 
See SEC(2006) 1215 
SEC (2007)112 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
iii) 

iv) 

v) 

Where  reversion  to  national  standards  takes  place,  attestation  requirements  across 
countries and products are likely to diverge gradually. 

There would be an increase in the number of national approvals and in the number of 
national or characteristic based quality marks.  

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  would  disappear  with  the 
withdrawal  of  the  Directive  and  its  replacement  with  an  approach  based  on  mutual 
recognition,  a  detailed  assessment  highlights  the  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 Council Directive 89/106/EEC and a reversion to 
mutual  recognition  without  new  specific  Community  legislation  on  construction  products 
would have on individual stakeholders can be summarised as follows. 

Manufacturers: increase in the costs of manufacturers placing products 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  effects  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 for 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 and attestation of conformity 
of  their  products  is  relatively  expensive  compared  to  the  added  value  of  manufacturing  the 
product. But advantages from the Internal Market for construction products only marginally 
concern  the  large  number  of  manufacturers,  among  them  in  particular  smaller  and  crafts 
enterprises, who distribute their products in a marketing area that does not cross borders. In 
certain  cases  the  option  of  mutual  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 the situation of mutual recognition. 
However, very rough estimates show that the total costs avoided (only in certain cases) for the 
manufacturers limited to the market in the territory of one single Member State do not equal 
more  than  two-third  of  the  parallel  total  increase  of  costs  for  those  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  benefits  from  a  wider  range  of  products  to  choose 
from, and to make potential savings. 

Member  State  public  authorities:  in  general  slight  general  savings  in  administrative  costs 
from not needing to undertake further efforts towards harmonisation. But these savings would 
be  likely  to  be  offset  by  costs  generated  from  adapting/reversing  harmonisation  already 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
 
undertaken to a situation again characterised by national systems. In the longer term effects 
would  very  much  depend  on  the  national  system  to  which  the  individual  Member  State 
reverts: the cost of administering a strong and demanding national system would be more or 
less equal to that of administrating 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  measures  to  ensure  mutual  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  helping  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 national standardisation bodies having in parallel many 
individual Member State standard systems. 

Approval Bodies (EOTA): While at European level (EOTA Approval Bodies) there would 
no longer be income from issuing ETAs, depending on the national system and requirements 
national approval bodies would flourish and in total across the EEA gain income higher than 
that lost from European activities. 

Notified  Bodies:  in  total  considerably  increasing  their  income  from  the  need  of  multiple 
attestation of conformity in the case of products placed on the market in the territories of more 
than  one  Member  State,  but  with  considerable  variations  depending  on  the  national  system 
and requirements. Certification bodies, inspection bodies and testing laboratories 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  legislation  (non-regulatory 
option) can be roughly estimated as follows:  
Balancing  the  increase  in  costs  of  manufacturers  placing  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  implementation  of  and  compliance  with  specific 
Community  legislation  in  the  field  of  harmonisation  for  manufacturers  with  a  very  limited 
marketing  area,  the  net  additional  administrative  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 trend increasing until 2015. 
For professional users and authorities at the various 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  net  cost  in  the  form  of  not  realised  potential 
savings  or  of  administrative  burden  can  be  estimated  for  these  types  of  stakeholders  as 
slightly higher than their net cost from administrative burden under baseline Option 1. 
The  necessarily  higher  activity  of  standardisation  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 several 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 corresponds to  the net additional administrative burden 
caused for manufacturers and estimated at costing them at least € 50 million a year. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Under  Option  2  all  new  negative  impacts  as  well  as  increases  needed  in  the  activity  of 
approval  bodies  and  bodies  involved  in  attestation  of  conformity  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  system  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 legislation in their limited marketing area which is less demanding than 
the CPD would gain importance over time in absolute terms but less in relative terms. Finally, 
there  would  be  some  non-recurring  administrative  costs 
(public  authorities  and 
standardisation bodies) at the beginning from reverting to mutual recognition and returning to 
national provisions, rules and technical specifications. 

The  likely  increases  of  employment  related  to  administrative  and  service  tasks  in  the  wider 
sense  (MS  public  authorities,  specification  writers  and  bodies  involved  in  attestation  of 
conformity)  which  would  result  from  re-nationalisation  under  this  option  would  not  be 
important  enough  to  match  the  losses  of  scale  effects  and  EU  competitiveness  for 
manufacturers placing construction products on the market in the territory of more than one 
Member State and in the longer term for professional users of these products. 

In summary, it is clear that a reversion to mutual recognition neither helps to strengthen the 
Internal  Market  for  construction  products  nor  reduces  overall  burden  for  manufacturers, 
although  it  might  do  so  for  certain  categories  of  in  particular  smaller  and  crafts  enterprises 
who  do  not  distribute  their  products  across  national  borders.  It  does  not  truly  facilitate 
activities of other professionals in the construction sector and is not in the interest of contract 
assigners,  owners  and  users  of  works.  Previous  and  ongoing  implementation  of  the  mutual 
recognition principle in this field has demonstrated the fundamental problems stemming from 
the  use  of  incompatible  technical  language  between  Members  States.  A  return  to  nationally 
based systems is also likely to create new differences rendering attempts by manufacturers to 
penetrate MS markets others than their home market 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 possible solutions for addressing these problems through a revision 
of the Community legislation on construction products have been formulated. In cases where 
problems  could  be  addressed  through  provisions  proposed  in  the  New  Legal  Framework 
(NLF), this has been taken into particular consideration. 

New  Approach  directives  have  the  dual  purpose  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  appropriate  conformity  assessment  procedures 
and the introduction of CE marking. Business and industry are given a wide choice of how to 
meet  their  obligations  while  the  European  standards  bodies  have  the  task  of  drawing  up 
technical specifications which offer one route to complying with these essential requirements. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
In  February  2007  the  Commission  has  presented  a  New  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  New  Approach  legislation, which  are  fully  in  line  with 
some of the main issues identified in relation to the implementation 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 market surveillance and accreditation; bringing coherence to existing sector 
instruments with horizontal instruments that can be applied to all sectors regardless of whether they are "old" or 
"new" approach. 

A  full  alignment  of  the  Community  legislation  on  construction  products  with  the  New 
Approach  as  completed  by  the  New  Legal  Framework  defining  one  concept  valid  for  all 
product sector legislation therefore offers in principle potential considerable advantages. 

However certain fundamental particularities of the construction activity and sector and of the 
market for construction products, such as the need to link the construction 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  simultaneous  discussion  of  the  Commission’s  New  Legal  Framework 
proposals and presenting a proposal to review of the Community legislation on construction 
products it seems pertinent to look at whether these differences can be overcome, paving the 
way for a revision leading to a full alignment of the latter with the New Approach. 

A thorough assessment into the matter 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. Construction 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 their use will continue to exist, 
and  in  the  sector  the  view  prevails  that  the  essential  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 for 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 
information  on  product  characteristics  and 
manufacturers  of 
performances to be able to select and use products appropriately when designing, authorising, 
constructing  and  receiving  the  works.  Thus,  the  Community  legislation  on  construction 
products cannot readily become fully aligned with the NA. 

the  products,  reliable 

However, since some of the problems faced in the 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  definitions, 
the 
understanding by all actors present on markets where the NA applies. 

tools,  etc.  facilitates 

27 

Proposal for a Regulation on accreditation and market surveillance [COM(2007) 37 final], and proposal 
for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council on a common framework for the marketing 
of products [COM(2007) 53 final]. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  a  second  step  a  screening  regarding  effectiveness,  efficiency,  versatility,  consistency  and 
feasibility of the 65 formulated solutions has been undertaken. This has resulted in three basic 
findings:  1)  there  are  solutions  formulated  to  address  the  identified  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 substantial 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  revision  package  made  up  of  the  most  suitable 
solutions  regarding  provisions,  rules,  procedures  and  tools  to  be  followed,  the  Commission 
services in extensive consultation with stakeholders revisited some principles. This led to: 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

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 common (harmonised) technical language 
for expressing the performances of the products facilitates placing construction 
products on the national markets, and their 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. 

retaining  the  current  performance  based  approach  while  strengthening  its 
implications,  which  means  emphasising  the  obligation  for  Member  States  to 
adapt the way they express building requirements, so that these are consistent 
and  compatible  with  the  agreed  harmonised  technical  specifications,  and  to 
require  Member  States  to  ensure  such  consistency  and  compatibility  through 
technical adaptations wherever necessary; 

preferring  the  form  of  a  regulation  and  not  a  directive  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 level-playing field across the Union, while a 
number  of  Member  States  have  expressed  a  preference  for  the  form  of  a 
directive. 
A regulation enforces implementation of provisions in the same manner across 
the  entire  EU  and  EEA,  thus  reducing  the  potential  for  interpretations  which 
would differ depending on the Member State. This should increase consistency 
in application and help ensure that barriers to trade across national borders in 
the EEA do not arise due to differences in national implementation.  

Finally,  taking  account  of  these  basic  features,  in  a  third  step  the  revision  package  with  a 
shortlist of most suitable main solutions (with variations 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 possibility to make no 
changes to the current version of the legislation and its relevant tools or instruments. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
 
Option 3 – Revision of the Community legislation on construction products: shortlist 

most suitable main solutions without variations 

Clarification of the objective, scope and terms28, including clarification of provisions on the 
application, non-application and partial application of technical specifications, on Attestation 
of Conformity in the case of individual non-series production, and on the extent and way in 
which the provisions apply to kits, systems and parts of works. 

Clarification  of  specific  definitions  and  concepts  such  as  ‘No  Performance  Determined’  or 
‘Cascading Testing’. 

Simplification of the routes for ETA, with no future use of ETAGs, simplification of process 
for obtaining a CUAP, strengthening of competency requirements for Approval Bodies. 

Strengthening Attestation of Conformity that needs no or only reduced physical testing. 

Improvement of market surveillance 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 information 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 revised legislation will contain the full set of definition of terms used in it. 

EN 

30 

   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  

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 

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) 

Reluctance in 
accepting the CE 
marking by Nat. 
authorities and users 

Stricter notification 
criteria for NB and 
improving the 
Market surveillance 

No direct effects; 
positive indirect 
effects expected from 
clarification 

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. 

Positive effects to be 
expected from 
quicker work in CEN 
and EOTA 

Increased costs for 
national 
administrations. 

Increased costs for 
NB (cost of 
accreditation). 

Significant savings 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
for manufacturers by 
the fact that national 
marks and 
certification will not 
be any longer 
necessary. = 
Important 
simplification 
effects = 

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 = 

Important savings for 
manufacturers are 
expected when 
demonstrating the 
performances of the 
products they place 
on the market = 
simplification 
effects = 

All these measures 
will result in 
important cost 
savings for 
manufacturers using 
this route  

= 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  

Rigidities in the way 
the technical 
solutions are 
proposed (almost 
only by testing) 

ETA system 

Long, complex and 
expensive procedures 

. Encourage to 
introduce technical 
classes where 
appropriate 

. Encourage to 
foresee as far as 
practicable other 
methods less onerous 
than testing 

. 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.  

EN 

32 

   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.  

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 
= 

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. 

Notified Bodies 

Approval 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) 

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 

Positive effects on 
the system but maybe 
some increase in the 
cost of the CE 
marking can be 
expected 

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 

33 

   EN 

 
 
functioning of the 
system. 

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 = 

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 = 

reluctance to accept 
the system 

 Micro enterprises,  

Individual products 
and non-series 
products,… 

The obligation of CE 
marking poses 
sometimes 
disproportionate cost 
problems to small 
manufacturers  

introduced following 
the Horizontal 
framework 
regulation. 

. SCOPE: CE 
marking will be 
made voluntary for 
those products which 
are not submitted to 
any regulatory 
requirement in their 
traditional markets.  

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. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
used, whereby 
discouraging its use. 

Excessive burden 
originated in testing. 

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 = 

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. 

As it can be seen from the table most of the measures foreseen under this option are expected 
to produced important simplification results, not only, but specially for the SMEs. 

Furthermore, in order to avoid imposing unnecessary burden to companies, the proposal will 
let open the possibility of combining the option of the revision with the 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 circulation remain which can justify the application of 
legislation.  
the 

harmonising 

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 them), the following five steps were included: 

(1) 

(2) 

identifying  which  impact  categories  (from  those  included  in  the  IA  Guidelines)  are 
seen  to  be  relevant  to  the  revision  of  the  Community  legislation  on  construction 
products; 

screening the impacts by identifying the impact types (positive and negative) that may 
result from each option for each of the stakeholder group(s); 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

describing  the  impacts  of  each  option  qualitatively  using  matrices  of  option  versus 
impact category (e.g. competitiveness, trade, administrative burden, etc.); 

validating preliminary assessments of impacts through consultation with expert bodies 
and  individuals  and  cross-check  against  responses  to  the  Commission  consultation; 
and 

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 options then fed into the identification of the 
preferred combination of solutions. 

◊ 

Identification of the appropriate impact categories 

Each  impact  category  was  provisionally  screened  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 stakeholder groups (see 2.3) led to 
the  identification  of  the  groups  that  potentially  might  be  directly  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 construction 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 and the European Commission; 

•  standardisation bodies (CEN and CENELEC) and approval bodies (including EOTA as an 

organisation); and 

•  notified bodies (certification bodies, inspection bodies and testing laboratories). 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
The impacts from Community legislation on construction products are in overall quantitative 
terms primarily related to intra-EU stakeholders. But non-EU manufacturers 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 placing their products on 
the EEA market and business opportunities in this market. As these effects might be in nature 
and individual importance considerably different from those for EU manufacturer, they have 
been considered for the assessment as a separate 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 impacts 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  considering  also  potential  slight  positive/slight 
negative impact due to uncertainty: 

→ 

→ 

→ 

→ 

→ 

→ 

→ 

may have a major negative impact (>30% change) 

may have significant negative impact (>10% change) 

may have slight negative impact (<10% change) 

may have no/negligible impact 

may have a slight positive 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, served 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  impacts  regardless  of  the  size  of  organisation, 
turnover, value, etc. 

The comparative assessment of the four comprehensive packages (each of them consisting of 
the  most  suitable  main  solutions  without  variations  +  most  suitable  main  solutions  with 
variations according to one of the variation packages) was done as follows: 

•  the ratings assigned to the impacts arising under the individual measures were combined to 
generate an overall score for each of the packages, based on assigning an equal weight to 
impacts on the different stakeholder groups and to the different impact types; 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
•  a sensitivity analysis was then undertaken to determine the effect that different weighting 

systems would have on the ranking 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 times more important than other manufacturers) package 3 would 
be  preferred  over  package  1  while  the  other  two  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 remove barriers to trade through clarifications, 
while at the same time reducing burden. 

The  total  savings,  mainly  du  to  less  administrative  burden,  of  Option  3  -  Revision  of  the 
Community  legislation  on  construction  products  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  annual  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  discounted 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 serious lack of monetary data.   
The  majority  of  the  savings  result  from  net  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  administrative  costs  as  well,  while  those  of  public 
authorities  and  for  standardisation  would  slightly  increase  but  only  for  an  amount  not 
significant  compared  to  the  net  reduction  of  cost  from  administrative  burden  for  the  private 
economy.  Also  overall  effects  on  income  and  administrative  costs  of  Approval  Bodies  and 
Notified Bodies are expected to be insignificant 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  therefore  reduce  the  costs  for  constructing  works 
between some more than 0.01% and some less 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 for the entire economy and society in general. 

The impacts from this option on individual stakeholders can be summarised as follows. 

Manufacturers: reduction in the costs of manufacturers 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  predictable  enormous  variations  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 

38 

   EN 

 
 
baseline  option  of  continuing  with  the  CPD  as  it  is,  probably  no  manufacturer  would  have 
additional  net  costs  from  this  Revision  Package,  and  number  of  them  would  realise  net 
savings across all kinds of products, manufacturer categories an types of marketing area, the 
situation  is  rather  different  compared  to  the  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  recognition.  But  for  the  large  number  of 
manufacturers  whose  products  are  distributed  in  a  marketing  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  reduction  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  generated  by  the  Revision  Package  for 
them can be estimated equal to those if the national 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 disproportionate and uncontrolled 
administrative  costs, thus corresponding  to concerns about the  potential specific effects on 
SMEs,  in  particular  micro  and  crafts  enterprises  manufacturing  construction  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  these  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  accreditation  schemes  plus  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  appropriate  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  publication  (but  such  short-term  costs  may  be 
minimised with increasing clarification). 

Approval  Bodies  (EOTA):  reduction  in  income  from  less  cumbersome  procedures  for 
obtaining  ETAs,  and  some  Approval  Bodies  may  fall  short  of  fulfilling  strengthened 
competency requirements (maybe offset to some degree as less cumbersome procedures and 
strengthened competency requirements make the ETA route more attractive). 

Notified  Bodies:  reduction  in  income  from  less  onerous  Attestation  of  Conformity,  in 
particular less physical testing, (maybe offset to some degree as further hENs are established 
and more ETAs issued). Costs include the additional ones of complying with the accreditation 
framework  and  increased  competency  requirements,  while  some  bodies  may  not  succeed  in 
obtaining accreditation. 

Since the revision of the Community legislation on construction products would not result in a 
system  at  full  cruising  speed  from  the  beginning,  all  positive  impacts  of  Option 3  can  be 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
expected  to  gradually  increase  over  time  during  a  5  to  10-year  period  of  implementation. 
While this could also be expected for the limited additional costs and negative impacts, their 
relative  importance  for  the  entire  market  of  construction  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 sectors 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  the  second  place,  and  by  their  use  in  the  third 
place,  the  more  this  group  or  sector  is  concerned  by  the  relevant  Community  legislation. 
Besides  national  authorities  and  Commission  services  administrating  implementation  of  this 
legislation,  and  largely  independent  of  the  three  options  considered,  these  are  the  following 
stakeholder  groups  in  decreasing  order:  EU  manufacturers  of  construction  products, 
specialised  organisations  and  bodies  providing  key  services  needed  for  entitling 
manufacturers  to  legally  place  construction  products  on  the  market  and  for  ensuring  their 
appropriate  use  (standardisation  bodies,  Approval  Bodies  and  Notified  Bodies),  non-EU 
manufacturers  of  construction  products,  other  professionals  of  the  construction  sector 
(designers, contractors and building authorities), clients of the construction 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  testing,  2)  effects  on  trade  and  competition  and  3) 
possible efficiency benefits (restructuring & 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 clearly show which sectors should, in principle, be 
the most positively affected by such measures. The more they suffer from the situation today, 
the more they are expected to benefit from simplifying measures to be proposed, 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 and improved as a consequence of the measures 
3. 
foreseen 

option 

in 

Summary of estimated direct costs and benefits for manufacturers in EEA 

Industry sector 

Cement 

Structural steel 

Production 
value EEA 
(€M) 

Initial + transition costs  

Direct annual cost/benefit 

€M 

% of production 
value 

€M 

% of production 
value 

14.000 

-11 

0,1% 

0 to +32  

0 to 0.2% 

- 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 

40 

   EN 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
Masonry 

Thermal insulation 

Wood-based panels 

Ceramic tiles 

Sanitary appliances 

Windows 

Geotextiles 

Chimneys 

Fire fight. Systems 

12.000 

12.000 

18.000 

10.000 

7.000 

30.000 

-50 

-24 

-30 

-13 

-10 

-76 

0,4% 

0 to +20 

0 to 0.2% 

0,2% 

-3 to +1 

-0.03 to 0.01% 

0,2% 

0 to +6 

0 to 0.03% 

0,1% 

0 to +8 

0 to 0.1% 

0,1% 

0 to +24 

0 to 0.3% 

0,3% 

-10 to 0 

-0,03 to 0%  

800 

-0.5 

0,1% 

0 to +4 

0 to 0.5% 

1.700 

8.000 

-16 

-14 

0,9% 

0 to +4 

0 to 0.2% 

0,2% 

0 to +70 

0 to 0.9% 

Note: The table shows estimated total direct costs/benefits (in €million) for all manufacturers 
in the EEA (aggregated to the whole industry sector) for introduction of CE-marking in their 
business 

Note:  benefits  are  +,  costs  are  -  .  All  costs  are  order  of  magnitude  estimates  and 
cost/benefits are expressed as a range. 

Initial and/or transition costs for the sectors 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 certification systems, but higher for the windows sector 
with very many small firms, most of which had 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  for  almost  every  industry  sector.  The  fire  fighting  and  fire 
detection  industry,  the  geotextiles  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 persist, because of lack of agreement on testing 
(insulation, tiles, chimneys), because application rules are important (insulation, 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 industry may face some increase in annual costs, 
because  CE-marking  in  this  sector  may  not  lead  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  renewals  and  ITT  of  new  products  for  many 
smaller  companies  where  this  was  not  or  less  needed  previously.  Initial  ITT  and  FPC  costs 

EN 

41 

   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 firms are very small, there are many thousands of 
small firms, so the aggregate costs are relatively 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 standards and related regulations are increasing, it is likely that new 
or  stricter  testing  and  certification  requirements  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 for EEA manufacturers were calculated. But it should 
be  noted  that  there  would  also  be  savings  for  non-EEA  firms  which  sell  in  several  EEA 
member states. 

Impact on trade and competition 

CPD  CE-marking  will  lead  to  increased  and  stiffer  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  and  reduction  in  the  protectionist  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  production  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  competition  does  not  necessarily  result  in  a  large 
increase in trade, or of trade over long distances: 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 countries outside the EEA in the future, if these 
countries adopt the ENs and hENs, or accept the 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 performance 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 something more like record keeping of inspections, written 
procedures, action taking, etcetera, even under AoC 4. So, in general these companies will have additional initial 
costs in upgrading their quality management system. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The following table summarizes the observations from the case studies. 

Impact on trade and competition 

Potential 
(€million) 

Cement 

large 

trade  and  competition  benefits 

inside  EEA 

Potential trade and competition benefits outside EEA 

Potential  very 
competition at retail level. 

large 

savings 

from  price 

negligible 

EEA-market  could  become  more  attractive  for 
producers  of  common  low  priced  cements  from 
outside EEA. 

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 

to 

up 
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 

to 

up 
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 
30M 

to 

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  new  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 

Geo-
textiles 

Negligibl
e 

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 

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 

is  quite  well 

Sector 
structured  with 
multinationals  playing  a  dominant  role, 
especially 
tailor  made  products. 
for 
Therefore negligible effect. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
 
 
trade  and  competition  benefits 

inside  EEA 

Potential trade and competition benefits outside EEA 

Potential 
(€million) 

not 
foreseen 
before 
2010 

Chimneys 

Fire 
fighting 
systems 

Little  trade,  due  to  the  product 
but 
(material/dimensions), 
increased  or 
competition 
is 
expected 
increase  by  CE-
marking. 

to 

is 

Up to 50  More 

standardisation 

design;  more 
transparency;  more  competitors  entering  the 
EEA market; stiffer competition-lower prices. 

in 

Limited 

in 

Only 
low 
cases 
transportation  costs  for  common 
products 

of 

High 

Acceptance of CE-marking in other markets; 
opening new markets outside EEA 

In  several  case  studies,  industry  respondents  expect  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  products  between  countries, 
which  indicates  in  general  market  segmentation  and  barriers  to  free  competition  For  some 
sectors  (steel,  cement,  masonry)  there  is  indeed  evidence  of  inexplicable  dispersion  in  the 
retail  prices,  but  little  reported  difference  in  ex-works  prices,  indicating  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 whether the apparent price dispersion is due to lack 
of  competition  within  the  industry  sector  itself,  or  lack  of  competition  in  the  downstream 
distribution,  stockholding  and  retail  chain.  Increased  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 case 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-based 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 & dynamic effects) in the manufacturing industry 

Increased competition and pressure on prices and 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 consolidation 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  and  rationalisation  in 
production,  distribution,  logistics,  and  marketing.  CE-marking  is  thus  at  least  a  necessary 
condition for (re)structuring to continue.  

The following table presents the analysis of potential restructuring and efficiency benefits in 
each  of  the  case  studies.  Overall  benefits  across  all  sectors  are  likely  to  be  in  the  high 
hundreds  of  million  euros,  and  possibly  in  billions,  and  outweigh  the  direct  cost  impact  of 
product assessment costs. 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
 
 
 Possible efficiency benefits (restructuring & dynamic effects) in the case study sectors. 

Efficiency 
(€Million) 

benefits 

Comment 

Cement 

None 

Industry is well structured with a limited number of players 
dominating market and capital intensive 

Structural steel 

Negligible 

Already restructured industry. Slightly simplified marketing 
and sales literature 

Rebar 

25 –100 

From shift of production to low cost producers  

Masonry 

 Up to 100 

Thermal insulation 

Small 

Rationalisation  of  plants  and  production  in  border  regions. 
Transfer  of  technology  and  new  investment  resulting  from 
consolidation 

Some  benefit  from  new  investment  in  older  plants  (e.g.  in 
new  MSs),  but  industry  is  generally  modern  and  efficient. 
transparent 
Possible 
product performance data. 

increased  competition  from  more 

Wood-based panels 

Small 

Further  consolidation  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 

industry already highly consolidated 

Windows 

Up to 100 

Geotextiles 

Negligible 

Restructuring 
improvement;  more 
efficiency 
competition  in  ‘border’  areas;  fewer  small  producers  ;  shift 
of production to more efficient producers 

and 

Production process is very efficient, innovation / tailor made 
products  will  be 
ITT  costs  and 
restricted  due 
interpretation of hENs. 

to 

Chimneys 

Some 

Possibly  some  restructuring.  Efficient  production  processes 
will be stimulated  

Fire fight. systems 

Negligible 

industry already highly consolidated  

Most respondents in the industries concerned did not foresee significant market benefits from 
CE-marking,  and  many  were  concerned  about  the  likely  increase  in  competition,  especially 
from  non-EEA  suppliers.  Respondents  to  questionnaires  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  particular  there  are  substantial  benefits  expected: 
reinforcing  and  prestressing  steel,  masonry  and  windows,  from  the  shift  of  production  to 
producers. 
lower 

efficient 

more 

cost 

or 

The  effects  and  impacts  of  the  three  options  concern  these  stakeholder  groups  to  varying 
degrees  without  geographically-related  regional  distinction  all  over  Europe.  However, 
differences  among  Member  States  could  be  quite  important  depending  on  three  principle 
factors:  the  share  of  production  of  construction  products  consumed  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 

45 

   EN 

 
 
 
rules  and  technical  specifications  before  applying  those  under  the  CPD  or  a  revised 
Community legislation and when reverting 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 administrative burden related to harmonisation, and 
the less interesting the advantages from the Internal Market for these products. 
The more construction products used in the territory of a Member State are imported from the 
rest of the EEA, the more administrative efforts 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  reverting  to  mutual  recognition,  the  higher  is  on 
average unnecessary administrative burden generated by harmonisation 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 system, 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  severe  national  provisions,  rules 
and  technical  specifications,  harmonisation  generates  no  more  than  little  additional 
administrative burden even for manufacturers who 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  achieve  under  a  system  of  mutual  recognition  the 
acceptance and use of products imported from the outside 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  corresponded  to  the  reality.  In  fact,  in  order 
precisely to avoid unnecessary testing, the proposal under option 3, as well as under option 1, 
entitles the manufacturer to adjust the number of tests to be done to the requirements of the 
countries where the product is placed on the market. It can be concluded that, all thinks being 
equal,  in  particular,  for  unchanged  national  regulatory  frameworks,  adjustment  costs  could 
even  be  higher  for  manufacturers  placing  products  on  the  market  in  the  latter  category  of 
countries. 

Outside Europe, non-EU manufacturers of construction products are the most concerned. But 
the  EU  system  can  also  have  some  effect  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 users can be affected in third countries, in particular when these 
countries are geographically close to the EU and/or have Mutual Recognition Agreements or 
other relevant arrangements 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  relatively  easy  to  comply  with  as  it  means  no 
change  and  continuing  what  has  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 

46 

   EN 

 
 
 
Although  Option  2  would  mean  a  rather  radical  change  from  the  current  situation,  and  has 
important  net  disadvantages,  there  would  be  no  principle  obstacles  to  comply  with  mutual 
recognition in the field of construction products. The necessary legal base exists in the Treaty, 
experience with construction products to which no harmonised technical specifications apply 
is  plentiful,  and  additional  Community  legislation  laying  down  procedures  relating  to  the 
application  of  certain  national  technical  rules  to  products  lawfully  marketed  in  another 
Member State is scheduled to be in force in near future. 

Option 3 would not lead to potential 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 expected to facilitate compliance. This option is 
likely to be the most favoured and accepted across all stakeholder groups. 

6. 

SECTION 6: COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

6.1. 

Indicate how positive and negative impacts 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  better  result,  have  been  summed  up  to  one  total.  As  for  all 
three options  one-off costs and  benefits are also incurred over several  years, and such costs 
and benefits are in relative terms nearly negligible compared to overall impact, they have been 
integrated as an average into annual costs and benefits. All global costs and benefits amounts 
for which no annual figure could be obtained otherwise 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 implementation 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  Option  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 greatest 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  potential  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 quantitative data and the big variations depending on the 
various individual specific conditions, for which certain examples are given in Annex VII, it 
has been impossible to assess monetary impacts resulting from the three policy options 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
otherwise than in the form of rough global estimates. More specifically, the poor 
information available did not allow a calculation by applying the Core equation of the 
cost model of Section 10 of the Annexes to the Impact Assessment Guidelines, so that also 
the EU net cost model could not be used. 

Table 1 
estimated in monetary terms (Benchmark = Option 1) 

Aggregated administrative and non-administrative costs and benefits of options 

Option 1- No EU action: no change 
(continue with the current CPD) 

annual 
benefits 
(€ million) 

annual costs 
(€ million) 

net annual 
benefits (+) 
or costs (–)
(€ million) 

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 
legislation on construction products (the CPD) 

-  Revision  of 

the  Community 

245 / 685 

100 / 130 

+145 / +555 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.1 
in monetary terms 

Administrative and non-administrative costs and benefits of Option 1 estimated 

Stakeholder group 

Manufacturers 

Professional users 

Member State public authorities 

European Commission 

Standardisation bodies (CEN) 

annual benefits 
(€ million) 
130 / 230 

annual costs 
(€ million) 
80 

0 - 40 

- 

- 

6 

- 

9 

1.5 

6 

Approval Bodies (EOTA) and Notified Bodies 

55 / 155 

12 / 50 

TOTAL (rounded) 

185 / 430 

110 / 145 

Table 2.2 
in monetary terms 

Administrative and non-administrative costs and benefits of Option 2 estimated 

Stakeholder group 

Manufacturers 

Professional users 

Member State public authorities 

European Commission 

Standardisation bodies (national level) 

annual benefits 
(€ million) 
100 

annual costs 
(€ million) 
150 / 300 

10 / 0 

5 

1 

- 

0 / 5 

5 / 0 

- 

15 

- 

Approval Bodies and Notified Bodies (in current terms) 

160 

TOTAL (rounded) 

275 / 265 

170 / 320 

Table 2.3 
in monetary terms 

Administrative and non-administrative costs and benefits of Option 3 estimated 

Stakeholder group 

Manufacturers 

Professional users 

Member State public authorities 

European Commission 

Standardisation bodies (CEN) 

annual benefits 
(€ million) 
190 / 500 

annual costs 
(€ million) 
55 

0 / 60 

- 

- 

6 

5 / 0 

12 

2 

10 

Approval Bodies (EOTA) and Notified Bodies 

50 / 120 

15 / 50 

TOTAL (rounded) 

245 / 685 

100 / 130 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
6.4. 

Indicate if the analysis confirms whether EU action would have an added value. 

Options  1  of  no  action  and  Option  2  of  repealing  the  directive  and  reverting  to  mutual 
recognition  respectively  would  have  considerably  less  benefits.  While  Option  1  would 
produce  constantly  only  about  half  of  the  benefits  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  action  of  an  appropriate 
revision of the CPD will have added value, while at the same time reducing overall costs and 
increasing overall benefits in comparison 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, and therefore have no benefits 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 situation 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  appropriately revised (Option 3), or would lose in  the  case of mutual 
recognition (Option 2) which becomes for some even a net cost. 

There  is  for  all  options  a  synergy  with  the  Commission  proposals  regarding  the  New  Legal 
Framework.  Under  Option  2  this  would  be  limited  to  the  proposed  Regulation  laying  down 
procedures relating to the application of certain national 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  specifications  do  not  (yet)  apply,  there  would  be  a  particular 
synergy between these two options and the proposed Regulation setting out the requirements 
for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products31. Moreover, a 
revision of the Community legislation on construction products (Option 3) will need to take 
into account the proposed Decision on a common framework for the marketing of products32. 

6.6. 

If possible, rank the options in terms 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 objectives, such as simplification and reduction 
of  administrative  burden,  or  according  to  a  set  of  non-monetary  criteria  and  more  technical 
criteria proper to the construction 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  particular  micro  and  crafts  enterprises,  who  distribute  their 
products  only  in  the  territory  of  one  Member  State  and  for  whom  therefore  the  Internal 

30 
31 
32 

COM(2007) 36 final of 14.2.2007 

COM(2007) 37 final of 14.2.2007 

COM(2007) 53 final of 14.2.2007 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Market  is  of  no  concern.  In  this  case,  a  clear  picture  cannot  be  obtained,  and  under  certain 
assumptions Option 2 could be preferred against 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 appropriately is the preferred option consisting 
of a package that mirrors the existing necessity and scores best in the Impact Assessment. It is 
the only one fully corresponding to the issues and 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  those  who  are  affected.  With  Option  3  it  is  possible  to  best 
achieve both the general policy objectives and the more specific and operational objectives. 
At the same time, it ensures the desired legal continuity by maintaining the approach chosen 
in the CPD to achieve the Internal 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.  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  Community  legislation  on 
construction products into the legislative tool of a regulation which 

–  - 

lays down a common technical language when dealing with construction products and 
establishes  the  obligation  to  exclusively  use  this  common  language  in  relation  to 
construction works and products; 

–  - 

brings about the further clarification missing under the current CPD and reinforces the 

credibility of the system; 

–  - 

lays  down  the  rules  and  procedures  to  be  followed  by  manufacturers  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 implementation of this Community legislation; 

–  - 

provides  the  basis  needed  for  establishing  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 attestation 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  possible,  also  corresponding  to  concerns  about  the 
potential  specific  effects  on  SMEs,  in  particular  micro  and  crafts  enterprises  manufacturing 
construction products, and with regard to the need for an appropriate treatment to be used for 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
non-series products. Moreover, it integrates procedures to follow for dealing with innovative 
products as far as their placing on the market is concerned. 

7. 

SECTION 7: MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

7.1.  What are the core indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives? 

Monitoring  and  evaluating  progress  towards  meeting  the  objectives  is  considered  only  in 
relation to the performance of the preferred comprehensive 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  use  of  construction  products  in  the  Internal  Market),  plus  the  more 
general  aims  of  the  Commission  in  terms  of  simplification.  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 monitored and evaluated over time. 

7.2.  What 

is 
arrangements? 

the  broad  outline 

for  possible  monitoring  and  evaluation 

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  administering  this  legislation,  starting  from  the  date  when  it  comes  into  force 
(which will a clear-cut point as the legislation is proposed to be a Regulation). 

At  the  time  of  the  revised  legislation  coming  into  force  also  a  baseline  state  of  the  art  for 
periodic monitoring and evaluation 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 evaluation based on both continuous and periodic 
monitoring is proposed to be foreseen in two-to-three-year intervals. At this occasion it should 
also be decided to which extent the monitoring 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  provided  for  by  the  legislation  put  into  force. 
Periodic  evaluation  between  such  regulatory  reporting/examination/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  administrative  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 price variations across the internal market and 
the  significance  of  this  should  be  assessed  and  possibly  carried  forward  in  the 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
subsequent steps in the impact analysis. In section 2.3 a paragraph has been introduced to 
qualify the empirical findings concerning the price differences between countries in particular 
commenting on the difficulties in comparing the observed variations due, for example, to the 
difficulties  in  having  comparable  product  definitions.  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 should better illustrate differentiated 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  efficiency  benefits.  The  section  ends  with  an 
additional comment on the expected impacts across countries.  

(4) The report should elaborate 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 environmental impact. In particular, it is, explained 
there that the scope of the basic work requirement number 3 has been significantly extended 
to cover, notably, lifecycle aspects, the outdoor air and greenhouse gases. In addition, basic 
requirement n° 7 has been added to cover recycling 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 

53 

   EN 

 
Annex I 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
 
EN 

55 

   EN 

 
 
EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
EN 

57 

   EN 

 
 
EN 

58 

   EN 

 
 
EN 

59 

   EN 

 
 
EN 

60 

   EN 

 
 
EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
Statistics 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
 
Annex II 

Summary data on number and size of enterprises in the construction industry 

Size of enterprise 

No. of enterprises 

Turnover €billion 

Manufacturers  Designers 

Contractors  Manufacturers

Designers 

Contractors 

self-employed 

n.a. 

400,000 

5,000,000? 

small/micro 

60,000 

36,500 

2,570,000 

med/large 

5,000 

3,490 

89,000 

multinationals 

100 

10 

1,000 

n.a. 

200 

200 

100 

TOTAL 
non-self-employed 

65,100 

40,000 

2,660,000 

500 

25 

29 

44 

2 

75 

n.a. 

560 

520 

200 

1,280 

Number and size of manufacturers by selected product family 

Product family 

No. of plants 

micro/small 

med/large 

multinationals 

Size of enterprise 

Cement 

Steel 

Steelwork fabrication 

Rebar, etc. 

Masonry - 

Wood panels 

Tiles 

0 

400 

600 

Sanitary appliances 

Doors/windows 

50,000 

Geotextiles 

Plastics  and  chemical 
products 

Misc. hardware 

Other 

TOTAL 

1,000 

5,000 

3,000 

60,000 

9 

12 

20 

4 

13 

4 

10 

10 

10 

10 

50 

2,000 

40 

210 

25 

50 

20 

500 

20 

100 

500 

1,500 

5,025 

8 

100 

No. of 
products 

500 

10,000 

150 

120 

2,000 

bespoke 

80 

1,300 

400 

700 

100 

500 

11,500 

5,000 

20,000 

10,000 

60,000 

100,000 

50 

1,000 

2,000 

10,000 

6,000 

5,000 

6,000 

5,000 

77,900 

179,500 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Output and trade trends for selected construction products 

Annex III 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Notes: 

1. 

2. 

Source:  “Study  to  evaluate  the  internal  market  and  competitiveness  effects  of  the 
CPD”, Final report, April 2007, PRC B.V. 

Data  are  generated  from  the  PRODCOM  (PRODuction  COMmunautaire)  database 
on  production  statistics  and  from  CN/HS  (Combined  Nomenclature/Harmonised 
System) database on trade statistics from Eurostat. 

3. 

2005 estimated 

EN 

65 

   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  prices  (delivered  at  the  site).

For  further  details,  see  “Study  to  evaluate  the  internal 
market  and  competitiveness  effects  of  the  CPD”,  Final 
B.V.
2007, 
report, 

April 

PRC 

Common ciment, €/tonne 

1987 

Spon'
s 

78 

55 

80 

-- 

63 

95 

37 

59 

73 

82 

65 

70 

76 

157 

60 

37 

157 

70 

Portugal 

Spain 

Sweden 

Finland 

Italy 

Ireland 

Greece 

France 

UK 

Norway 

Netherlands 

Germany 

Austria 

Denmark 

Belgium 

Minimum value 

Maximum value 

Median value 

Jan. 
1991 

1992 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Spon's 

G&T 

G&T 

G&T 

G&T 

G&T 

G&T 

G&T 

72 

106 

-- 

100 

75 

100 

52 

106 

96 

157 

82 

-- 

121 

91 

137 

191 

52 

191 

100 

102 

102 

113 

118 

131 

146 

116 

164 

102 

164 

118 

-- 

65 

108 

103 

91 

109 

60 

113 

131 

158 

101 

103 

137 

163 

-- 

60 

163 

108 

-- 

97 

102 

108 

105 

231 

71 

139 

145 

-- 

110 

102 

-- 

231 

-- 

71 

231 

108 

-- 

102 

107 

103 

103 

115 

90 

146 

149 

190 

113 

192 

-- 

182 

-- 

90 

192 

113 

-- 

78 

-- 

105 

103 

-- 

-- 

152 

141 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

78 

152 

105 

-- 

90 

-- 

95 

112 

104 

107 

107 

130 

162 

162 

154 

185 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

90 

185 

130 

108 

113 

130 

158 

165 

190 

190 

190 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

95 

190 

158 

range% 

428% 

366% 

161% 

270% 

325% 

213% 

195% 

206% 

200% 

max/median 

225% 

191% 

139% 

151% 

214% 

170% 

145% 

142% 

120% 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Structural steel, €/tonne 

1987 

jan. 
1991 

Spon's 

Spon's 

1992 

G&T 

2000 

G&T 

2001 

G&T 

2002 

G&T 

2003 

G&T 

2004 

G&T 

2005 

G&T 

Portugal 

Italy 

Denmark 

UK 

Greece 

Netherlands 

Sweden 

Ireland 

France 

Spain 

Germany 

Finland 

Norway 

Austria 

Belgium 

Minimum value 

Maximum value 

Median value 

range% 

max/median 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

740 

1230 

750 

1820 

1500 

670 

1360 

1120 

750 

670 

1820 

1120 

-- 

859 

902 

1001 

1075 

1289 

947 

1305 

1044 

820 

1028 

1710 

-- 

-- 

618 

1710 

1001 

-- 

577 

497 

808 

646 

-- 

560 

491 

785 

450 

1402 

1448 

678 

-- 

1030 

1350 

984 

646 

1064 

1800 

-- 

-- 

990 

690 

1116 

1082 

1966 

-- 

-- 

-- 

560 

-- 

750 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

1030 

900 

-- 

1140 

2000 

-- 

-- 

497 

450 

560 

1800 

1966 

2000 

678 

990 

900 

-- 

560 

-- 

1021 

950 

-- 

1121 

1150 

1240 

1050 

-- 

1352 

2343 

-- 

-- 

560 

2343 

1121 

-- 

770 

-- 

878 

950 

960 

1072 

1250 

1277 

1350 

-- 

1407 

2414 

-- 

-- 

770 

2414 

1250 

618 

[336] 

272% 

277% 

362% 

437% 

357% 

418% 

314% 

163% 

171% 

265% 

199% 

222% 

209% 

193% 

Common bricks, €/1000 

1987 

jan. 
1991 

Spon's 

Spon's 

1992 

G&T 

2000 

G&T 

2001 

G&T 

2002 

G&T 

2003 

G&T 

2004 

G&T 

2005 

G&T 

Spain 

Poland 

Greece 

Italy 

UK 

France 

Ireland 

Norway 

Netherlands 

Sweden 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

395 

107 

385 

423 

572 

212 

376 

111 

172 

230 

82 

294 

358 

372 

488 

175 

315 

67 

EN 

61 

192 

297 

105 

291 

-- 

451 

-- 

186 

297 

78 

173 

70 

150 

306 

370 

380 

678 

194 

374 

90 

148 

-- 

150 

321 

384 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

99 

133 

-- 

140 

284 

407 

195 

740 

-- 

-- 

102 

141 

167 

170 

293 

413 

474 

774 

-- 

-- 

   EN 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
Germany 

Denmark 

Portugal 

Austria 

Belgium 

Finland 

Minimum value 

Maximum value 

Median value 

range% 

max/median 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

227 

399 

107 

572 

385 

330 

363 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

82 

488 

294 

326 

231 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

61 

451 

291 

493 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

70 

678 

306 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

90 

384 

150 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

99 

740 

195 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

102 

774 

293 

535% 

598% 

734% 

969% 

427% 

747% 

759% 

149% 

166% 

155% 

222% 

256% 

379% 

264% 

EN 

68 

   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 increasing number of ETAs have been issued, which corresponds to 
an  increase  in  the  number  of  ETA  Guidelines  established  and  manufacturers’  generally 
growing interest in ETAs for construction products not covered by harmonised standards, in 
order to benefit from the advantages 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 global estimate across all types and families of 
product  it  is  assumed  that  this  figure  will  stabilise  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 average cost of an ETA usually 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 intended to be achieved with Option 3. 
Note: The cost of an ETA does not include that of the subsequent Attestation of Conformity. 
However, some Approval Bodies with test facilities are able to offer special arrangements to 
manufacturers (their clients) 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 above (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 estimates 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 

69 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
B. 

Costs of Attestation of Conformity (AoC) 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 very much on the product and the system of AoC 
specified for the given construction product in the applicable Commission Decision. 

Random  figures  provided  by  industry  indicate  that  in  application  of  harmonised  technical 
specifications  under  the  CPD  the  one-off  costs  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 Bodies), 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 single product (e.g. a basic 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-year  duration).  But  there  is  also  information 
that leads to the conclusion that this cost may total no more than € 5,000 over an estimated 5-
year duration of practical validity 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  unlimited  duration  as  long  as  all  parameters  taken  into 
account  (the  product,  but  also  e.g.  the  production  line  and  incoming  materials,  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, depending 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 available 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 for even an approximate calculation. 

Cost relation between EU system and national systems 

In a system under which exclusively national provisions would be applicable to construction 
products (national approvals, certificates of conformity against national standards, type-tests 
against  national  standards,  etc.),  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  legislation  on  construction  products  for  establishing  the 
Internal Market for these products. 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
However,  if  a  manufacturer  is  interested  in  obtaining  the  "validation"  of  the  national 
documents  covering  his  product,  despite  Article  28  of  the  Treaty  he  is  in  practice  usually 
faced with one of the two following situations: 

1. 

2. 

If  the  manufacturer’s  commercial  interest  is  directed  towards  markets  where  no 
provisions  or  provisions  similar  to  those  in  his  own  country  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) originated 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. 

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  product  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 assessments 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  costs  under  a  system  that 
follows specific EU legislation in this field. 

In principle no geographical differences can be noticed that would be worth considering as to 
where the first or the second situation 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 construction product 
placed on the market in the territory 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 follows appropriate specific EU legislation for 
establishing the Internal Market 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 classes regarding the share in number of products 
of such a family placed on the market 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 

71 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
•  Families  for  which  a  very  high  share  or  nearly  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  products  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 special protective function) doors and windows. 

It would not correspond to market reality to assume a general correlation between the size of 
manufacturing  enterprises  and  the  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 manufacturing 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  various  countries.  In  this  case,  the 
Attestation of Conformity also under 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 

Reduction in number of different 
ways of expressing the same 
performance characteristics 

Changes made to national building 
regulations/ requirements in line 
with common technical language 

Use of a common technical 
language relating to construction 
products 

Decrease in time needed to agree 
harmonised standards 

Recorded (average) time between 
mandate and publication of 
harmonised standards 

Reliance on hENs in specifying 
public procurement requirements 

Sample data and information from 
public tenders 

Better Regulation and Simplification - general 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex VI 

Monitoring and evaluation indicators 

Objective 

Indicators 

Means of verification 

Better and easier compliance with 
EU legislation 

Less burdensome legislation easier 
to implement and thus more 
effective, while also preserving EU 
policy objectives 

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 

Reduction of administrative burden 
/ costs of CE marking 

Sample data and information on 
burden and cost for Attestation of 
Conformity and CE marking 

Clear provisions and reduced 
administrative burden, in particular 
for SMEs 

Uptake of CE marking by micro 
enterprises and SMEs 

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) 

EN 

73 

   EN