Supporting study for the fitness check on the construction sector : EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation. Volume 2, Annexes.
Date: 2016-10-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs
Subjects: EU law, building industry, building regulations, building technique, competitiveness, construction policy, economic analysis, energy efficiency, energy policy, legislation, simplification of formalities, single market, technical rule

Supporting study for the 
Fitness Check on the 
construction sector:  
EU internal market and 
energy efficiency 
legislation 

Volume 2 
Annexes 

Written by 
Economisti Associati, 
Milieu and CEPS,  
with contributions 
from BPIE and DBRI  

October 2016

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs  
Directorate C — Industrial Transformation and Advanced Value Chains 
Unit C.1— Clean Technologies and Products 
E- mail:  GROW-CONSTRUCTION@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Supporting study for the 
Fitness Check on the 
construction sector:  
EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation 

Volume 2 
Annexes 

Directorate-General 

for 

Internal  Market, 

Industry, 

Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

2016 

ET-04-15-778-EN-N

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers 
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some  operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This  document  has  been  prepared  for  the  European  Commission  however  it  reflects  the  views  only  of  the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More  information  on  the  European  Union  is  available  on  the Internet  (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 

ISBN 978-92-79-52345-8 
doi: 10.2873/621655 

© European Union, 2016 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market 
and energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Annex I - Selection of Relevant EU Legislation ............................................................ 7 

Annex II - Sectoral Analysis and Market Trends ........................................................ 15 

Annex III – Economic Analysis ............................................................................... 25 

Annex IV – Legal Analysis .................................................................................... 152 

Annex V - Retrieval of Primary Information from Stakeholders ................................. 225 

Annex VI – List of References ............................................................................... 235 

Annex VII - Analysis of Findings from the Open Public Consultation .......................... 241 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market 
and energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

MAIN ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

Assessment and Verification of Constancy of Performance 
Business-As-Usual 
Business to Business 
Concerted Action 
Compliance Cost Assessment 
Cumulative Cost and Benefits Assessment 
European Conformity 
European Committee for Standardisation 
Construction Product Directive 
Construction Product Regulation 
Declaration of Performance 
Ecodesign Directive 
Electronic Declaration of Performance 
Energy Efficiency 
Energy Efficiency Directive 
Energy Labelling Directive 
Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 
Energy Performance Certificates 
Evaluation Questions 
European Technical Assessment 
European Union 
Factory Production Control 
Full Time Equivalent 
Green Public Procurement 
Harmonised Standard 
Impact Assessment 
Initial Type Testing 
Late Payments Directive 
Minimum Energy Performance Requirement 
Member States 
Statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community 
National Energy Efficiency Action Plan 
Nearly Zero Energy Building 
Open Public Consultation 
Public Administration to Business 
Product Contact Points for Construction 
Professional Qualification Directive 
Renewable Energy Sources 
Renewable Energy Sources Directive 
Regulated Profession Database 
Structural Business Statistics 
Standard Cost Model 
Services Directive 
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

AVCP 
BAU 
B2B 
CA 
CCA 
CCBA 
CE 
CEN 
CPD 
CPR 
DOP 
EDD 
eDOP 
EE 
EED 
ELD 
EPBD 
EPC 
EQ 
ETA 
EU 
FPC 
FTE 
GPP 
hEN 
IA 
ITT 
LPD 
MEPR 
MS 
NACE 
NEEAP 
NZEB 
OPC 
PA2B 
PCPC 
PQD 
RES 
RESD 
RPD 
SBS 
SCM 
SD 
SME 
TFEU 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Annex I 
Selection of relevant EU 
legislation 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

1 INTRODUCTION 

This  Section  deals  with  the  selection  of  the  EU  legislation  on  Internal  Market  and  Energy 
Efficiency  affecting  the  construction  sector,  which  constituted  an  essential  precondition  for  all 
subsequent activities under the Study. The exercise involved a three-step process, including: (i) 
the building of an initial inventory of the EU legislation in the policy areas of Internal Market and 
Energy  Efficiency  (the  ‘long  list’);  (ii)  a  first  screening leading to  the  identification  of  a  list  of 
legal acts prima facie more relevant for the construction sector (the ‘intermediate list’); and (iii) 
the definition of a set of criteria for the identification of the most relevant legal acts, leading to 
the  selection  of  the  legislation  to  be  analysed  (the  ‘short  list’).  Overall,  the  legal  screening 
exercise  led  to  the  selection  of  9  acts  and,  when  relevant,  its  predecessors,  out  of  an  initial 
inventory  of  more  than  40  pieces  of  EU  legislation.  The  three-step  process  is  summarised  in 
Exhibit 1.3 at the end of this Section. 

The legal screening exercise was primarily based on the detailed review of the legal texts and 
related documentation, but also benefitted from comments and feedback from stakeholders and 
Commission services. The initial inventory and a tentative intermediate list were presented at 
the  Kick-Off  Meeting  (KOM).  The  criteria  for  the  selection  of  the  most  relevant  acts  were 
discussed during the First Mirror Group meeting. This was followed by the submission of a note 
with  preliminary  considerations  on  the  short  list,  which  was  commented  by  the  Client.1  The 
results of the screening exercise were presented at the Second Mirror Group meeting when the 
final short list was endorsed by the stakeholders.2 

Section 2 briefly reviews the early stages of the selection process. Section 3 elaborates on the 
criteria for the selection of the most relevant acts and on their application. Section 4 illustrates 
the pieces of EU legislation retained for further analysis. 

2 EARLY STAGES OF THE SELECTION PROCESS 

Long  List.  The  inventory  of  EU  legislation  in  the  policy  areas  of  Internal  Market  and  Energy 
Efficiency and with a possible connection to the construction sector was developed at the tender 
stage and included in the Proposal. The long list included more than 40 pieces of EU legislation, 
identified  based  on  the  review  of  legal  and  policy  documents.  In  line with  the  purpose  of  the 
Study,  the  list  mostly  consisted  of  binding  acts  (Regulations  and  Directives),  although  some 
Recommendations and Communications deemed to be potentially relevant for the construction 
sector were also included. Finally, only legal acts currently in force were included at that stage. 

Intermediate List. The intermediate list was presented at the KOM. The list included 19 pieces 
of legislation prima facie regarded as potentially relevant for the Study, in particular because of 
their impact on the competitiveness and sustainability of the construction sector, as evidenced 
by references in EU policy documents and/or in documents produced by industry associations 
and other stakeholders. The intermediate list is provided in Exhibit 1.1 below. 

Exhibit 1.1  Intermediate List  

Policy 
Areas 

Internal 
Market 

Legal Acts 

  Regulation No 305/2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing 

of construction products (Construction Products Regulation) 

  Regulation No 765/2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and 
market  surveillance  relating  to  the  marketing  of  products  (Products 
Regulation) 

1 See the Note on the Identification of Legal Acts, 25 June 2015.  
2 The full-fledged results of the legal screening exercise were presented in the Inception Report (Revised), 
Volume 2 – Annexes, 19 October 2015. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

  Council Directive 85/374/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations 
and  administrative  provisions  of  the  Member  States  concerning  liability  for 
defective products (Defective Product Liability Directive) 
  Directive 2006/42/EC on machinery (Machinery Directive) 
  Commission Recommendation 2003/887/EC on the implementation and use 
of  Eurocodes  for  construction  works  and  structural  construction  products 
(Recommendation of Eurocodes) 

  Directive  2005/36/EC  on  the  recognition  of  professional  qualifications 

(Professional Qualifications Directive) 

  Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the Internal Market (Services Directive) 
  Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the 

provision of services (Posting of Workers Directive) 

  Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payment in commercial transactions 

(Late Payment Directive) 

  Directive  2014/24/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26 
February  2014  on  public  procurement  and  repealing  Directive  2004/18/EC 
Text  with  EEA  relevance  and  Directive  2014/25/EU  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities 
operating  in  the  water,  energy,  transport  and  postal  services  sectors  and 
repealing Directive 2004/17/EC Text with EEA relevance (collectively referred 
to as the Public Procurement Directives) 

  Communication  on  Green  Public  Procurement  COM  (2008)  400  “Public 
for  a  better  environment”  (Green  Public  Procurement 

procurement 
Communication) 

  Directive 2009/125/EC establishing a framework for the setting of eco-design 

requirements for energy-using products (Ecodesign Directive) 

  Directive  2010/30/EU  on  the  indication  by  labelling  and  standard  product 
information  of  the  consumption  of  energy  and  other  resources  by  energy-
related products (Energy Labelling Directive) 

  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  245/2009  as  regards  the  ecodesign 
requirements  for  fluorescent  lamps  without  integrated  ballast,  for  high 
intensity  discharge  lamps,  and  for  ballasts  and  luminaires  able  to  operate 
such lamps (implementing the Ecodesign Directive) (Lighting Regulation) 
  Directive 2009/142/EC  of the European Parliament and the Council relating 

to appliances burning gaseous fuels (Gas Appliances Directive) 

  Council  Directive  92/42/EEC  on  efficiency  requirements  for  new  hot-water 

boilers fired with liquid or gaseous fuels (Boilers Directive) 

  Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 
energy performance of buildings (Energy Performance of Buildings Directive) 

  Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency (Energy Efficiency Directive) 

Energy 
Efficiency 

3 CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF THE SHORT LIST 

The final step in the selection process involved a detailed review of the legal acts included in the 
intermediate  list  and  their  assessment  against  a  set  of  selection  criteria.  These  included  four 
‘eligibility’ criteria and three ‘substantive’ criteria. 

Eligibility Criteria. The four eligibility criteria refer to the nature of the EU legislation and its 
alignment  with  the  scope  and  purpose  of  the  Study.  In  particular,  in order  to  be  retained  for 
further analysis: 
  The legal act should be binding, in order to be able to establish a causal linkage between 

EU legislation and the costs and benefits observed; 

  The legal act should have been in force during the 2004 – 2014 period covered by the 
Study.  Where  applicable  and  relevant,  the  legal  texts  which  preceded  or  amended  the 
selected legal act during this period would also be included, so as to ensure the coverage of 
the relevant period; 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

  The legal act should not have been subject to major, recent modifications, as this would 

negatively influence the ability to appropriately assess its effects; 

  The bulk of the impacts generated by the act should pertain to the policy areas covered 
by  the  Study,  and  not  to  areas  covered  by  the  parallel  study,  i.e.  health  and  safety  or 
environmental policies. 

The application of the eligibility criteria resulted in the elimination of six acts included in the 
‘intermediate list’. In particular: (i) the Recommendation on Eurocodes and the Communication 
on  Green  Public  Procurement  were  discarded  based  on  the  first  criterion;  (ii)  the  Posting  of 
Workers Directive and the two Public Procurement Directives were discarded based on the third 
criterion; and (iii) the Machinery Directive was discarded based on the fourth criterion. 

Substantive Criteria. The three substantive criteria refer to the nature of the effects (costs or 
benefits) generated by EU legislation. In particular, in order to be retained for further analysis: 
  The legal act should produce direct effects on the construction sector and/or on the related 
sectors,  i.e.  construction  products  or  professional  services  -  which  then  result  in  ‘indirect 
effects’ for the construction sector - (‘proximity’ criterion). In practice, this criterion refers to 
the  length  of  the  causal  chain  and  involves  the  exclusion  of  legislation  that  is  excessively 
distant  from  the  focus  of  the  analysis.  This  can  be  seen  as  an  operationalization  of  the 
‘proportionate analysis’ principle commonly used by the Commission in evaluation and impact 
assessment work; 

  The legal act should generate specific effects on the construction sector and/or the related 
sectors,  in  particular  in  relation  to  competiveness  or  sustainability  (‘specific  relevance’ 
criterion). This criterion is obviously met by the legislation directly targeting the construction 
and related sectors but it may also be satisfied by horizontal legislation that addresses issues 
of particular relevance for the sectors  concerned (e.g. the issue of payment delays  or the 
cross-border provision of services). In addition, this criterion takes into account the nature 
of the entities affected by legislation. Since the focus of the Study is on the cost and benefits 
for  operators,  acts  impacting  solely  on  other  entities  (e.g.  public  administrations)  are  not 
retained for further analysis; 

  The expected likelihood of occurrence and magnitude of the effects generated by a 
certain act must be significant (‘significance’ criterion). This criterion results in the elimination 
of  pieces  of  legislation  exerting  only  a  negligible  influence  on  the  construction  sector. 
Obviously, the criterion requires an ex ante tentative assessment (as implied by the word 
‘expected’), as the precise scale of the effects will only be known at the end of the Study. 
Therefore, the emergence of new elements during implementation may lead to a revision of 
the classification of legal acts under this criterion. 

The application of the above substantive criteria led to the exclusion of five legal acts included 
in  the  intermediate  list.  In  particular:  (i)  the  Gas  Appliances  Directive  was  not  considered  to 
generate direct impacts on the broad construction sector (‘proximity criterion’); (ii) the Products 
Regulation was excluded because the bulk of effects do not concern operators in the construction 
and related sectors (‘specific relevance criterion’); (iii) the Defective Products Liability Directive 
was  found  both  not  specifically  relevant  to  the  construction  sector  and  unlikely  to  generate 
significant impacts (‘specific relevance’ and ‘significance’ criteria); and (iv) the Boiler Directive 
and the Lighting Regulation were considered not to generate expected significant effects on the 
sectors of focus (‘significance criterion’). 

Additional Analysis. During the Second Mirror Group and Steering Committee meetings it was 
proposed to expand the analysis to one additional piece of EU legislation, namely the Renewable 
Energy Sources Directive.3 The proposed addition was motivated by the fact that some provisions 
were considered by some stakeholders to be a source of burdens for enterprises active in the 
construction  sector.  The  review  of  the  directive  on  the  basis  of  the  eligibility  and  substantive 

3 Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion 
of  the  use  of  energy  from  renewable  sources  and  amending  and  subsequently  repealing  Directives 
2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

criteria confirmed its relevance for the Study. 

4 SHORT LIST 

The short list resulting from the legal screening includes nine pieces of legislation currently 
in  force  as  well  as  their  predecessors  in  effect  during  the  relevant  period.  These  legal  acts, 
hereinafter cumulatively referred to as the ‘Retained Acts’, include: 
  The  Construction  Products  Regulation  (CPR)  and  its  predecessor  Construction  Products 

Directive (CPD);4 

  The Professional Qualifications Directive (PQD), including the 2011 amendments; 
  The Services Directive (SD); 
  The Late Payments Directive (LPD) and its predecessor Directive 2000/35/EC; 
  The Energy Efficiency Directive (EED), plus its predecessor Directive 2006/32/EC;  
  The  Energy  Performance  of  Buildings  Directive  (EPBD)  and  its  predecessor  Directive 

2002/91/EC; 

  The Ecodesign Directive (EDD), plus its predecessor Directive 2005/32EC; 
  The Energy Labelling Directive (ELD) and its predecessor Directive 92/75/EEC; and 
  The Renewable Energy Sources Directive (RESD). 

The key features of these legal acts and the rationale for their further analysis are summarised 
in Exhibit 1.2 below.  

Exhibit 1.2  Retained Acts - Rationale for Inclusion  

Legal Acts 

Rationale for Inclusion 

Internal Market 

Construction 
Product 
Regulation 

Professional 
Qualification 
Directive 

The CPR lays down the conditions for the placing or making available on 
the market of construction products, by establishing harmonised rules on 
how  to  express  the  performance  of  construction  products  in  relation  to 
their  essential  characteristics  and  on  the  affixing  of  the  CE  marking. 
Adopted  in  2011,  the  CPR  innovates  the  framework  established  by  its 
predecessor, the CPD, which introduced a system of harmonised technical 
specifications, a system of attestation of conformity, and the CE marking 
of  products.  The  CPR/CPD  combination is  highly  relevant  for  the  Study 
because  of  its  direct  influence  on  the  construction  products  industry, 
affecting the operations of a large number of operators (manufacturers 
and distributors). 
The  PQD  aims  at  facilitating  the  mobility  of  members  of  regulated 
professions across the EU. This objective is pursued primarily through the 
establishment of mechanisms for the recognition of qualifications based 
on  training  or  experience  (automatic  recognition,  mutual  recognition). 
This is accompanied by specific measures intended to ease the provision 
of professional services on a temporary basis and the setting  of certain 
minimum requirements and obligations for professionals operating across 
borders.  The  PQD  has  a  very  broad  scope,  being  applicable  to  a  wide 
range  of  regulated  professions.  However,  professionals  (architects, 
engineers, energy auditors, etc.) and craftsmen (plumbers, electricians, 
etc.)  providing  services  to  the  construction  sector  account  for  a  large 
share of the requests regarding permanent establishment and, especially, 
temporary provision of services. 

4  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 products. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Services 
Directive 

Late 
Payments 
Directive 

Energy 
Efficiency 
Directive 

Energy 
Performance 
of  Buildings 
Directive 

The  SD  aims  at  realising  the  full  potential  of  the  internal  market, 
facilitating  the  establishment  and  cross-border  operations  of  service 
providers. To this effect, the SD requires MS to simplify the procedures 
for  the  permanent  or  temporary  provision  of  service  activities  and  to 
eliminate authorisation schemes that are discriminatory, disproportionate 
or  not  justified  by  overriding  public  interest  considerations.  This  is 
accompanied by measures aimed at strengthening the rights of service 
users and at promoting the high quality of services. The SD adopts a very 
broad  definition  of  services,  which  includes  construction  and  related 
professional services as well as real estate services. The relevance of the 
SD  for  the  Study  stems  from  the  traditionally  high  level  of  regulation 
affecting the construction sector and related professional services at the 
national  level,  with  an  ensuing  high  potential  for  simplification.  Also  of 
importance are the provisions concerning professional liability insurance, 
an important theme for builders and construction professionals. 
The  LPD  aims  at  combating  the  phenomenon  of  late  payments  in 
commercial transactions, involving private parties and/or public entities. 
This  is  done  by  setting  time  limits  for  the  payment  of  invoices  and  by 
imposing penalties for late payments. Despite its general nature, the LPD 
is particularly relevant for the construction sector, notoriously afflicted by 
the major delays in payment. The relevance of the LPD for the Study is 
further reinforced by the presence of an important ‘SME dimension’, as 
SME  (i)  traditionally  face  highly  unfavourable  payment  terms,  and  (ii) 
constitute the overwhelming majority of firms in the construction sector. 

Energy Efficiency 

The  EED  introduces  a  series  of  measures  intended  to  facilitate  the 
achievement  of  the  EU’s  2020  energy  savings  target.  These  include 
provisions  concerning:  (i)  the  renovation  of  the  stock  of  buildings, 
including  an  annual  target  for  the  renovation  of  central  government 
buildings;  (ii)  the  reduction  in  the  volume  of  energy  sales  by  energy 
distributors; (iii) the strengthening of energy audits (mandatory for large 
enterprises); (iv) energy efficient public purchasing and (v) the promotion 
(certification  schemes, 
of  other  energy  efficiency  mechanisms 
performance related contractual arrangements). While these obligations 
fall on public authorities or other entities outside the construction sector, 
their  fulfilment  may  have  potentially  far  reaching  implications  for 
construction companies and service providers, contributing to an increase 
in  the  demand  for  both  building  renovation  and  specialised  energy 
efficiency services. However, this is mitigated in some circumstances by 
the  possibility  for  MS  of  adopting  alternative  strategies  achieving 
equivalent levels of energy savings. 
The EPBD supports the achievement of the energy efficiency targets by 
introducing specific measures for buildings (both existing and new ones) 
and  affecting  construction,  renovation,  and  ancillary  services.  In 
particular,  the  EPBD  provides  for:  (i)  a  common  methodological 
framework  for  measuring  the  energy  performance  of  buildings;  (ii)  the 
obligation  for  MS  to  set  minimum  requirements  for  the  energy 
performance  of  new  buildings,  buildings  undergoing  major  renovation, 
and  technical  building  elements  and  systems;  (iii)  mandatory  energy 
performance  certification  and  inspections.  The  EPBD  is  a  framework 
directive,  leaving  implementation  measures  to  Member  States.  The 
Directive  is  obviously  highly  relevant  for  the  Study,  as  its  provisions 
impact on various operators along the construction value chain, resulting 
in both costs and benefits. 

12 

 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Ecodesign 
Directive 

Energy 
Labelling 
Directive 

Renewable 
Energy 
Sources 
Directive 

The  EDD  establishes  a  framework  for  the  setting  of  mandatory 
requirements  for  both  energy-using  and  energy-related  products  (i.e. 
products  that  do  not  use  energy  but  have  an  impact  on  energy 
consumption).  The  EDD  is  a  framework  directive,  and  the  ecodesign 
requirements  are  set 
through  Commission  regulations.  Several 
construction  elements  and  materials  are  classified  as  energy-using  or 
energy-related products and therefore the EDD may potentially affect a 
number of construction materials manufacturers. However, no secondary 
regulations  specifically  targeting  construction  materials  have  been 
adopted so far, although work in this direction has been initiated (e.g. for 
windows  and  insulation  materials).  Equally  important,  the  EDD  partly 
addresses aspects also covered by other pieces of legislation (ELD, EPBD 
and CPR), with potential implications for the coherence of EU legislation. 
The ELD complements the EDD by setting a framework for the labelling 
and the provision of information regarding energy consumption. Initially 
targeted  at  household  appliances,  the  ELD  is  now  applicable  to  a  wide 
range of energy-related products. As in the case of the EDD, the directive 
has a potential impact on the producers of several construction products, 
but  so  far  no  secondary  legislation  has  been  adopted.  Similar 
considerations  apply  to  the  interaction  with  other  EU  legislation  on 
construction products and energy efficiency, whose coherence requires to 
be assessed. 
The  RESD  does  not  specifically  address  the  construction  sector.  Its 
objective is to establish a common framework for the promotion of energy 
from renewable sources, including setting mandatory national targets for 
the  overall  share  of  energy  from  renewable  sources.  However,  two 
articles of the RESD are  relevant for construction operators: (i) art. 13 
laying down the obligation for Member States to introduce in their building 
regulations  a  requirement  for  the  use  of  minimum  levels  of  renewable 
energy  in  new  buildings  and  existing  buildings  subject  to  major 
renovations;  and  (ii)  art.  14  mandating  Member  States  to  develop  and 
mutually  recognise  certification  or  equivalent  qualification  schemes  for 
installers  of  small-scale  renewable  energy  systems.  Art.  13  come  into 
force as of 31.12.2014, hence it cannot generate costs and benefits on 
construction operators in the period covered by the study. Art. 14 is in 
force since the end of 2012 and its effects on construction operators, and 
in particular the construction crafts and SME, are covered by the Study 

13 

 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 1.3 Overview of the Legal Screening Process 

Council Recommendation 
86/666/EEC on fire safety in 
existing hotels 

Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 
on international accounting 
standards 
Directive 2000/31/EC on 
information society 
services, electronic 
commerce 

Regulation No 305/2011 
on harmonised 
conditions for the 
marketing of 
construction products 

Regulation No 765/2008 
on marketing of products 

Recommendatio
n 2003/887/EC 
on Eurocodes for 
construction 
works / products 

Regulation (EC) No 
1907/2006 on 
Chemicals (REACH) 

Directive 
2006/42/EC on 
machinery 

Regulation No 
764/2008 on 
products lawfully 
marketed in 
another Member 
State 

Internal Market 

Council Directive 
85/374/EEC 
concerning liability 
for defective 
products 

Directive 2006/95/EC 
relating to electrical 
equipment designed for use 
within certain voltage limits 

Legal acts related to 
EU funds 

Regulation (EC) No 
66/2010 on the EU 
Ecolabel 

Legal acts on public 
procurement and 
GPP 

Directive 
2006/123/EC 
on services in 
the Internal 
Market 

Directive 
2009/47/EC on 
reduced rates of 
value added tax 

Directive 2000/14/EC on 
noise emission in the 
environment by equipment 
for use outdoors 

Council Resolution 85/C 
136/01 of 7 May 1985 on 
a new approach to 
technical harmonization 
and standards 

Directive 2005/36/EC on 
the recognition of 
professional 
qualifications 

Directive 96/71/EC 
concerning the 
posting of workers 

Commission Recommendation 
2003/887/EC on the 
implementation and use of 
Eurocodes for construction works 
 and structural construction 
products 

Directive 2001/95/EC 
on general product 
safety 

Directive 
95/16/EC relating 
to lifts 

Directive 2009/142/EC 
relating to appliances 
burning gaseous fuels 

Council Directive 
92/42/EEC on efficiency 
requirements for new hot-
water boilers 

Legend 

Short List 

Intermediate 
List 

Long List 

Directive 
2012/27/EU on 
energy efficiency 

Eco-design 
Directive 
2009/125/EC  

Directive 2010/30/EU 
on labelling of the 
consumption of energy 
and other resources by 
energy-related 
products 

Directive 2009/28/EC on 
Renewable Energy Sources 

   Energy Efficiency 

Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 245/2009 as regards the 
ecodesign requirements for 
fluorescent lamps without 
integrated ballast, for high 
intensity discharge lamps, 
and for ballasts and 
luminaires able to operate 
such lamps 

Directive 2010/31/EU 
on Energy Performance 
of Building Directive 

Council Directive 
2004/113/EC on equal 
treatment between 
women and men in the 
access to and supply of 
goods and services 

Directive 2011/7/EU on 
combating late payment 
in commercial 
transactions 

Legal acts on 
intellectual 
property rights 

Legal acts related to 
permitting procedures 
(SEA, IA) 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Annex II  
Sectoral analysis and 
market trends 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

1 THE CONSTRUCTION SECTOR 

Construction of buildings is a major economic activity in the European Union (EU), with a total 
value of production in 2012 corresponding to over 9% of GDP, and a value added contributing 
for 3.1% to GDP formation in the EU28 countries. In 2014, there were over 3 million firms active 
in the construction of buildings, with total turnover of about € 1,300 billion and an employment 
of  almost  11  million  persons.  The  production  structure  is  dominated  by  micro  and  small 
enterprises, with an estimate 94% of firms with fewer than 9 employees.5  

In  the  ten  countries  covered  in  detail  by  this  Study,  in  2014  the  total  value  of  output  in  the 
building sector - including both new construction and renovation, and both the residential and 
non-residential market - was about €877 billion. Residential buildings are the main sub-sector, 
with a total output of about € 525 billion. Residential building renovations were the main market 
segment, worth € 328 billion. New buildings construction stood at € 198 billion, with over 1.1 
million houses completed, of which 541,000 1-2 family houses and 591,000 apartment buildings. 
Output  in  the  non-residential  sub-sector6  was  at  €  350  billion,  virtually  equally  distributed 
between new buildings and renovations.7  

1.1 The effects of the economic crisis  

The 2004 – 2014 period was overall very negative for the construction industry in terms of 
output of production, with a decline of nearly 15% of EU28-wide output over the ten years. After 
a peak in 2007, the volume of constructions declined steadily, showing some mild countertrend 
only in 2014. A closer look to the ten countries under review reveals a composite picture, with 
three  groups  of  countries.  A  first  group,  including  Italy,  Spain,  and  Ireland,  shows  a  marked 
negative trend, with a reduction in the volume of buildings constructed between 2004 and 2014 
ranging between 40% for Italy and Spain, and nearly 80% in the case of Ireland. The second 
group includes five countries (Belgium, Denmark, France,  Germany, and the UK) that had an 
erratic trend in the volume of buildings, with variations that however did not exceed ± 15%. 
Finally, Romania and Poland had a net increase over the period under considerations, achieving 
in 2014 a volume of constructions corresponding to some 170-180% compared to 2004.  

Exhibit 1.1   Volume of construction (index: 2004 = 100) 

EU 28 

Countries with downward trend 

5 Data are from Eurostat, Structural Business Statistics. Value of production and value added refer to NACE 
Rev 2. Divisions 41 ‘Construction of buildings’ and 43 ‘Specialised construction activities’; Division 42 ‘Civil 
engineering’ is excluded as it is not covered by the Assignment. 
6  Non-residential  buildings  encompass  a  variety  of  destinations  of  use,  including  education  and  health 
structures;  commercial  buildings  and  offices;  industrial  buildings;  as  well  as  storage,  agricultural,  and 
miscellaneous buildings. 
7 Data from CRESME elaboration on Euroconstruct; DIW, and Romanian National Institute of Statistics. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Countries with erratic trend 

Countries with upward trend 

* Data for Italy refer to the whole Construction sector. Source: Eurostat 

1.2 A Severe erosion of the production base in the construction sector 

The negative performance was obviously reflected in the production base, especially with regards 
to  the  employment.  While  the  number  of  companies  declined  between  2007  and  2009  (-4%) 
and then recovered approaching the pre-crisis level, the number of persons employed shrank by 
nearly  one  quarter  between  the  2007  peak  and  2013  (the  latest  data  available).  In  2013, 
construction activities (excluding civil engineers) employed over 2 million people less than 2005, 
and 3.4 million people less than 2007. 

Exhibit 1.2   Number of enterprises and persons employed (EU)  

Number of Enterprises (million) 

Persons Employed (million) 

Source: Eurostat 

The  situation  varies  considerably  among  the  ten  countries  analysed,  essentially  reflecting  the 
patterns  in  the  volume  of  constructions  (see  above).  The  sharpest  decline  is  experienced  in 
Spain,  Ireland,  and  Italy,  while  the  only  countries  in  which  the  number  of  enterprises  and  of 
persons employed is growing are Belgium and Germany.  

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 1.3   Number of enterprises and persons employed (selected MS)  

Number of Enterprises 

Persons employed (million) 

1.3 Significant changes in the product mix  

Source: Eurostat 

In the market for buildings across the 10 MS covered by the analysis, the share of the residential 
and non-residential segments, in terms of value, has not significantly changed in the last decade. 
As  shown  in  Exhibit  1.4  below,  the  relative  shares  have  remained  stable,  at  about  60%  for 
residential buildings, and 40% for non-residential. Both segments have peaked in 2007 followed 
by a sharp decline, and a mild recover only in 2011 and 2014. To the contrary, over the 2004-
2014 period, the  renovation segment has increased its importance, from 51%  of the building 
market in 2004, to 56% in 2009, and 57% in 2014. The market for residential renovation is the 
only one that has already overcome its pre-crisis level, and its share over the building market 
increased from 33% to 37.5%. As for non-residential renovation, it has come close to the pre-
crisis peak level in 2014. In any case, neither of the two segments showed the marked decline 
after 2007 experienced by the new construction segment. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 1.4   Market trends in the 10 Member States (€ mln) 

Residential Buildings 

Non-Residential Buildings 

Market Segments 

Note: no data on renovation for Romania;  
Source: Elaborations CRESME on Euroconstruct data; DIW; Romanian National Institute of Statistics  

Countries with downward trends in construction output (namely Italy, Spain, and Ireland) show 
a variation in market shares that is fairly similar to the whole group, with a relative growth of 
renovation  over  new  construction.  In  fact,  the  market  for  new  buildings  has  been  strongly 
declining  from  2007  onwards  in  the  three  countries,  while  the  market  for  renovation  has 
remained somehow more stable. In the case of Italy in particular, the value of renovation market 
in  2014  overcame  than  its  2007  value,  also  thanks  to  public  subsidies.  Spain  and  Ireland 
experienced a decline also for renovation activities, although of a smaller magnitude compared 
to the new buildings segment: in both countries, the current market value is about half of its 
pre-crisis peak. 

Exhibit 1.5   Market segments in countries with downward trend (€ mln) 

New Buildings 

Renovation 

Source: Elaborations CRESME on Euroconstruct data 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Countries  with  erratic  trends  (namely  Denmark,  Germany,  UK,  and  France)  are  not  a 
homogeneous  group  when  it  comes  to  renovation  segment’s  contribution  to  the  construction 
market, as shown in Exhibit 1.6 below. In Denmark and Germany, the new construction segment 
has lost shares, while renovation activities grew from 60% in 2004 to 69% in 2014 in Germany 
and from 57% to 73% in Denmark. In France and Belgium, both segments have followed parallel 
trends, and the relative share of renovation is stable (around 48-49% for Belgium and around 
53-54% in France). Though, the French market has increased its value by about 20% over the 
2004-14 period, the Belgian market has been significantly healthier, with a +65% growth over 
the decade.8 The UK, to the contrary, has seen a reduction of the share of renovation activities, 
which were worth about half of the market in 2004, and about 39% in 2014. Of all countries for 
which data are available, the UK is the only one signalling a decline in the renovation market. 

Exhibit 1.6   Market segments in countries with erratic trend (€ mln) 

New Buildings 

Renovation 

Source: Elaborations CRESME on Euroconstruct data; DIW 

More limited information is available concerning Poland and Romania, the two countries in which 
the construction output has grown considerably over the 2004-2014. In terms of value, CRESME 
elaborations on  Euroconstruct data show indeed an increase in Poland for both new buildings 
and renovation activities, reaching in 2014 higher levels than their pre-crisis peak. However, the 
market for new buildings has grown faster than the market for renovation, whose relative share 
has dropped from 36% to 28%. As for Romania, no data is available for the renovation market. 
The market for new construction has not yet recovered its 2008 peak. 

Exhibit 1.7   Market segments in countries with upward trend (€ mln) 

New Buildings 

Renovation 

Note: no data on renovation for Romania;  
Source: Elaborations CRESME on Euroconstruct data; Romanian National Institute of Statistics 

8 Interestingly, construction output increased only by less than 15% (cf. Exhibit 1.1 above), signaling an 
increase in the price of construction outputs and renovation activities. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

2 THE CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS INDUSTRY 

The construction product industry generated about €280 bln in terms of product value, and €90 
of added value in 2013. The industry production value corresponds to 2.1% of EU GDP, and the 
added value contributes to 0.7% of EU GDP. In the same year, about 245,000 firms populated 
he sector, employing more than 2.2 million of persons.9 In this section, an overview of the main 
industry characteristics is provided. 

2.1 Industry definition 

There  is  no  accepted  definition  of  ‘construction  product  industry’.  Indeed,  it  includes  several 
sectors  which  only  or  largely  supply  construction  products  (e.g.  bricks  and  tiles,  concrete 
products, doors and windows), and also sectors where construction products are manufactured, 
but  not  to  an  exclusive  or  prevailing  extent  (e.g.  steel  bars,  flat  glass).  For  this  reason,  the 
definition  of  the  construction  industry  needs  to  be  designed  based  on  several  NACE  classes, 
usually at a very granular level of details, with consequent data availability issues.10 

For the purpose of this overview, we have built upon RPA’s definition used in the recent study 
on CPR implementation,11 with several modifications. The sectors covered include: 

1.  ‘Manufacture  of  structural  metal  products’  (NACE  rev2  25.1),  which  encompasses  the 
sub-classes  (i)  ‘manufacture  of  metal  structures  and  parts  of  structures’;  and  (ii) 
‘manufacture of doors and windows of metal’; 

2.  ‘Manufacture of other builders’ carpentry and joinery’ (NACE rev2 16.23); 
3.  ‘Manufacture  of  articles  of  concrete,  cement  and  plaster’  (NACE  rev2  23.6),12  which 
encompasses  the  sub-classes  (i)  ‘manufacture  of  concrete  products  for  construction 
purposes’;  (ii)  ‘manufacture  of  plaster  products  for  construction  purposes’;  (iii) 
‘manufacture  of  ready-mixed  concrete’;  (iv)  ‘manufacture  of  mortars’;  and  (v) 
‘manufacture of fibre cement’; 

4.  ‘Manufacture of builders’ ware of plastic’ (NACE rev2 22.23); 
5.  ‘Manufacture  of  cement,  lime  and  plaster’  (NACE  rev2  23.5),  which  encompasses  (i) 

‘manufacture of cement’; and (ii) ‘manufacture of lime and plaster’; 

6.  ‘Manufacture  of  clay  building  materials’  (NACE  rev2  23.3),  which  encompasses  (i) 
‘manufacture  of  ceramic  tiles  and  flags’;  and  (ii)  ‘manufacture  of  bricks,  tiles  and 
construction products, in baked clay); 

7.  ‘Manufacture of ceramic sanitary fixtures’ (NACE rev2 23.42).13 

While this definition is not comprehensive of the whole construction product industry, it covers 
different materials (metal, wood, ceramics, plastic, cement), representing the main inputs to the 
construction  sector.14  It  also  covers  different  product  stages,  such  as  raw  materials,  semi-
finished and finished construction products. 

9 Based on Eurostat SBS. 
10  In  particular,  due  to  NACE  revision  from  v1.1  to  v2,  consistent  data  for  number  of  enterprises  and 
employment are only available for the 2008-2013 period. 
11 RPA (2015), Analysis of implementation of the Construction Products Regulation, Final Report prepared 
for the European Commission, DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship, and SME. 
12  RPA definition  only includes sub-classes ‘manufacture  of concrete products for  construction purposes’ 
and ‘manufacture of plaster products for construction purposes’. 
13 As a comparison, Ecorys (2011) includes the following sectors within the construction product industry 
(classes are reported with their NACE rev 1.1 denomination): (i) Manufacture of builders’ carpentry and 
joinery;  (ii)  Manufacture  of  bricks,  tiles  and  construction  products,  in  baked  clay;  (iii)  Manufacture  of 
cement, lime and plaster; (iv) Manufacture of articles of concrete, plaster or cement; (v) Cutting, shaping 
and  finishing  of  ornamental  and  building  stone;  and  (vi)  Manufacture  of  structural  metal  products.  The 
definition,  though  narrower,  is  largely  overlapping  with  the  one  used  in  the  current  study,.  Cf.  Ecorys 
(2011) Sustainable Competitiveness of the Construction Sector, Final Report for DG ENTR.  
14 Ibid. at p. 14 and ff. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

2.2 Sectoral output and the effect of the economic crisis 

Unsurprisingly, the construction product sector is tracking the overall trend of the construction 
industry; hence, the 2004-2013 decade came close to a ‘lost decade’ for the sector.15 While the 
industry’s production value in the EU did increase between 2004 (€255 bln) and 2013 (€ 279 
bln), the current output is significantly lower than the pre-crisis peak, in 2008. As it emerges 
clearly from Exhibit 2.1 below, the period is split between a steep increase between 2004 and 
2008  (+7.8%  per  year  on  average);  and  a  steep  decrease  followed  by  a  stagnation  between 
2004 and 2013 (-15.7% between 2008 and 2009, and then  -1.2% per  year on average  from 
2009 to 2013). 

Within this overall trend, there are significant difference among the 10 MS covered more in detail 
by this study. In six of them (Belgium, Germany, Denmark, France, Poland, and Romania), the 
production value of the construction product industry has increased between 2004 and 2013. In 
particular, over this decade, it has almost trebled in Romania, more than doubled in Poland, and 
increased  by  30  to  50%  in  the  other  four  countries.  In  Spain,  Ireland,  Italy  and  the  UK,  the 
production value has declined; more specifically, in Ireland and Spain the production value in 
2013 is less than half than in 2004, while in Italy and the UK the decline amounts to about  -
15%. 

Exhibit 2.1   Production value of the construction product industry (€bln) 

EU 28 

360

340

320

300

280

260

240

220

200

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Countries with an increase in 
production value 

Countries with a decrease in 
production value 

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

DE

FR

PL

BE
DK
RO

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

IT

UK

ES

0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

IE

 Source: Eurostat 

15 Cf. Section 1.1 above. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

2.3 The loss of suppliers 

Due to revision of the NACE classes,16 consistent data on the number of companies and persons 
employed in the construction product industry are available only from 2008 to 2013. As for the 
production value, the industry experienced a decline of both the number of economic operators 
and workers over these six years. Interestingly, the decline has been slower and less steep, but 
did not either stop or significantly slow down in the most recent years. The decline of the number 
of persons employed between 2008 and 2013 (-18%) is very close to the decline in production 
value (-19%), signalling a constant labour productivity in the sector. To the contrary, the number 
of enterprises has been more resilient (-8% over the same period), thus signalling a reduction 
in average firm output.  

Exhibit 2.2 – Number of enterprises and persons employed (EU)  

Number of Enterprises (‘000) 

Persons Employed (million) 

270
260
250
240
230
220
210
200

3.0

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2.0

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Source: Eurostat 

The situation varies considerably among the ten MS analysed, from both a static and dynamic 
point  of  view.  On  a  static  point  of  view,  firm  size,  in  terms  of  production  value,  show  cross-
country differences. Average production value per firm is very high in Denmark (more than € 4 
mln). In Belgium, Germany, France,  Ireland and the UK, average production value in 2013 is 
between €2 and €3 mln, while in Spain, Italy, Poland and Romania it is less than €1mln. For this 
reason, Spain and Italy are the MS with the largest number of enterprises in the sector, followed 
by Germany and Poland. As for the number of persons employed per firm, the average in the 10 
selected MS is of 10 employees per company. Again, this average hides large variations, going 
from  27  and  19  employees  respectively  in  Danish  and  German  companies,  to  5  in  Spain  and 
Italy. 

From a dynamic point of view, the number of enterprises has declined in most of the selected 
MS between 2008 and 2013. The only MS with a positive sign are Belgium (+17%), Germany 
(+6%),  and  France  (+7%).17  As  for  the  number  of  persons  employed,  positive  variations 
between 2008 and 2013 are registered only in Belgium (+15%) and Germany (+5%).  

16 Eurostat data switched from NACE Rev 1.1 to NACE Rev 2 in 2008. Usually, it is possible to reconcile 
data  series;  unfortunately,  as  the  definition  of  construction  product  industry  is  scattered  across  small 
classes, the reconciliation was not possible in this case. 
17 2008 data for France are not available; variation is thus calculated over the 2009-2013 period. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 2.3 – Number of enterprises and persons employed (selected MS)  

Number of Enterprises (‘000) 

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

600

400

200

0

BE

DE

DK

ES

FR

IE

IT

PL

RO

UK

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Persons employed (‘000) 

BE

DE

DK

ES

FR

IE

IT

PL

RO

UK

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Source: Eurostat 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Annex III  
Economic analysis 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

1 INTRODUCTION 

This Part of the Report is devoted to the illustration of the results of the fact-finding work aimed 
at assessing the effects of EU legislation identified at the inception stage. The focus is on the 
effects linked to seven pieces of legislation, namely the CPR and its predecessor, the PQD, the 
SD, the EPBD, the EED, the RESD, and the LPD. The regulatory effects are shown in Exhibit 1.1 
below.  

In line with the overall approach of the Study, the focus is on the impact of EU legislation on 
construction firms. The analysis of these effects on enterprises is intended to provide elements 
useful  for  the  overall  evaluation  of  the  EU  legislation,  i.e.  the  efficiency,  coherence  –  already 
included in Part B of this Report, effectiveness, relevance and EU added value 

For all the effects analysed, an effort was made to provide a quantification of the costs and/or 
benefits  potentially  associated  with  EU  legislation.  The  quantification  exercise  relied  on  the 
methodology for estimating costs and benefits already presented in the Inception Report.  

This Part is structured as follows: 
  Section 1 sets the stage, by providing a succinct illustration of the main developments in the 

EU construction value chain over the period covered by the Study; 

  Section 2 reviews the effects of the CPR and of the passage from the CPD to the CPR, with 

reference to a wide range of provisions potentially generating costs or cost savings; 

  Section 3 reviews the effects linked to the PQD, dealing with the themes of administrative 

costs, cost savings and business opportunities generate by EU legislation; 

  Section 4 analyses the effects of the SD, and in particular the benefits from simplification, 
the  new  business  opportunities  for  cross-border  operators,  and  the  inward  effects  from 
inflows of EU construction companies; 

  Section  5  discusses  the  market  development  effects  of  the  adoption  of  stricter  energy 

efficiency standards in buildings, in line with what envisaged by the EPBD; 

  Section 6 reviews other effects generated by the EPBD linked with the issuance of Energy 

Performance Certificates; 

  Section  7  assesses  a  set  of  regulatory  effects  in  the  Energy  Efficiency  policy  areas,  with 

respect namely to the EED, EPBD, and RESD; 

  Section 8 analyses the effects associated with the LPD, with particular reference of the cost 

savings associated with the shortening of payment delays. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 1.1   Effects Identified and Effects Covered by Fact Finding Work 

Legal Acts 

Nature of the Costs and Benefits Identified (main related 
provisions)18 

Construction 
Product 
Regulation 

Professional 
Qualification 
Directive 

Internal Market 

  Administrative costs/cost savings linked to the obligation of 

providing information to customers (drafting, supplying and storing 
of DOP and related technical documentation or instructions and 
safety information) (articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 11.1, 11.2 and 13.8) 

  Administrative cost savings linked to the possibility of (i) derogating 
from DOP (article 5) and/or (ii) posting the DOP online (articles 7 
and 60) 

  Administrative costs/cost savings linked to the affixing of the CE 

marking on products and the provision of information on the label 
(articles 8, 9, 11 and 13) 

  Administrative cost savings due to the easier accessibility of 

information through the Product Contact Points for Construction 
(PCPC) (articles 10) 

  Substantive costs/cost savings linked to the obligation for 

manufacturers to put in place factory production controls and to 
have an AVCP performed (articles 11, 13, and Annex V) 

  Substantive cost savings due to the simplification of procedures for 
the testing of products and for AVCP for micro enterprises (articles 
36 through 38) 

  Administrative cost savings due to the simplification of procedures 
for the recognition of professional qualifications for establishment 
under the Automatic Recognition System (articles 21, 49 and 50) 
  Administrative cost savings due to the simplification of procedures 
for the recognition of professional qualifications for establishment 
under the General System (articles 13, 16, 17 and 50) 

  Administrative cost savings due to the simplification of procedures 
for the occasional provision of cross border services (articles 5- 7) 
  Administrative cost savings due to the availability of information via 
the PSC regarding applicable requirements online (article 57 PQD) 
and the possibility of complying with formalities online (article 57a 
PQD) 

  Administrative costs due to the obligation for service providers to 
provide information to the recipient of temporary cross-border 
services (article 9) 

  New business opportunities from the removal of obstacles to the 
mobility of professionals and craftsmen providing services to the 
construction industry 

18 For convenience, the articles mentioned refer to the most recent act (e.g. CPR rather than CPD). 

27 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

  Regulatory charges savings linked to the proportionality of 

administrative fees in authorisation schemes (article 13(2)) 

  Administrative cost savings due to the regulatory simplification of 

authorisations to the permanent establishment of services providers 
(articles 9, 10, 11, and 12) 

  Administrative cost savings due to the elimination of the vast 

majority of formalities concerning the cross-border provision of 
services on an occasional basis (article 16, namely 16(2)(b)) 

  Administrative cost savings due to the simplification of 

administrative procedures for all cross-border situations, resulting in 
simple form documents, acceptance of equivalent documents and 
tacit approval (articles 5 and 13) 

  Administrative cost savings due to the availability of information via 
the PSC regarding applicable requirements online (articles 7 and 21) 
and the possibility of complying with formalities online (articles 6 
and 8) 

  Substantive cost savings linked to the elimination of the need to hire 

local staff when operating in another MS (articles 15(2)(f) and 
16(2)(d)) 

  Substantive cost savings linked to the elimination of the need to 

proceed with corporate restructuring to meet entry requirements in 
another MS (articles 14.1.3, 15.2.b. and .c, and 25) 

  Substantive cost savings from the elimination of the need to acquire 

local insurance coverage when operating in another MS (article 23) 
  Substantive cost savings linked to the generalisation of alternative 

dispute resolution schemes (article 27) 

  Substantive cost savings from elimination of other particularly 

stringent restrictions (articles 14, 15, 24, and 25) 

  Substantive cost savings due to the elimination of the requirement 
to establishment for temporary cross-border providers (article 
16.2.b) 

  Substantive cost savings linked to the disapplication of local rules on 

equipment and materials (article 16.2.f) and of most other host MS 
requirements (article 16) 

  Administrative costs due to the obligation for service providers to 

provide information to the recipient of cross-border services (articles 
22 and 27) 

  New business opportunities from the removal of obstacles to the 
establishment and operation of construction firms and related 
providers of services 

  Financial savings (efficiency gains) linked to the setting of maximum 

and/or default payment terms in commercial transactions and 
criteria for the identification of grossly unfair terms and practices 
(articles 4, 5, and 7) 

  Substantive cost savings in the form of reduced litigation costs 

linked to automatic entitlement to late payment interest (articles 3 
and 4) 

Energy Efficiency 

  New business opportunities linked to obligation to renovate the stock 
of existing buildings, including the 3% target for central government 
buildings (articles 4 and 5) 

  New business opportunities linked to the increase in demand for high 
energy  efficiency  goods  and  services  (including  construction)  by 
public bodies (article 6) 

  New  business  opportunities  linked  to  the  increase  in  demand  for 
energy  efficiency  services  associated  to  the  obligation  for  energy 
distributors to reduce their sales by 1.5% per annum (article 7). 

28 

Services 
Directive 

Late 
Payments 
Directive 

Energy 
Efficiency 
Directive 

 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

  Administrative  costs  linked  to  the  obligation  to  obtain  and  display 

energy performance certificates of buildings (articles 11-13) 

  Substantive compliance costs linked to the obligation to meet energy 
efficiency  requirements  for  buildings,  building  systems  and  building 
elements (articles 4, 6, 7, and 8) 

  Substantive  compliance  costs  to  become  a  qualified  or  accredited 
expert for building certification and equipment inspection (initial and 
continuous training, software licence, audit by administrations, etc.) 
  New business opportunities linked to the growing demand for energy-
efficient  buildings,  building  systems  and  materials  in  order  to  meet 
energy performance requirements 

  New business opportunities linked to issuance of energy performance 

certificates (articles 11-16) 

  Substantive costs for the installers of renewable energy systems to 

meet requirements of certification or equivalent qualification 
schemes (article 14.3) 

Energy 
Performance 
of Buildings 
Directive 

Renewable 
Energy 
Source 
Directive 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

2 COSTS AND COST SAVINGS OF THE CPR/CPD 

2.1 Introduction 

In  this  section,  the  regulatory  effects  of  the  Construction  Product  Regulation  (CPR)  and 
Directive (CPD) are assessed,19 including those linked to the transition from the latter to the 
former. The effects, which were preliminarily assessed in the First Progress Report,20 consist of 
substantial  costs  and  cost  savings,  as  well  as  administrative  costs  and  cost  savings.  Before 
presenting the analysis, the data collection process is described, the framework of the CPR and 
the CPD is outlined, the regulatory addressees are mapped, and  the changes introduced by the 
CPR which could affect regulatory costs and benefits for the construction sector are analysed. 

The  analysis  relies  on  the  methodology  for  the  estimation  of  the  effects  presented  in  the 
Inception Report.21 Data sources include: 

1.  Primary information obtained through interviews with companies; 
2.  Primary  information  obtained  through  interviews  with  trade  associations,  public 

authorities and other stakeholders; 

3.  Primary  information  obtained  through  an  online  questionnaire  targeted  at  trade 

associations and other stakeholders; 

4.  Secondary  sources,  including  the  EU22  and  UK  Impact  Assessment  (IA),23  the  CPD 

Evaluation Report,24 the recent RPA study on the CPR,25 and industry position papers.26 

The section is structured as follows:  

  Section 2.2 presents the primary data collection process; 
  Section 2.3 discusses the regulatory framework set by both the CPR and the CPD; 
  Section 2.4 presents the market operators subject to the CPR;  
  Section 2.5 lists and analyses the changes brought about by the CPR;  
  Section 2.6 quantifies the administrative costs and cost savings linked to the obligation 

of providing information to customers (including the DOP and the CE marking); 

  Section  2.7  quantifies  the  administrative  cost  savings  linked  to  the  possibility  of 

derogating from the DOP and/or posting the DOP online; 

  Section 2.8 quantifies the administrative cost savings due to the easier accessibility of 

information through the Product Contact Points for Construction (PCPC); 

  Section 2.9 quantifies the substantive costs and cost savings linked to the obligation for 
manufacturers to put in place factory production controls and to have an Assessment and 
Verification of Constancy of Performance (AVCP) performed; 

  Section  2.10  quantifies  the  substantive  cost  savings  due  to  the  simplification  of  the 

procedures for the testing of products and for the AVCP for micro-enterprises; 

  Section 2.11 describes the impacts of the CPR on sustainability; 
  Section 2.12 provides overall conclusions. 

19 Cf. Section 1 above for the full list of regulatory effects. 
20  Cf.  First  Progress  Report  (Revised),  15  January  2015,  at  p.  50  and  ff.  The  analysis  of  most  of  the 
regulatory effects has been deeply revised following the fact-finding phase. 
21  Cf.  Inception  Report  (Revised),  19  October  2015,  at  Section  4,  in  particular  the  sub-sections  on 
substantive and administrative costs. 
22  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, 23.5.2008, SEC(2008)1900. Hereinafter ‘CPR IA’. 
23  Department  for  Communities  and  Local  Government  (2009),  Impact  Assessment  of  the  European 
Commission’s proposed Construction Products Regulation. Hereinafter, ‘UK IA’. 
24  PRC  (2007),  Study  to  evaluate  the  Internal  Market  and  Competitiveness  Effects  of  Council  Directive 
89/106/EEC, Final Report to DG Enterprise and Industry of the European Commission, at pp. 28 and ff. 
Hereinafter ‘IA Background Study’. 
25 RPA (2015), Analysis of implementation of the Construction Products Regulation, Final Report prepared 
for the European Commission, DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship, and SME. Hereinafter, ‘RPA 
Study’. 
26  E.g.,  Construction  Products  Europe  (2014)  implementation  of  the  Construction  Product  Regulation, 
Manufacturers’ report. Hereinafter ‘CPE Position Paper’. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

2.2 Retrieval of primary information 

Seventeen  interviews  were  held  with  manufacturing  companies,  of  which  14  delivered 
information on the CPD/CPR framework. As exporting manufacturers were actively looked for to 
be included in the sample, the  sample was skewed towards larger companies (the larger the 
firm,  the  higher  the  probability  that  products  are  sold  in  other  countries).  To  compensate, 
interviews  were  supplemented  by  an  online  survey  targeted  at  trade  associations  and  other 
stakeholders. 

The  interviews  with  companies  were  key  to  retrieve  cost  and  cost  saving  parameters  and,  as 
consequence, to carry  out the quantifications provided below in this section; importantly, the 
number of data points retrieved largely exceeds those required by the SCM method. However, 
several aspects of the CPR framework, including specific simplification provisions as well as the 
opinion of SME, could not be satisfactorily covered with a small number of in-depth interviews. 
For  this  reason,  a  supplementary  online  survey  of  trade  associations  and  other 
stakeholders was run. The dissemination of the survey was supported by Construction Products 
Europe. Thirty-two stakeholders from 13 MS, Norway and Switzerland participated in the survey. 

Finally, information was also retrieved from interviews with governments and trade federations 
at  EU  and  national level.  A  workshop  to  retrieve  information  for  this  Study  was  organised  by 
Construction Products Europe on 12 November 2015. 

2.3 The Regulatory Framework of the Construction Product Regulation and Directive 

As  previously  the  CPD,  the  CPR  regulates  the  market  for  construction  products  following  the 
principles of the ‘New Approach’ to Single Market regulation: the legal text sets the general 
objectives, while the detailed specifications for every single product are left to standardisation, 
under the responsibility of CEN. That way, the system remains flexible, with technical details left 
to  co-regulation  via  harmonised  standards  (hEN),  while  promoting  the  fulfilment  of  the  more 
general objectives, which are fixed in a binding norm. 

However,  the  CPR/CPD  are  sui  generis  acts  within  the  New  Approach  paradigm,  not  setting 
performance targets, but a uniform measurement methodology for product performance. 
While a New Approach Directive on e.g. the safety of certain products would state the minimum 
safety level that a manufacturer needs to guarantee to place a product on the Single Market, 
the  CPR  ‘only’  sets  a  common  methodology  for  measuring  the  performance  of  construction 
products over their essential characteristics.27 

How  can  this  approach  focusing  on  performance  measurement  rather  than  product 
performance be explained? The most important explanation is that the definition of construction 
product requirements and, most notably, building requirements is left to MS, at either national 
or local level. This complies with the subsidiarity principle, inasmuch Member States and local 
governments can more effectively and efficiently tailor their construction product and building 
regulations  to  the  geographical,  climatic,  and  seismic  features  of  their  territory,  and  to  the 
building customs and demand characteristics of their societies.  

Secondly,  the  construction  product  performance  alone  does  not  ensure  that  the  construction 
works  in  which  they  are  installed  fulfil  any  essential  requirements.  The  performance  of  a 
building depends on both the products used and its design. The regulation of the essential 
requirements  of  construction  works,  as  a  consequence,  requires  to  combine  a  ‘construction 
product  specification’  and  an  ‘application  rule’,  concerning  the  design,  construction,  or 

27 The essential characteristics of a construction product, as defined in art. 2.4 of the CPR, are those related 
to the Basic Requirements of a construction work. Those requirements are listed in Annex I to the CPR as 
follows:  (i)  Mechanical  resistance  and  stability;  (ii)  Safety  in  case  of  fire;  (iii)  Hygiene,  health  and  the 
environment; (iv) Safety and accessibility in use; (v) Protection against noise; (vi) Energy economy and 
heat retention; and (vii) Sustainable use of natural resources. The last requirement was not included under 
the CPD. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

installation of buildings, building systems, and building elements. The essential requirements for 
construction  works,  usually  implemented  by  professionals  through  ‘accepted  solutions’,  vary 
from country to country, and even within a country.28 

In  a  nutshell,  MS  or  local  governments  are  free  to  set  requirements  for  construction  product 
performance, or rather allow any product to be used as long as the essential requirements of 
construction works are  met.  The CPR does not mandate any performance requirement, 
either for construction products or works, but sets a uniform method to measure the 
performance of a construction product, which is then defined through standards. That way, 
construction operators across the EU are sure that product performance declarations ‘speak the 
same  language’,  i.e.  are  drafted  according  to  the  same  measurement  methodology  and 
parameters regardless of the country of production or installation. Consequently, performance 
declarations can be effectively used to verify whether a construction  work meets national and 
local requirements. 

Through this framework, the CPR/CPD aims at ensuring the free circulation of construction 
products within the Internal Market, and as such at promoting the competiveness of product 
manufacturers  and  the  construction  sector  as  a  whole.29  This  objective  is  achieved  by:  (i) 
mandating manufacturers to express the performance characteristics of their products using only 
the  harmonised  technical  language  set  by  the  CPR  framework  (including  the  applicable 
standards);30 and (ii) prohibiting MS from preventing the making available on the market or the 
use  of  construction  products  compliant  with  the  CPR  framework,  as  long  as  the  declared 
performances correspond to the requirements for the use planned in that Member State.31  

The specific CPR/CPD approach has an important impact on the measurement of the costs and 
benefits generated for the construction sector: companies do not need to incur substantive cost 
to  modify  their  products  or  production  processes  to  meet  any  performance  requirement,  as 
confirmed by firms and trade associations. Rather, the CPR/CPD generates cost and cost savings 
related  to  the  measurement  and  certification  of  the  performance  of  the  products 
according to the applicable hEN or European Assessment Document (EAD).  

2.4 Subjects affected by the Construction Product Regulation / Directive 

The CPR/CPD mostly impact, as described in Sections 2.6 to 2.10 below,  the manufacturers of 
construction products (as well as distributors and importers, which however do not fall within 
the scope of the Assignment). As a result, most of the impacts on the construction companies 
are indirect in nature and take the form of (i) passed-on costs, and (ii) information flows. As for 
the  latter,  construction  companies  are  the  recipients  of  the  information  provided  through  the 
DOP/CE  marking;  still,  the  impact  is  often  mediated  by  the  professionals  (e.g.  architects  or 
engineers)  in  charge  of  designing  the  construction  work  and  verifying  the  compliance  with 
building requirements. The relationship among the different subjects is summarised in Exhibit 
2.1 below. 

28 Cf. IA Background Study, at pp. 28 and ff.  
29 Cf. CPR IA. 
30 Cf. Art. 4-6 CPR. 
31 Cf. Art. 8.4 CPR. 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 2.1  CPR/CPD chain of impacts and subjects affected 

CPR/CPD

Distributors

Importers

Manufacturers

Professionals

Construction 
Companies

Note: in shaded boxes / dotted lines, subjects and relations not covered by the Assignment 

2.5 The changes introduced by Construction Product Regulation  

The CPR was approved in March 2011 and fully came into force in July 2013,32 repealing the CPD 
and aiming at clarifying, simplifying and further harmonising the pre-existing legal framework. 
In  this  section,  the  most  relevant  changes  which  could  affect  the  competiveness  and 
sustainability of the construction industry are presented.33 The description is functional to the 
quantification of costs and cost savings carried out in sections 2.6 to 2.10 below. 

DOP. Under the CPD, the manufacturer had to draw an Attestation of Conformity for the product 
to be CE-marked;34 under the CPR, the manufacturer needs to draw a Declaration of Performance 
(DOP).35 Both the CPD Attestation of Conformity and the CPR DOP include similar information. 
In the CPR, drafting a DOP has been made explicitly mandatory for all products covered by hEN 
or EAD. The main difference between the CPD and the CPR, however, is the obligation for the 
manufacturer to provide the DOP to its customers;36 under the current framework, companies 
can opt for supplying their DOP in paper or via electronic means. 37 Finally, derogations from the 
obligation  to  draw  a  DOP  were  introduced  for  the  following  cases:  (i)  products  individually 
manufactured  or  custom-made  in  a  non-series  process  in  response  to  a  specific  order,  and 
installed in a single identified construction work; (ii) construction products manufactured on the 
construction site; and (iii) construction products manufactured in a traditional manner or in a 
manner  appropriate  to  heritage  conservation.38  Differently,  the  CPD  did  not  provide  for  any 
derogation  from  the  obligation  to  draw  an  Attestation  of  Conformity,  though  a  simplified 
declaration of conformity could be drafted for individual and non-series productions.39 

32 Art. 68 CPR. 
33 Hence, the section does not aim at providing a full analysis of the new CPR framework. For a full analysis 
of the changes and the early implementation of the CPR, cf. RPA Study. 
34 Art. 13 CPD. 
35 Art. 4 CPR. 
36  Under  the  CPD,  the  Attestation  of  Conformity  was  not  placed  on  the  market;  it  was  kept  with  the 
manufacturer and provided upon need or request. 
37 Art. 7 CPR. 
38 Art. 5 CPR. 
39 Art. 13.5 CPD. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

CE marking. Under the CPR, all products covered by a hEN or a European Technical Assessment, 
and for which a DOP has been drawn up, must be CE-marked.40 Under the CPD, CE marking was 
not mandatory in four MS: Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.41 In addition to 
that, the meaning of the CE marking in the context of the CPR has been clarified.42 

Product  Contact  Points  for  Construction  (PCPC).  According  to  the  CPR,  MS  have  to 
designate a PCPC to ‘provide information, using transparent and easily understandable terms, 
on  the  provisions  within  its  territory  aimed  at  fulfilling  basic  requirements  for  construction 
works’.43 To reduce the proliferation of contact points, existing national contact points (e.g. those 
foreseen under the Services Directive) or to national SOLVIT centres can be appointed as PCPC.44 

Assessment and Verification of Constancy of Performance (AVCP). AVCP systems have 
been  simplified  by  removing  System  2,  foreseen  under  the  CPD.45  Art.  37  allows  micro-
enterprises to use different methods for products covered by Systems 3 and 4, where so provided 
for in the hEN, and to resort to System 4 for products for which System 3 would be required. 
Art.  38  allows  manufacturers  to  replace  the  AVCP  with  Specific  Technical  Documentation  for 
individually manufactured or custom-made products in a non-series process. 

Simplified testing provisions. The CPR has introduced severel simplified procedures, such as 
in the following cases: (i) tests have already been carried out for corresponding products (cd. 
‘test-sharing’);  and  (ii)  for  assembled  products,  tests  have  already  been  carried  out  on 
components  (cd.  ‘cascading’).46  In  those  cases,  type-testing  or  type-calculation  needs  to  be 
replaced by Appropriate Technical Documentation. Some of the simplifications provided by the 
CPR,  such  as  the  above-mentiond,  were  already  part  of  the  broader  CPD  framework,  but  not 
included in the binding text.47  

2.6  Administrative  costs  and  cost  savings  linked  to  the  obligation  of  providing 
information to customers (including the DOP and the CE marking) 

In  this  section,  the  administrative  costs  and  cost  savings  related  to  drafting  and 
supplying the DOP and the CE marking under the CPD and the CPR are considered.48 More 
in detail, under the CPD regime, i.e. between 2004 and 2012, costs arose from the preparation 
and  storing  of  the  AOC,  and  the  preparation  and  supply  of  the  CE  marking;  under  the  CPR 
regime,  i.e.  from  2013  onwards,  costs  have  been  generated  from  drafting  and  submitting  to 
customers the DOP and CE marking.  

The two tasks are considered jointly as a single business activity, as they are strictly linked to 
each  other.  Both  the  DOP  and  the  CE  marking  rely  on  similar  sets  of  information49  and  are 
prepared  or  updated  through  consequential  processes.  Because  of  their  different  nature  (i.e. 
substantive costs), costs and cost savings linked to the Initial Type Testing (ITT) and the AVCP 
system are not covered here and considered below in Sections 2.9 and 2.10. 

The tasks whose costs need to be quantified are the following: 

40 Art. 8 CPR. 
41 Art. 4 CPR. Cf. CPR IA, at p. 9. 
42, p.138. 
43 Art. 10 CPR. 
44 RPA Study, at p. 139. 
45 Cf. Annex III CPD and Annex V CPR. 
46 Art. 36 CPR. 
47 E.g., for test-sharing, cf. §4.13 of the Guidance Paper M concerning Council Directive 89/106/EEC. 
48 When collecting data relating to costs, companies are asked to provide the costs incurred to issue a DOP. 
As a result, the cost savings due to CPR simplifications, e.g. because of the eDOP, are already accounted 
for in the figures included in this section. In other words, the cost of issuing a DOP would be higher in the 
absence of an eDOP, but the savings are already included in the cost figures provided by companies. While 
a separate estimation of costs and cost savings cannot be presented in this section, savings due to specific 
simplifications introduced by the CPR are discussed in 2.7 below.  
49 The DOP and the CE marking have been criticised for their overlap; cf. CPE Position Paper. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

1.  Drafting/updating a DOP, including drafting or updating any other document attached 

to the DOP (where relevant); 

2.  Access to hEN; 
3.  Supplying the DOP to customers; 
4.  Drafting, printing, and affixing the CE marking. 

The annual cost of drafting/updating a DOP for a typical manufacturing company is calculated 
through the following formula: 

𝑇𝐶 = (𝑃𝑛𝑒𝑤 ∗ 𝑄𝑛𝑒𝑤) + (𝑃𝑢𝑝𝑑 ∗ 𝑄𝑢𝑝𝑑) 

Where 
TC:   Total annual Costs 
Pnew:  Cost of drafting a new DOP 
Qnew:  Number of new DOP drafted each year 
Pupd:  Cost of updating a DOP 
Qupd:  Number of DOP updated each year 

However,  the  formula  could  not  be  directly  applied  because  no  ‘typical’  Q  for  new  and 
updated DOP is lacking across the firm population, and even across homogeneous market 
segments. The number of DOP drafted or updated each year varies by three orders of magnitude, 
from 1 to 1100, primarily based on: 

1.  The sector: in mature sectors, the number of product series is lower and more stable. 
In  more  innovative  sectors,  the  number  of  product  series  is  higher  and  new  products, 
even with limitedly different characteristics, enter the market more frequently.50 As for 
updates,  technological  changes  are  more  frequent  for  certain  products  in  innovative 
markets, while in stable market, according to interviewees, ‘changes may take place even 
every 20 to 30 years’. Differently, administrative changes – i.e. linked to the regulatory 
framework  –  take  place  with  the  same  frequency  for  both  innovative  and  mature 
products. 

2.  The company size: larger companies have a larger catalogue and hence more product 
series;  however,  the  relation  is  not  linear,  as  medium  companies  with  many  product 
series, e.g. in a sector where the output is more diversified, may draft more DOP than a 
large company in a mature sector with few products. 

On the contrary, the frequency of updates has a narrower distribution, and varies from 0.2 (e.g. 
one update every 5 years) to 1 (e.g. one update per year). 

As a typical Q could not be estimated based on primary data, the Consultants tried to resort to 
secondary  sources.  However,  secondary  information  on  the  numerosity  of  this  obligation,  i.e. 
the number of products or product series for which a DOP is drafted or updated, is lacking. Both 
public  authorities  and  trade  associations  confirmed  that  they  know  no  source  providing  these 
data and providing estimates was not possible.51  

Hence,  another  solution  was  attempted,  by  asking  companies  how  many  employees  (in  FTE) 
work  on  DOP  preparation  and  updating,  and  whether  other  costs  are  incurred  relating  to  the 
DOP  preparation.  However,  a  split  between  DOP  preparation  /  DOP  supply  /  CE  marking 
preparation and supply appeared not to be realistic, because those tasks are usually conferred 
to the same people within a company. Hence, more aggregate data were collected on: 

50  Cf.  the  UK  IA,  claiming  that  costs  will  vary  between  product  types,  and  even  within  product  types, 
depending  on  whether  the  product  is  mass  produced  or  part  of  a  short  run/individual  manufacture.  In 
addition,  for  some  product  types  sectors,  the  costs  will  be  higher  than  this  average  because  of  the 
amount/type of testing required. 
51 A figure retrievable from public databases is the number of hEN for construction products, amounting to 
445. The information, however, is of limited usefulness, as information on  how widely  each standard is 
used and for how many product series is lacking. Cf. Commission Communication in the Framework of the 
Implementation  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  305/  2011,  Publication  of  titles  and  references  of  harmonised 
standards under Union harmonisation legislation, 2015/C 378/03. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

1.  The  number  of  people  working  on  the  DOP  and  the  CE  marking,  including 
drafting,  supplying  and  storing.  Twelve  companies  provided  the  number  of  FTE 
working on the DOP and the CE marking preparation and supply. Very surprisingly, among 
the 13 available data points, all answers range between 0.5 and 2, while another company 
reports  5  FTE.  Hence,  clearly  the  number  of  people  in  charge  of  DOP  tasks  is  largely 
unrelated  to  the  size  of  the  company.  Based  on  the  data  retrieved,  the  following 
parameters are estimated: 

a.  A  typical  medium  or  large  company  –  i.e.  a  firm  with  more  than  49  persons 
employed - employs 2 FTE (usually a technician and one/two clerks) to deal with 
the DOP and the CE marking;  

b.  A typical SME – i.e. a firm with 10 to 49 persons employed - employs 1 FTE (either 
a technician, or a technician and a clerk) to deal with the DOP and the CE marking; 
c.  Micro-enterprises  account  for  80%  of  the  company  population  according  to 
available  Eurostat  data,  with  an  average  number  of  persons  employed  equal  to 
2.35.52 Based on experts’ estimate, 0.2 FTE are considered to be devoted to the 
DOP and the CE marking. 

Monetised values per typical enterprise are shown in Exhibit 2.2 below.  

Exhibit 2.2  Unitary labour costs for DOP and CE marking, including drafting, 

supplying and storing 

Technician  Clerk 

Salary: Technician 

Salary: Clerk 

Typical Micro 
Typical Small 
Typical 
Medium-Large 

0.2 FTE 
0.2 FTE 

- 
0.8 FTE 

0.5 FTE 

1.5 FTE 

€ 37,142 

€ 29,076 

Total Costs 
€ 7,428 
€ 30,689 

€ 62,185 

Source: Interviews with firm and Eurostat Earnings Structure53 

2.  Out-of-pocket  costs  for  buying  European  Standards.  The  costs  incurred  to  buy 
European Standards where provided by 12 companies and range from €80 to €40,000 
per year.54 The costs vary depending on whether the company buys only hEN, or rather 
a subscription from a standardisation body or private service provider for both access to 
standards and other tailored services. Excluding companies with special subscriptions, 9 
data points remain, ranging between €80 to €4000, with a median value amounting to 
€1,000. The latter is considered the typical cost. 

3.  Other  costs  linked  to  the  DoP  and  the  CE  marking.  This  cost  parameter  was 
investigated through two kinds of costs: (i) the costs linked to supplying the DOP and the 
CE marking to customers; and (ii) other costs (excluding AVCP costs). As for the annual 
costs incurred to supply the DOP and the  CE marking to customers, 10 data points are 
available, ranging from €100 to €30,000, with a mean and a median amounting to €9,232 
and €6,000 respectively. Again, costs are not correlated to firm size. The median, i.e. € 
6,000  per  year,  is  considered  as  the  typical  cost.  As  for  the  other  costs,  only  three 
companies reported other expenses, such as the cost of familiarisation, the cost of setting 
up  a  website,  or  the  cost  of  buying  new  labelling  machines.  Given  that  most  of  the 
respondents did not mention these costs, the typical value is assumed to be €0. The other 
costs linked to the supply of other documents attached to the DOP are discussed in Box 
2.1 below. 

52  Statistics  on  the  firm  size  distribution  are  available  at  NACE  3-digit  level,  while  some  of  the  sectors 
included in the definition are at NACE 4-digit level; as an approximation, the share of micro, small, medium, 
and large companies in the corresponding NACE 3-digit group was used. 
53 Earnings refer to 2010 data for EU28, inclusive of 25% overheads; annual salaries are calculated based 
on 200 working days per year and 8 working hours per day. 
54  From  a  supply-side  perspective,  a  typical  price  to  access  hEN  cannot  be  identified,  as  it  depends  on 
various factors: access to electronic or paper version, additional services associated with the purchase of 
the  document,  size  of  the  document,  country  of  establishment,  market  demand  for  a  specific  hEN, 
translation costs. CEN provides a guidance on standard prices, but no price list or binding rules. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Box 2.1 Other documents and information on chemicals 

In certain cases, other pieces of EU legislation may require manufacturers to attach additional documents 
to the DOP. This is for example the case of the safety data sheet or the information on restricted substances 
required  by  the  REACH  Regulation,  55  or  safety  instructions.  In  particular,  art.  6.5  CPR  mandates  that 
certain information required by REACH in art. 31 and 33 shall be provided with the DOP. Three companies 
mentioned the need to attach other documents to their DOP, either by law or upon customers’ demand, 
but  did  not  mention  any  problem  with  this  requirement.  Two  trade  associations  indicated  that  the 
requirements under  the CPR  concerning  REACH  information are  not yet fully clear, but that the relation 
between the CPR and REACH is not causing problems at the moment as ‘we managed around this issue’. A 
risk of future overlap between the CPR, on the one hand, and REACH and other chemical legislation, on the 
other,  is  considered  possible.  Trade  associations  would  prefer  the  CPR  to  remain  the  applicable  and 
prevailing  legislation  also  for  the  chemical  properties  of  construction  products.  As  underlined,  REACH 
concerns the assessment of the exposure to chemical risks for humans and the environment, while the CPR 
does not deal with exposure and risks, being a product-based regulation. For this reason, the level of detail 
required from manufacturers under the CPR, e.g. in the case of the release of dangerous substances, is 
higher  than  for  the  information  that  would  be  required  under  REACH.  Hence,  the  CPR  would  be  better 
equipped  to  deal  with  chemical-related  information  on  construction  products,  also  through  the 
standardisation  process  (a  hEN  should  indeed  cover  the  release  of  dangerous  substances  as  from  next 
year). 

Based  on  these  cost  parameters,  the  administrative  costs  and  cost  savings  linked  to  the 
obligation  of  providing information  to  customers  (including  the  DOP  and  the  CE  marking)  are 
estimated as shown in Exhibit 2.3 below. 

Exhibit 2.3  Unitary administrative costs and cost savings linked to the obligation of 

providing information to customers (including the DOP and the CE 
marking) 

Labour Costs 

Access to 
hEN 

Costs for 
supplying DOP 
and CE marking 

Other costs 

Total Costs 

Typical Micro 
Typical Small 
Typical 
Medium-Large 

€ 7,428  
€ 38,494 

€ 78,257 

€ 1,000 

€ 6,000 

- 

€ 14,428 
€ 45,494 

€ 85,257 

To  estimate administrative burdens, the  BAU factor needs to be determined. Two preliminary 
considerations are made: (i) product manufacturers would inform customers of the performance 
of  their  product  even  without  the  CPR;  and  (ii)  the  prescribed  tools,  i.e.  the  DOP  and  the  CE 
marking, are made necessary by the CPR. Since these two considerations lead to inconsistent 
conclusions, the Consultants asked companies, trade associations, and other stakeholders about 
the commercial value of the DOP, both through the interviews and the surveys. The results are 
summarised in Exhibit 2.4 below. 

55 Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, 
Evaluation,  Authorisation  and  Restriction  of  Chemicals  (REACH),  establishing  a  European  Chemicals 
Agency,  amending  Directive  1999/45/EC  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  793/93  and 
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1488/94  as  well  as  Council  Directive  76/769/EEC  and  Commission 
Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 2.4  To what extent do the DOP and the CE marking convey commercial 

information?56  

Firms 
(interviews) 
8% 
0% 

Stakeholders 
(survey) 
14% 
43% 

limited 

Not at all 
To  a 
extent 
To some extent 
To 
high 
a 
extent 
13 
Data points 
Source: Interviews with firms and stakeholder survey 

23% 
69% 

26% 
17% 

35 

The distribution of opinions is quite different across the two groups: for firms, the modal answer 
is ‘to a high extent’, selected by two thirds of the respondents. Still, opinions from interviews 
are  quite  polarised:  one  respondent  mentioned  that  the  DOP  and  the  CE  marking  are  ‘very 
important,  because  they  convey  information  about  the  quality  of  the  product’;  another 
considered ‘a big mistake to think of the DOP as useful for the user: it is a legal requirement and 
no customer asks for it; most customers, including professionals, would not even understand its 
content’. For trade associations and other stakeholders, the modal answer is ‘to a limited extent’ 
– two ladders below –, selected by more than 40% of respondents. One association commented 
that ‘the DOP includes what the legislators consider relevant, and not what customers need or 
want,  as  confirmed  by  contractors’.57  By  applying  quantitative  weights  to  the  qualitative 
answers,58 the BAU factor would be estimated at 64% based on firms’ answers, and at 36% on 
trade associations’. Given that answers from trade associations and other stakeholders are more 
representative  of  the  diverse  construction  product  industries,  also  including  SME  and  non-
exporting companies, the BAU factor is estimated at 40%.  

Based on the cost parameters and the BAU factor discussed above, the administrative burdens 
and burden savings linked to the obligation of providing information to customers (including the 
DOP and the CE marking) are estimated in Exhibit 2.5 below. 

Exhibit 2.5  Administrative  burdens  and  burden  savings  linked  to  the  obligation  of 
providing  information  to  customers  (including  the  DOP  and  the  CE 
marking) 

Typical Micro 
Typical Small 
Typical  Medium-
Large 

Administrative 
burdens 
€ 8,657 
€ 27,296 

€ 51,154 

Based  on  the  sector  definition,  as  described  in  Section  1.2  above,  the  number  of  enterprises 
operating in 2013 is estimated at 245,289. According to Eurostat data, the share of medium and 
large enterprises can be estimated at 3.72%, the share of small enterprises at 12.58%, and the 

56 The question was phrased as follows: ‘Considering the information included in the DoP and the CE mark, 
to what extent can it be considered ‘commercial information’, i.e. information which has a value for you as 
a supplier or that would be demanded by the customer?’. 
57 A contractor association claimed that its members have ‘extreme views’ about the usefulness of the DOP, 
being  ‘very  useful  for  someone,  completely  useless  for  others’.  In  any  case,  ‘the  choice  of  construction 
products is based on trust and long-standing relations, rather than on the information provided under the 
CPR framework’.  
58 Quantitative weights are as follows: (i) not at all = BAU factor 0%; (ii) to a limited extent: BAU factor 
25%; (iii) to a significant extent: BAU factor 50%; and (iv) to a high extent: BAU factor = 75% 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

share of micro enterprises at 83.70%.59 Based on these parameters the total administrative 
burdens  for  the  EU28  in2014  can  be  estimated  at  €  3.1  bln.  This  amount  accounts  for 
1.1%  of  the  sectoral  turnover.60  These  costs  are  higher  than  those  quantified  by  the  IA 
background study, but estimates are hardly comparable because of methodological differences 
and of the different time period to which data refer. This discrepancy will be further explored in 
Section 2.12 below61 

Cost  differential  between  the  CPR  and  the  CPD  linked  to  the  obligation  of  providing 
information to customers (including the DOP and the CE marking) 

 The possible cost differentials between the CPR and the CPD for this activity are the following: 

1.  Change in the number of employees working on the DOP and the CE marking. 
Thirteen  companies  provided  information  on  this  possible  cost  differential,  with  10 
indicating that no change occurred. Differently, three companies reported an increase in 
the workforce, with 2 quantifying the increase (+5% and +20% respectively). According 
to these data points, the typical company is estimated not to have increased the number 
of employees working on the DOP and the CE marking after the introduction of the CPR. 

2.  Other one-off costs, related to the DOP or the CE marking. First of all, the costs for 
supplying the DOP only relate to the CPR, as the CPD did not provide for this obligation. 
Hence, these costs, amounting to € 6,000 as shown in Exhibit 2.3 above, are considered 
as CPR-specific costs.62 As for other one-off costs, data provided mixed evidence. 6 out 
12  companies  reported  to  have  incurred  other  one-off  costs  related  to  the  CPR,  while 
according to trade associations and other stakeholders, 72% of the companies incurred 
some one-off costs. The magnitude of one-off expenses may be significant, ranging from 
several thousand € to more than one-hundred thousand €. In general, large companies 
report higher costs. The categories of costs reported include: (i) new DOP; (ii) change in 
packaging; (iii) databases and online platforms; (iv) familiarising both the staff and the 
customers; (v) the costs for software; (vi) changes in internal management procedures; 
(vii)  purchase  of  new  standards  (in  case  they  were  released  to  comply  with  the  new 
framework);  (viii)  printing  equipment  and  materials;  and  (ix)  translation.  Some 
interviewees also lamented the lack of clarity of the legal framework right after the CPR 
was introduced: ‘[we] had a series of interpretative meetings [on the DOP] with industry 
representatives and public authorities, and nobody could agree on the content and format 
of the DOP for 1.5 years; [our] technical department spent 10 to 20% of their time trying 
to understand the changes brought about by CPR’. For this reason, in certain countries, 
governments have heavily invested in the dissemination of and the familiarisation with 
the CPR framework. Based on the information retrieved from both the interviews and the 
survey, the following estimates are made: 30% of the companies did not incur other one-
off  costs after the introduction of the CPR, while 70% did. The  estimate is in line with 
previous evidence: according to the RPA study, more than half of the surveyed companies 
had to adapt their internal system, e.g. by updating the IT systems, databases, websites, 
or preparing and translating DOP.63 As a result, the cost differential is estimated at €3,000 
for SME and €10,000 for large enterprises.64 

59 See note 51 above. 
60 Source for turnover: Eurostat SBS. 
61 The IA background study adopts a counterfactual  ex ante methodology and attempts to measure the 
additional cost compared to a baseline in which no CPD/CPR is adopted, while this Study measures costs 
effectively borne by manufacturers over the 2004-2014 period. In the IA Background Study (at p. 41), the 
costs for various sectors were estimated at between 0% and 0.9% of the total turnover. In any case, the 
data relating to 2006 (as the study dates back to 2007) are much closer to those estimates, as the share 
of costs over turnover is estimated at 1.4% (see Exhibit 2.6 below). 
62 See Exhibit 2.3 above. The full figure is considered, as the bulk of the costs reported under this item are 
related to the DOP rather than the CE mark. 
63 Cf. RPA Study. 
64 The UK IA Study estimated one-off costs at £ 4,000 / € 4,490. The RPA Study includes some case-specific 
estimates,  though  related  to  the  whole  transition  from  the  CPD  to  the  CPR,  and  not  specifically  to  the 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

3.  Change  in  the  population  of  companies  subject  to  CE  marking  obligations 
(relevant in the MS in which it was not mandatory). Out of the 15 companies interviewed, 
5 were based in a MS in which the CE marking was not mandatory; in all cases, products 
were CE marked also before the CPR became mandatory for business reasons, including 
the need to signal quality to customers and the interest in accessing other EU markets. 
Analogously, the  sample also included 2 companies for which the CE  marking was not 
mandatory because of the lack of an applicable hEN. Both, however, decided to CE-mark 
their products for business reasons, and in particular because ‘the CE mark is a very good 
way  to  certify  products,  because  they  are  then  perceived  as  comparable  to  those 
manufactured by large companies […]: for certain products, the CE mark became a  de 
facto business standard’. The business push for the CE-marking also applied to companies 
that did not export, and to sectors whose output is tradeable only at limited distances, 
such  as  cement.  The  issue  was  further  investigated  with  EU  and  sectoral  trade 
associations, and the result was largely confirmed, with the exception of specific sectors 
and/or  products  (e.g.  aggregates).  Based  on  this  information,  the  share  of  companies 
which  CE-marked  their  products  only  after  the  introduction  of  the  CPR  is  estimated  at 
20% of the enterprises in Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and the UK.65 

4.  Change  in  the  number,  frequency  of  updates,  and/or  burdensomeness  of  the 
DOP and the CE mark. 13 companies provided information on this cost differential, with 
7 reporting no change between the CPR and the CPD, and 6 indicating changes. However, 
in two cases changes are specific to the European Organisation for Technical Assessment 
(EOTA)  route,  which  is  discussed  more  in  detail  in  Box  2.2  below.  Only  one  company 
quantified the additional burden, amounting to 10%. For these reasons, this differential 
is conservatively costed at € 0 for the typical company.  

Box 2.2 Costs for the EOTA route 

In principle, the costs incurred under the EOTA route can hardly be considered as regulatory costs, since 
ETA is a voluntary alternative for construction products not covered by hEN. Furthermore, these costs only 
concern  a  small  segment  of  companies,  and,  as  a  consequence,  are  unlikely  to  enter  the  ‘typical  cost’ 
estimation  performed  via  the  SCM.  For  this  reason,  the  costs  incurred  under  the  EOTA  route  are  not 
considered  alongside  other  categories  of  costs  in  this  section.  However,  these  costs  do  impact  the 
competiveness of firms in certain sub-sectors, and are significantly higher than the costs incurred under 
the hEN route. Importantly, some companies and associations reported that CE marking has become a ‘de 
facto requirement’, putting these costs into a grey area which is very close to regulatory costs, at least for 
products for which CE marking is in practice necessary to remain in the market.  

In brief, the EOTA allows manufacturers to draw up the Declaration of Performance and affix the CE marking 
on products not covered by applicable hEN. To do so, the manufacturer has to request the ETA to a Technical 
Assessment Body, which can issue the document based on the EAD, as developed by the EOTA. One SME 
reported  that  the  EOTA  procedure,  including  drafting  and  translating  the  ETA,  as  well  as  testing  costs, 
required an investment of €350,000 over 7 years, on top of the labour costs incurred for managing ‘usual’ 
CPD/CPR compliance. ITT alone would cost about €50-60,000. EOTA costs would thus amount to 0.7% of 
the turnover. Moreover, ETA are also more difficult to supply, given their size (e.g. about 100 pages in one 
case), which makes their provision as an electronic document difficult. 

changes related to the DOP and the CE marking. In particular, a UK company operating in the pavement 
sector  spent  about  €270,000  for  the  CE  marking,  including  testing,  Factory  Production  Control  (FPC), 
drawing  of  a  DOP  and  labelling  and  packaging  adjustments;  on  a  different  note,  Irish  notified  bodies 
suggested that the costs for steel product manufacturers are likely to be in the range of €8,000 - €15,000. 
Importantly, these data include the ITT and the AVCP costs. 
65 Based on the information retrieved, the estimate is higher than that in the UK IA. Also in that study, 
data on the number of companies or products already covered by the CPR were not available. The study 
calculated that 86% of the UK market for construction products (in value terms) was potentially subject to 
CE marking, and that the CE mark was already voluntarily adopted for one third of these products.  

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Diachronic analysis. In Exhibit 2.6 below, the total administrative burdens and burden savings 
generated by the CPD/CPR obligation of providing information to customers (including the AOC, 
the DOP and the CE marking) for the period 2004-2014 are reported. The following assumptions 
are made: 

1.  Q: Number of companies. Baseline data are taken from Eurostat SBS, as presented in 
Section  1.2  above.66  The  share  of  large  enterprises  is  assumed  to  amount  to  0.47%, 
based on Eurostat SBS.67 For the period 2004-2012, 20% of the companies in Finland, 
Ireland,  Sweden  and  the  UK  are  assumed  not  to  have  incurred  CE  marking  costs. 
Romanian and Bulgarian companies are considered  from 2008 onwards, Croatian from 
2013 onwards; 

2.  P:  Annual  costs.  As  discussed  in  this  section,  the  cost  estimates  retrieved  from 
companies  refer to the  most recent  situation, i.e. to 2014. Since the  collection of  cost 
data referring to the whole period could not be carried out, information on time trends in 
general,  and  in  particular  on  cost  differentials  between  the  CPR  and  the  CPD,  was 
collected from companies. As already reported, data concur that the workload was quite 
stable across the whole period. The introduction of the CPR brought about changes, in 
particular in the content of the DOP (compared to the AOC), and with regard to the duty 
to supply the DOP to customers. While the former is one-off cost that is discussed further 
below, the additional costs for providing the DOP (€6,000 per year, as estimated above) 
are  considered  from  2013  onwards.  For  previous  years,  in  the  absence  of  major 
regulatory-driven  changes,  costs  are  deflated  through  the  price  index  for  construction 
inputs.68  

Exhibit 2.6   Administrative burdens linked to the obligation of providing information 

to customers (including the DOP and the CE marking): 2004 – 2013, 
one-off costs excluded 

Population 
Micro 
Small 
Medium&Large 
Annual  Burden 
per Enterprise 
Micro 
Small 
Medium&Large 

Total burdens 

Micro 

Small 

Medium&Large 

% Turnover 

2007 

2004 

2006 

2005 

2009 
197,426  209,048  222,138  258,458  258,120  249,030  255,907  256,237  247,711  245,289  245,289 
165,245  174,973  185,930  216,330  216,047  208,437  214,194  214,470  207,334  205,307  205,308 
30,857 
31,329 
24,837 
9,264 
9,125 
7,344 
- 

32,515 
9,613 

30,857 
9,125 

32,235 
9,532 

26,299 
7,776 

27,946 
8,262 

32,472 
9,601 

32,193 
9,520 

31,162 
9,215 

2013 

2014 

2008 

2010 

2011 

2012 

€2,650 

€2,646 

€2,644 

€2,642 

€2,649 

€2,645 

€8,657 
€2,647 
€2,641 
€16,836  €17,429  €18,174  €18,924  €19,735  €19,831  €20,117  €20,716  €21,074  €27,193  €27,296 
€35,717  €36,976  €38,555  €40,147  €41,867  €42,071  €42,677  €43,949  €44,709  €50,961  €51,154 
€ 1.6 
bln 
€ 0.6 
bln 
€ 0.6 
bln 
€ 0.4 
bln 
0.5% 

€ 3.1 
bln 
€ 1.8  
bln 
€ 0.8 
bln 
€ 0.5 
bln 
1.1% 

€ 1.6 
bln 
€ 0.6 
bln 
€ 0.6 
bln 
€ 0.4 
bln 
0.5% 

€ 1.6 
bln 
€ 0.6 
bln 
€ 0.6 
bln 
€ 0.4 
bln 
0.5% 

€ 1.2 
bln 
€ 0.5 
bln 
€ 0.5 
bln 
€ 0.3 
bln 
0.4% 

€ 1.3 
bln 
€ 0.5 
bln 
€ 0.5 
bln 
€ 0.3 
bln 
0.5% 

€ 1.1 
bln 
€ 0.4 
bln 
€ 0.4 
bln 
€ 0.3 
bln 
0.4% 

€ 1.6 
bln 
€ 0.6 
bln 
€ 0.6 
bln 
€ 0.4 
bln 
0.5% 

€ 1.7 
bln 
€ 0.6 
bln 
€ 0.7 
bln 
€ 0.4 
bln 
0.5% 

€ 1.6 
bln 
€ 0.6 
bln 
€ 0.7 
bln 
€ 0.4 
bln 
0.5% 

€ 3.1 
bln 
€ 1.8 
bln 
€ 0.8 
bln 
€ 0.5 
bln 
1.1% 

€2,651 

€8,653 

Exhibit 2.6 does not include one-off costs incurred by companies because of the transition from 
the CPD to the CPR, i.e. in 2013. As discussed above, these costs are estimated at €3,000 for 
small  companies  and  €10,000  for  large  companies,  assuming  that  30%  of  the  companies 
incurred in no one-off costs. One-off costs would amount to €522 mln for the whole sector,69 
annualised over the years 2013 and 2014, as shown in the final quantification in 2.10 below.  

2.7  Administrative cost  savings linked to the possibility of derogating from the DOP 

66 Data on the number of companies in 2014 are not available; hence, 2013 data are used. Data for the 
period 2004-2007 are not consistent due to the NACE revision, hence an extrapolation based on turnover 
and average turnover per company in the period 2008-2013 is used. 
67 See note 51 above. 
68 Index on input prices for materials, source: Eurostat.  
69 More in detail, all large enterprises are assumed to have incurred one-off costs. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

and/or posting the DOP online 

In this section, the administrative cost savings linked to the possibility of derogating from the 
DOP and/or posting the DOP online are discussed. These savings are related to: 

1.  The issuance of the DOP via electronic means (eDOP); 
2.  Art. 5 derogations from the obligation to issue a DOP. 

The RPA study found that art. 5 derogations are only limitedly used, while being more positive 
about  the  use  of  the  eDOP.70  The  former  claim  was  confirmed  by  early  exchanges  with 
stakeholders. For this reason, given the low likelihood of capturing companies actually using art. 
5  derogations,  firms  were  asked  only  about  the  eDOP,  while  trade  associations  and  other 
stakeholders also about art. 5 derogations.  

Provision  of  the  eDOP.  The  issuance  of  the  eDOP  is  regulated  by  art.  7  CPR  and  by  a 
Commission delegated act.71 The RPA study acknowledged a certain use of the eDOP, though 
detailed information is only available for specific MS or sectors. Reportedly, some sectors (e.g. 
steel  products)  are  more  reluctant  to  provide  an  eDOP,72  and  some  customers  only  accept  a 
paper-based DOP. No information on cost savings is available from secondary sources. 

The  most  recent  evidence  from  both  the  firm  interviews  and  the  survey  –  collected  about  15 
months  later  compared  to  RPA  data–  differ  significantly  and  opinions  changed  considerably. 
Among the 13 companies that provided an answer, only 1 did not opt for the eDOP, and 3 firms 
supply  both  the  eDOP  and  the  paper  version;  on  the  contrary,  9  companies  declared  that 
they  provide  only  the  electronic  version.  Survey  data  also  show  that  the  eDOP  is 
largely  used  by  product  manufacturers,  as  claimed  by  more  than  70%  of 
respondents.73  Still,  one  trade  association  indicates  that  ‘[the]  costs  for  conversion  to  fully 
internet-based DOP [are] not affordable for SME’. 

One  possible  reason  for  the  discrepancy  is  the  time  elapsed  between  the  approval  of  the 
delegated act and the current round of data collection. As reported by some associations,  at the 
beginning ‘manufacturers had issues making the DOP available on a website instead of suppling 
paper copies […] due to legal uncertainties and the unavailability of the delegated act’ and  ‘as 
the Delegated [Act was] published a while after the CPR was fully set into force, the industry 
suffered from uncertainties’. 

Concerning the acceptance of the eDOP, 11 firms provided an answer during the interview, all 
reporting the no problem was encountered with their customers. In the words of a trade 
association, ‘customers have no preference as to how DOP are supplied’. As mentioned, however, 
in a few cases customers still want a paper version, but the manufacturer can ‘deliver it via post 
on  an  ad-hoc  basis’,  or  ‘supply  the  distributor  with  an  electronic  version  of  the  DOP,  and  the 
distributor can then print it upon request’. The acceptance of the eDOP is reportedly very high 
also according to the stakeholder survey. 74 The ways the eDOP is supplied include: (i) the upload 
of the eDOP on the company website, in either a public or restricted area; (ii) the upload of the 
eDOP  on  the  different  website;  (iii)  the  outsourcing  of  the  service  to  an  external  provider  – 
including setting up an electronic database available online to customers; and (iv) the shipping 
of physical supports (e.g. CD) to distributors. 

70 RPA Study, at p. 22. 
71 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 157/2014 on the conditions for making a DOP on construction 
products available on a website. 
72 RPA study, pp. 20-21. 
73 The question was phrased as ‘Do construction product manufacturers represented by your association 
resort to electronic supply of the DoP (e.g. via their website)?’, and the answer was ‘to a high extent’ in 
71% of cases. 
74 The question was phrased as ‘Do customers of product manufacturers represented by your association 
accept electronic supply of the DoP instead of the paper version?’, and the answer was ‘to a high extent’ in 
69% of cases. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

The  information  on  the  cost  savings  due  to  eDOP  is  scarce,  mainly  because  very  few  of  the 
companies which were interviewed still rely on the paper version. All interviewees using the 
eDOP considered  it cheaper or much cheaper than the paper version. This holds even 
more true for the suppliers of products which are sold in small boxes/quantities, such as nails, 
because the costs of the paper-based DOP would be higher than product price. Two firms were 
able to quantify savings, with one medium-sized company estimating them at €100,000, and a 
large company estimated at about 50% of the DOP supplying costs. These savings, which are 
already  accounted  for  in  the  figures  presented  in  section  2.6,75  suggest  that  resorting  to  the 
eDOP  provision  offers  very  high  benefits.  However,  quantitative  data  points  are  too  thin  to 
extrapolate results to the entire firm population. If the 50% saving was representative of the 
typical firm, annual savings would amount to €1.4 bln compared to a situation in which the eDOP 
were to be submitted mandatorily as a paper document.76 Further investigation on this issue is 
recommended within the context of the incoming study on the CPR economic impacts.. 

Art. 5 derogations. According to art. 5 CPR, in specific cases products falling within the scope 
of a hEN or an EAD, and thus in principle subject to the obligation to draw up a DOP, can be 
exempted. These products include (i) products individually manufactured or custom-made in a 
non-series process in response to a specific order, and installed in a single identified construction 
work;  (ii)  construction  products  manufactured  on  the  construction  site;  and  (iii)  construction 
products  manufactured  in  a  traditional  manner  or  in  a  manner  appropriate  to  heritage 
conservation.  Importantly,  these  product  categories  may  be  relevant  for  certain  sub-sectors 
(e.g. handmade bricks or stone, special windows), but irrelevant for others (e.g. cement).  

Through  the  survey,  stakeholders  where  first  asked  whether  these  derogations  apply  to 
companies in their sector,77 and 36% of respondents replied that this was not the case. Among 
the 16 respondents for which art. 5 derogations were relevant, most of them (63%) replied that 
they knew of no cases in which these derogations were resorted to; 5 respondents mentioned 
that this derogation is used for products manufactured on the construction site; and only 1 for 
traditionally-manufactured products. Those findings are consistent with the findings of the RPA 
report. 

Stakeholders were also asked about the problems and opportunities arising from the use of art. 
5 derogations. Qualitative replies suggest that art. 5 is not sufficiently clear, as far as both the 
text  and  its  interpretation  by  national  authorities  are  concerned.  The  possible  provision  of  a 
common interpretation by the Commission, e.g. via soft law, is considered useful in addressing 
this shortcoming. 

2.8 Administrative cost savings due to the easier accessibility of information through 
the Product Contact Points for Construction (PCPC) 

The  PCPC  were  introduced  by  the  CPR  to  reduce  the  burdens  for  companies  to 
familiarise  with  construction  product  and  building  legislation  in  other  EU  MS.  In  the 
context of the recent RPA study, a survey was conducted on the activities of the PCPC, providing 
useful  data  to  determine  the  benefits  (administrative  cost  savings)  for  construction  product 
companies and contractors.78 

Based on the Commission official documents, as of January 2015 PCPC were established in all 

75 See note 47 above. 
76 The typical annual costs for supplying the DOP were estimated at €6,000 (see Exhibit 2.3 above); if the 
eDOP generated a 50% savings, the annual costs would amount to €12,000, and the saving to €6,000 per 
company. 
77  The  question  was  phrased  as  ‘Among  the  companies  that  you  represent,  are  you  aware  of  product 
manufacturers using derogations from the duty to draw up a DoP for the following categories of products?’. 
78 Cf. RPA study at p. 36 and ff. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

28 EU Member States.79 Still, the level of awareness among companies is quite low. The RPA 
study found that 57% of the surveyed companies in the construction sector were not aware of 
the  PCPC,  43%  were  aware  of  their  national  PCPC,  and  only  18%  of  the  PCPC  in  other  MS. 
Importantly, 15% of the sampled companies had ever resorted to a service provided by a PCPC, 
and,  interestingly,  most  of  the  requests  were  addressed  to  the  PCPC  of  the  MS  in  which  the 
company was based for queries about national legislation.  

The RPA study provides the number of requests received per year by 12 PCPC, amounting to1770 
in 2014.80 The number of requests is not proportional to the economic size of the economy, or 
to the size of the construction or construction product sectors (e.g., 150 queries are reported 
for Croatia, 140 for Lithuania, while 100 for France and 50 for Spain). Hence, to extrapolate this 
value to the  EU28, an  average number of  yearly request equal to 147.5 per national PCPC is 
assumed. The overall number of requests received by all EU28 PCPC would then total 4,130. 

Once the number of yearly requests is estimated based on RPA data, to calculate total savings 
a set of assumptions is needed on the value of the time and cost saved: 

1.  Requests to  PCPC may  save: (i) internal work, i.e. the time needed to familiarise with 
unknown or uncertain legal provisions, and retrieve information from national and local 
authorities;  and  (ii)  external  costs,  i.e.  when  consultants  are  resorted  to  provide 
information on unknown or uncertain legal provisions; 

2.  Companies  are  likely  to  use  PCPC  for  small-  or  medium-complexity  requests;  for  very 
complex issues, a company is likely to resort to its own internal resources or to external 
consultants in any case. 

Three typical requests are defined based on these assumptions: 

1.  Very simple requests, implying a saving of four person-hours without the involvement of 

external consultants; 

2.  Simple requests, implying a saving of one person-day with external consultants involved 

in 20% of the cases for a fee amounting to €400; 

3.  Medium  requests,  implying  a  saving  of  two  and  a  half  person-days  with  external 

consultants involved in 50% of the cases for a fee amounting to €1,000. 

Three  scenarios  are  then  developed  to  allow  for  a  range  of  likelihood  of  each  category  of 
requests: 

1.  Scenario A: 70% very simple requests; 20% simple requests; 10% medium requests; 
2.  Scenario B: 50% very simple requests; 30% simple requests; 20% medium requests; 
3.  Scenario C: 40% very simple requests; 35% simple requests; 25% medium requests. 

Based on the number of requests as extrapolated from the RPA study, the average hourly salary 
rate  for  a  technician  inclusive  of  overheads  (€23.2,  source:  Eurostat  Earnings  Statistics),  the 
saving per request and the scenarios, the range of administrative cost savings is calculated as 
follows. 

79  European  Commission,  DG  Enterprise  and  Industry,  List  of  Product  Contact  Points  for  Construction 
at: 
(Regulation 
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/4170/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/ native  
80  For some countries, data refer to a typical year  (and  thus may also reflect 2013); where ranges are 
provided,  the  median  value  was  used;  finally,  data  include  both  requests  from  national  and  other  EU 
companies. 

305/2011, 

available 

(EU) 

10), 

Art 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 2.7  Administrative cost savings due to the PCPC 

Requests 

Savings 

Very 
Simple 

Simple  Medium 

Scenario 1 

2891 

826 

413 

Scenario 2 

2065 

1239 

826 

Scenario 3 

1652 

1446 

1032 

Very 
Simple 
€ 
268,285 
€ 
191,632 
€ 
153,306 

Simple  Medium 

€ 
188,724 
€ 
283,087 
€ 
330,382 

€ 
302,316 
€ 
604,632 
€ 
755,424 

Internal 
Labour 
Costs 
€ 
486,745 
€ 
567,231 
€ 
607,432 

External 
Costs 

Total 

€ 
272,580 
€ 
512,120 
€ 
631,680 

€ 759,325 

€ 
1,079,351 
€ 
1,239,112 

The administrative cost savings linked to the  use of the PCPC then  range between € 
760,000 and € 1.2 mln. Since information on the trend of requests to the PCPC is lacking, the 
same level of savings is attributed to both 2013 and 2014. Though based on expert assessment 
rather than primary information, these savings remain quite low if compared to overall costs; 
consequently, even significant variations in the assumptions would not have a large impact on 
the final results. The low magnitude is due to the quite limited number of requests submitted so 
far to the PCPC, and could increase with time, as soon as more companies become aware of this 
opportunity.  

2.9 Substantive costs/cost savings linked to the obligation for manufacturers to put in 
place factory production controls and to have an AVCP performed 

In this section, the costs due to the obligations linked to the AVCP system, including Initial Type 
Testing (ITT) and Factory Production Control (FPC), are assessed. Unlike other costs generated 
by the CPR/CPD, and in line with the European Commission Better Regulation Toolbox,81 these 
costs  are  classified  as  substantive.  The  same  classification  applies  to  the  savings  linked  to 
simplifications in the area of testing and AVCP, discussed below in section 2.10. 

ITT and AVCP procedures vary according to the applicable AVPC system, which is determined by 
Commission secondary  acts.  Exhibit 2.8 below shows the  role of the manufacturer and of the 
notified body, where involved in the AVCP systems.  

Exhibit 2.8  Activities for manufacturers and notified bodies in the various AVCP 

FPC 
Initial FPC 
inspection 
Continuous FPC 
surveillance 
Factory Sample 
Test 
ITT 
Audit testing 

1+ 
Manufacturer 

1 
Manufacturer 

2+ 
Manufacturer 

3 
Manufacturer 

4 
Manufacturer 

Notified Body 

Notified Body 

Notified Body 

Notified Body 

Notified Body 

Notified Body 

Manufacturer 

Manufacturer 

Manufacturer 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Manufacturer 
Notified Body 

Notified Body 
- 

Manufacturer 
- 

Notified Body 
- 

Notified Body 
- 

Source: Construction Product Association 

The tasks whose costs need to be quantified are the following: 

1.  Testing, including both ITT and other testing; 
2.  FPC measures. 

The parameters which need to be determined are the following: 

1.  Number of employees working on testing; 
2.  Frequency of testing: 
3.  Share of ITT and other tests carried out in-house vs. outsourced; 

81 Better Regulation Toolbox, Tool #53. 

45 

 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

4.  Operational and external costs incurred for testing; 
5.  Number of employees working on the FPC; 
6.  Operational costs for the FPC; 

As discussed in Box 2.3 below, the data points to estimate this cost item are extremely variable 
across  the  firm  population,  preventing  the  identification  of  typical  cost  parameters.  However, 
this is of limited relevance to the analysis once the BAU factor is taken into account. Opinions 
on the BAU factor are extremely consistent, as all companies reported that most or all costs 
incurred  for  the  AVCP,  including  initial  testing,  ongoing  testing,  and  other  factory 
production  control  measures,  would  be  incurred  in  any  case  because  of  quality 
management  and  to  provide  information  on  product  performance  to  customers.82  In 
particular: 

1.  Declaring the product performance (even with tools different from the DOP and the CE 

marking) requires some form of initial testing; 

2.  Ensuring  quality  production  requires  ongoing  testing  and  other  quality  management 

processes, that is factory production control, tools and equipment.  

For instance, one firm claimed that ‘performance tests have nothing to do with CPR; [we] would 
do  it  as  part  of  [our]  normal  production  process  and  quality  management’.  Actually,  one 
contractor federation even claimed that ‘trust in AVCP is low in certain countries, so that market 
requirements go beyond what would be needed under the CPR, e.g. as for the intervention of a 
notified body’. To corroborate this assumption, even in countries where the DOP and CE marking 
obligations were not mandatory, companies still carried out testing and quality certification, and 
thus reported few additional costs due to the CPR framework. 

The CPD/CPR mandate specific requirements for the AVCP system, in particular whether certain 
steps (e.g. initial FPC inspection, factory sample test, or audit testing) have to be undertaken. 
However,  firms  reported  that  most  of  the  quality  management  systems  require  similar 
procedures, including the most widespread ones (e.g. ISO 9001), product-specific certifications, 
or country-specific certifications. Indeed, ‘a company that aims at achieving a quality certification 
for its products would perform test similar to those required for the DOP and CE marking, even 
in  the  absence  of  any  mandatory  provision’.  Interestingly,  a  company  uses  the  same  CPR 
procedures  also  for  the  FPC  for  extra-EU  markets.  At  the  same  time,  the  CPD/CPR  requires 
companies  to  resort  to  notified  bodies  for  certain  products  and  certain  steps  of  the  quality 
management process.  However, again, other  quality management systems  require the use  of 
external certifiers; besides, with regard to initial testing, firms, especially SME, may not have 
the necessary laboratories and equipment available in house. Possibly, the legal requirement to 
use  notified  bodies  increases  the  demand  for  such  a  service  in  a  market  where  access  is 
constrained by the accreditation system, thus increasing the price; however, fact-based data to 
disentangle  such  a  price-driver  could  not  be  retrieved.83  Anecdotal  evidence  from  interviews 
seem to point out that, at least in certain MS, the market for notified body’s services is becoming 
more competitive, putting a downward pressure on the price. At the same time, reportedly, in 
certain countries, especially the smallest, the provision of notified body’s services is so limited 
that companies have to go abroad for testing certain products. 

All in all, the Consultants suggest considering the obligation for manufacturers to put in place 
factory production controls and to have an AVCP performed as a BAU-activity, i.e. a BAU factor 
amounting  to  100%.  When  confronted  with  this  hypothesis  in  the  interviews,  most  of  the 
respondents agreed, while some other suggested that some costs should still be considered as 
regulation-driven.  However,  as  discussed  above,  the  elements  to  identify  this  small  share  of 
non-BAU costs are not sufficiently consistent across the firm population to provide a reasonable 
estimate. 

82  This  hypothesis  may  not  be  entirely  true  for  small  operators  in  certain  sub-sectors,  i.e.  those  selling 
simple  products  in  local  markets,  where  past  business  relationships  make  the  provision  of  technical 
information less crucial.  
83 Interviewed firms were surveyed about the ‘unit price’ of tests by a notified bodies. This question was 
considered unfit, because a typical unit price does not exist, as it depends on (i) the type of product; (ii) 
the parameters that need to be tested. Values reported vary from few € to € 80,000. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Box 2.3 Cost parameters for the AVCP 

As anticipated, the data points collected on AVCP costs are company or even factory specific and 
do  not  allow  to  identify  a  typical  parameter  in  most  cases.  Details  on  the  data  collected  are 
provided below. 

Number of employees working on testing. 13 companies were able to provide information 
on  the  number  of  employees  working  on  testing.  The  answers  given  range  from  1,  for  three 
companies when only one technician is responsible for testing operations, to 80, including two 
companies  that  reported  that  all  factory  workers  are  involved  to  some  extent  in  testing 
operations. The value varies significantly based on (i) the sub-sector; (ii) the firm dimension; 
and (iii) the business model (i.e. centralised vs. diffused testing).  

Frequency of testing. The frequency of the ITT depends on how often a new or an updated 
DOP is issued. The frequency of the ITT on a product series varies from once per year to once 
every five years. As for updating the DOP, the parameter changes for products in more mature 
or more innovation-driven markets. However, the total number of the ITT depends not only on 
the frequency of testing, but also on the number of DOP,84 which adds another layer of variability 
to the estimation. The analysis is even more complex for testing other than the ITT, i.e. those 
linked to quality control and/or the FPC. Companies in various markets differ widely as for their 
testing strategies: testing frequency can be twice per week, daily, twice per day, hourly, or for 
each production batch.  

Share of the ITT and the other tests carried out in-house vs. outsourced. For ITT costs, 
the use of external test providers may be mandated by the applicable AVCP system. Indeed, for 
7 companies out of the 13 providing this information, the share of outsourced ITT tests ranges 
between 95% and 100%. However, 4 companies reported that only between 10% and 20% of 
the  ITT  tests  are  outsourced.  For  the  FPC  and  the  other  tests,  most  companies  use  internal 
control equipment or laboratories. 

Operational  and  external  costs  incurred  for  testing.  The  categories  of  costs  reported 
include:  (i)  the  cost  of  the  equipment;  (ii)  the  costs  for  internal  tests;  and  (iii)  the  fees  for 
notified bodies. 12 companies were able to provide a cost estimate of operational and external 
testing, again with a very high variability. The drivers for such a variation are again (i) the sub-
sector; (ii) the firm dimension; and (iii) the requirement to involve the notified bodies.  

Number of employees working on the FPC. 12 companies could provide information on the 
number of employees working on the FPC, with answers ranging from 0.5 to 80, again signalling 
that in certain companies all employees are assigned certain FPC and quality control tasks. As 
in the  case  of  the  employees  working  on  testing,  the  number  of  workers  working  on  the  FPC 
varies widely according to (i) the sub-sector; and (ii) the firm dimension.  

Operational costs for the FPC. The categories of costs mentioned include: (i) the fees for the 
notified bodies certifying the FPC, according to the applicable AVCP system; (ii) the cost of the 
certification  of  the  quality  management  systems;  and  (iii)  the  cost  of  quality  surveillance.  12 
companies were able to provide an estimation of operational costs, with answers ranging from 
€3,000 to €800,000. As in the case of testing costs, the variation is driven by (i) the sub-sector; 
(ii) the firm dimension; and (iii) the requirement to involve the notified bodies.  

84 That is, frequency of ITT times the number of DOPs. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Cost  differential  between  the  CPR  and  the  CPD  linked  to  the  obligation  of  providing 
information to customers (including the DOP and the CE marking) 

To estimate the cost differentials between the CPR and the CPD for this item, interviewees were 
asked whether testing costs or FPC costs changed after the adoption of the CPR. All companies 
reported that neither testing costs nor FPC costs were modified by the introduction of the CPR,85 
e.g.‘[t]esting was going on at the same rate under the CPD and did not change after the CPR; 
the  only  thing  that  really  changed  is  the  paperwork  (DOP).’  As  a  result,  the  Consultants  to 
confidently state that no cost or cost savings was brought about by the CPR with respect to AVCP 
costs. This conclusion is consistent with, and supports the analysis of, (i) the very limited, close 
to zero, impact of the regulatory framework on these quality management procedures; and (ii) 
the  very  limited  uptake,  so  far,  of  certain  simplifications  introduced  by  the  CPR,  discussed  in 
Section 2.10 below. 

2.10  Substantive  cost  savings  due  to  the  simplification  of  the  procedures  for  the 
testing of products and for the AVCP for micro-enterprises 

Under this section, substantive cost savings linked to the simplification of the testing procedures 
and  the  AVCP  for  micro-enterprises  are  discussed,  in  particular:  (i)  test-sharing  and 
cascading;86 (ii) the opportunity for micro-enterprises to use a simplified AVCP;87 and 
(iii) the use of Specific Technical Documentation in place of the AVCP for individually 
manufactured or custom-made products.88 

Based on secondary sources, the uptake of these provisions is considered low. The RPA study 
reports that about 20% of the respondents are aware of any organisation using these provisions 
(which obviously does not correspond to a 20% share of companies using these provisions). In 
some sectors, such as that of certain timber products, provisions currently enshrined in art. 36, 
such as cascading and test-sharing, are reportedly commonly used, because they were allowed 
under the CPD as interpreted by the Guidance paper M, and are included in the applicable hEN.89 

To assess this regulatory effect, questions about the uptake and savings linked to art. 36 to 38 
were introduced into the questionnaire to trade associations and other stakeholders – as done 
for art. 5 derogations. The expected low uptake, as underlined by the previous study and early 
contacts with stakeholders, implied that the chances to obtain information from sampled firms 
might be too low. While in principle art. 36 derogations are relevant for all companies and all 
sectors, respondents were preliminarily asked whether micro-companies represent a significant 
proportion of companies in their sector, and whether custom-made non-series product represent 
a significant output in their sector, to determine the relevance of art. 37 and 38 CPR. The results 
are summarised in Exhibit 2.9 below.  

Exhibit 2.9  Uptake of CPR testing simplifications 

Respondents 
Not relevant 
No uptake 
Limited 
uptake 
Some 
uptake 
High uptake 

Art. 36 
21 
- 
43% 

38% 

19% 

0% 

Art. 37 
22 
45.5% 
45.5% 

9% 

0% 

0% 

Art.38 
21 
67% 
19% 

9% 

5% 

0% 

85 13 respondents for the first item; 12 respondents for the second item. 
86 Art. 36 CPR. 
87 Art. 37 CPR. 
88 Art. 38 CPR.  
89 RPA study, at p. 87. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

The main  and  consistent  result  is  that  ‘no  uptake’  is  the modal  answer  for  all  three 
kinds of simplifications. However, the uptake of art. 36 testing simplifications, including 
test-sharing and cascading, was higher than that estimated by the previous study, as 
57%  of  surveyed  stakeholders  reported  some  uptake  among  their  associates.  More  in  detail, 
several stakeholders pointed out that test-sharing is used in the case of private-labels products: 
the manufacturer not  only sells its product to  the distributor which will then label it under its 
own name, but also shares the test results. Cascading is especially relevant for products which 
are sold as kits of components and then assembled by a downstream player. While most of the 
stakeholders  pointed  out,  qualitatively  speaking,  that  art.  36  simplifications  did  generate 
cost savings, no quantitative estimates could be provided, as no company within our sample 
did make use of this simplification.  

The uptake of art. 37 and 38 simplifications remained very limited, also because only relevant 
to specific sectors or products: 9% and 14% of the respondents were aware of the use of the 
simplified  AVCP  systems  for  micro-enterprises,  or  the  use  of  the  Specific  Technical 
Documentation  rather  than  AVCP  for  non-series  or  custom-made  products,  respectively.  As  a 
result,  art.  37  and  38  are  not  currently  generating  significant  savings.  One  government 
mentioned that ‘these simplifications are of limited importance to SME; what matter most would 
be a definition of when a product is ‘industrial’ and when ‘artisanal’.  

The  possible  reasons  for  the  limited  uptake,  and  thus  impact,  of  these  provisions  were 
investigated  through  the  survey  and  interviews  with  public  authorities  and  stakeholder 
associations. In general, stakeholders pointed out primarily two obstacles: 

1)  On the regulatory side, the lack of legal clarity concerning the implementation of these 
simplifications, including (i) the specification of the simplified procedures in the relevant 
hEN;  (ii)  the  lack  of  Commission  guidance  for  both  companies  and  Member  State 
authorities; (iii) the lack of a clear perception about whether national authorities would 
not challenge simplified testing methods; 

2)  On  the  business  side,  the  reluctance  to  use  simplified  procedures  which  could  be 
interpreted  as  a  ‘reduced’  guarantee  of  performance;  such  a  reluctance  is  particularly 
relevant for SME that have to compete with large manufacturers. 

More  specific  obstacles  concerning  the  use  of  the  different  simplifications  are  discussed  here 
below. 

Further specific reasons concerning art. 36 simplifications:  

 

 

 

the  reluctance  to  share  proprietary  commercial  information  with  competitors  or 
downstream  players  (‘organising  test-cascading  is  a  task  for  trade  associations,  as 
companies would have few incentives to do so’);  
the  risk  for  small  competitors  or  downstream  players  of  stronger  linkages  with  larger 
manufacturers, which could then limit or distort competition, and create forms of lock-in 
and dependency;  
in mature markets, companies that had already carried out the ITT before the publication 
of Guidance Paper M and the introduction of the CPR did not need to resort to test-sharing 
or -cascading, as the product performance had already been established; 

  art.  36.1(b)  of  the  CPR  provides  that  ‘[t]he  manufacturer  may  use  the  test  results 
obtained  by  another  manufacturer  only  after  having  obtained  an  authorisation  of  that 
manufacturer, who remains responsible for the accuracy, reliability and stability of those 
test results.’ Such a provision is fit for situations in which a large manufacturer shares 
test results with other players, but may be difficult to implement when tests are organised 
and then shared by a consortium of manufacturers or a trade association; 

Further specific reason concerning art. 37 simplifications:  

 

the circularity, that is the fact that in sectors where small and micro enterprises are an 
important segment of the market, standards are usually written in such a way that they 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

can be applied by smaller  operators at limited costs; hence, further  simplifications are 
less needed. 

Further specific reason concerning art. 38 simplifications:  

 

the  possible  burdens  linked  to  the  demonstration  of  the  equivalence  of  the  Specific 
Technical  Documentation  (‘embarking  in  a  new  simplified  procedure  may  cause 
uncertainty and be as costly as undertaking the old procedure’);  

2.11 The CPR and sustainability 

Another innovation introduced bt the CPR is Basic Requirement 7,  ‘Sustainable use of natural 
resources’.  Previously,  the  CPD  did  not  cover  the  performance  of  construction  products  with 
respect  to  the  use  and  consumption  of  natural  resources  in  buildings  and  did  not  provide  a 
common  language  and  parameters  to  measure  reuse,  recyclability,  durability,  or  the  use  of 
environmentally compatible raw and secondary materials. Basic Requirement 7 is an enabling 
provision, allowing manufacturers to declare the ‘environmental performance’ of their products 
in the DOP and in the CE marking. 

However, to become operational the provision requires the adoption of the relevant standards, 
so  that  hEN  for  construction  products  also  include  measurement  methodologies  for  the 
environmental  performance.  To  date,  no  hEN  has  reportedly  included  Basic  Requirement  7. 90 
Currently,  part  of  the  industry  is  using  the  standard  EN  1580413  as  a  voluntary  method  to 
provide environmental information to customers and further work is being carried out within CEN 
Technical Committee 350.91 

As  a  result,  the  new  CPR  provision  is  not  yet  producing  any  effect  and  has  not  triggered  an 
improvement in the sustainability of the sector. While this was acknowledged by stakeholders, 
some  of  them  also  pointed  out  that  the  framework,  when  operational,  could  provide  ‘critical 
environmental performance information, which could be used for a better and more sustainable 
construction and operation of the building, and to perform carbon management or environmental 
risk assessment’.  

2.12 Conclusions 

Here below, the costs and cost savings generated by the CPD/CPR are summarised in Exhibit 
2.10.  Concerning  the  population  of  companies  subject  to  the  CPD/CPR,  on  the  one  hand  the 
number risks being overestimated, as the enterprises included within the NACE sector covered 
by the sectoral definition are also likely to include companies with 1 to 4 employees, which are 
unlikely  to  manufacture  products  on  their  own  and  thus  to  comply  with  CPR.  On  the  other, 
however,  the  estimates  do  not  cover  many  other  NACE  sectors,  which  are  not  sufficiently 
homogeneous to be considered as part of the ‘construction product sector’, but which are subject 
to  these  requirements.92  Moreover,  the  estimates  are  likely  to  underrepresent  the  benefits 
arising from art. 36, for which no quantitative estimates could be retrieved or inferred from the 
companies interviewed. At the same time, the estimates are based on the assumption of a ‘100% 
BAU  Factor’  for  AVCP  procedures,  which  may  prove  slightly  over-optimistic,  but  for  which  no 
sufficiently  granular  information  to  disentangle  the  share  of  regulatory  burdens  could  be 
collected.  

90 RPA Study, at p. 134. 
91 CPE Position Paper, at p. 27-28. 
92 E.g. glass and aluminium manufacturers. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 2.10  CPR/CPD: summary of costs (positive values) and cost savings (negative 

values) (€ mln) 

Administrative 
burdens/burden savings 
linked to the obligation of 
providing information to 
customers (including the DOP 
and the CE marking) 
One off-costs linked to 
transition to the CPR 
Administrative cost savings 
linked to the possibility of 
derogating from the DOP and 
posting the DOP online 
Administrative cost savings 
due to the easier accessibility 
of information through the 
PCPC 
Substantive burdens/burden 
savings linked to the 
obligation for manufacturers 
to put in place an AVCP 
system 
Substantive cost savings due 
to the simplification of the 
procedures for the testing of 
products and for the AVCP 
(art. 36) 
Substantive cost savings due 
to the simplification of 
procedures for the testing of 
products and for the AVCP 
(art. 37-38) 

Total 

2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012 

2013 

2014 

€ 
1,117 

€ 
1,208 

€ 
1,318 

€ 
1,573 

€ 
1,614 

€ 
1,563 

€ 
1,621 

€ 
1,655 

€ 1,618  € 3,081 

€ 3,086 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

€ 301 

€ 301 

(-€ 
1,472)* 

(-€ 
1,472)* 

-€ 1 

-€ 1 

€ 0 

€ 0 

€ 0 

€ 0 

€ 0 

€ 0 

€ 0 

€ 0 

€ 0 

€ 0 

€ 0 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

n.a. 

n.a. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

€ 0 

€ 0 

€ 
1,117 

€ 
1,208 
* savings already accounted for in the item above 

€ 
1,614 

€ 
1,318 

€ 
1,573 

€ 
1,563 

€ 
1,621 

€ 
1,655 

€ 
1,618 

€ 3,381 

€ 3,387 

Concerning the attribution of costs and cost savings to the various government tiers, all cost and 
saving items – excluding BAU costs – quantified in this section are of EU origin. This hold even 
more true for the period following the introduction of the CPR: differently from the CPD, the legal 
framework  is  now  based  on  a  Regulation,  without  an  opt-out  clause  for  MS  intending  not  to 
impose CE marking obligations. Importantly, MS authorities and public administrations clearly 
have  an  impact  on  costs,  being  the  enforcement  authorities;  however,  enforcement  practices 
are not relevant to this analysis of regulatory costs.  

Such a conclusion on the attribution of costs and cost savings applies to the current state of the 
art of the regulatory framework for construction products and is. in other words, fact-based. In 
the absence of EU provisions, costs would not ‘disappear’, as national or local rules would replace 
them, as was the case before the adoption of the CPD. As discussed in section 2.3 above, building 
regulations rely on both ‘application rules’ and ‘construction product specifications’, and the latter 
require some form of performance declaration. However, fact-based information on the costs or 
benefits  of  separate  national  regulations  could  not  be  retrieved,  since  the  current  legal 
framework dates back, in its main elements, to the early Nineties. As a result, companies and 
other  stakeholders  have  little  or  no  memories  of  the  previous  situation.93  Importantly, 

93 Unsurprisingly, large multinationals are very glad to have a single EU-wide regulation on construction 
product performance: ‘the CPR is a blessing for pan-European companies […] because harmonisation and 
standardisation  of  testing  and  information  to  be  provided  to  clients  reduce  the  overall  costs  of  quality 
testing (e.g. external laboratories knows already what to do in all MS, information to be provided are similar 
in all MS, it is easier to move products across national borders, company internal procedures and layout of 
internal laboratories can be harmonised thus reducing costs […]).’ However, this is not the case across all 
sectors, firm-sizes and countries. In one MS, it was reported that the CPR framework required substituting 
one standard for a certain product with six new standards, which were hardly fit for immediate use by local 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

considering that, from a counterfactual point of view, CPR costs are fully of EU origin, but not 
fully additional, the estimates presented above are roughly in line with those presented in the 
IA Background Study.  

Finally, benefits due to the additional circulation of goods and services within the Single Market 
are  not  covered  by  the  analysis.  Stakeholders,  including  firms,  construction  product  trade 
associations  and  contractors,  were  asked  whether  the  CPR  is  among  the  main  drivers  when 
buying  construction  products  from  other  EU  Member  States.  Answers  concurred  that  other 
drivers  are  significantly  more  important  in  shaping  the  EU  Single  Market  for  construction 
products. In particular, the tradability of many construction products is low, given the low value-
to-weight ratio. Though some products (e.g.  wall tiles) or some niche specifications do travel 
the  Single  Market,  in  most  cases  transport  costs  offset  any  benefit  from  buying  in  another 
Member State. Even construction companies operating abroad94 largely rely on local suppliers. 
Secondly, in contractors’ purchasing choices, existing business relationships and trust reportedly 
matter more than the declaration of the product performance required under the CPR framework. 
Finally,  the  regulatory  framework  is  too  old  to  retrieve  fact-based  data  and  information  from 
companies about benefits due to the additional use of foreign suppliers after the introduction of 
EU rules in the construction product market. All in all, benefits are likely to be low for most of 
market segments, though positive for the ones whose products have a higher tradability; in any 
case,  even for tradable products,  CPR information cannot be expected to be among the main 
market drivers. 

SME. 
94 Which indeed represents a small share of the total, see Section 5.3 below. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

3. BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES, COSTS, AND COST SAVINGS OF THE PQD 

3.1 Introduction 

In this section, the regulatory effects of the Professional Qualification Directive (PQD) in terms 
of new business opportunities, administrative costs, and cost savings are assessed.95  Before the 
analysis, the main trends generated by the PQD concerning the mobility (stable and temporary) 
of professionals of the construction sector is evaluated.  

The  analysis  relies  on  the  methodology  for  the  estimation  of  the  effects  presented  in  the 
Inception Report.96 The exercise is based on the following sources: 

1.  Primary information obtained through interviews with professionals; 
2.  Primary  information  obtained  through  interviews  with  trade  associations,  public 

authorities and other stakeholders; 

3.  Primary  information  obtained  through  an  e-mail  survey  targeted  at  national 
Chambers of Architects to retrieve cost parameters for carrying out the cost and cost 
savings assessment linked to the recognition process; 

4.  The Regulated Professions Database (RPD)97 published by the European Commission, 
including legal information about whether a profession is regulated and in which MS, and 
the  number  of  successful,  unsuccessful  and  pending  applications  for  establishment  or 
temporary mobility.98  

Box 3.1 Number of professionals and craftsmen included in the RPD 

The  RPD  includes  data  submitted  by  MS,  which  retain  responsibility  for  the  quality,  accuracy  and 
responsiveness  of  the  available  information.  To  make  it  explicit,  the  Commission  has  introduced  a 
disclaimer  in  the  RPD,  stating  that  “[t]he  database  contains  information  on  regulated  professions, 
statistics  on  migrating  professionals,  contact  points  and  competent  authorities,  as  provided  by  EU 
Member States, EEA countries and Switzerland. Each country is responsible for updating information, 
on its regulated professions, competent authorities and statistics.” 

The relevant Commission services have raised doubts regarding the comprehensiveness of the RPD, 
which  may  result  in  an  underestimation  of  cross-border  mobility.  The  Consultants  were  not  in  the 
position to verify the figures included in the RPD for each MS and profession. However, the information 
retrieved from  the  PQD was validated,  where possible, via secondary sources and interviews.  While 
discrepancies may remain between the number of accepted demands and the number of professionals 
and  craftsmen  establishing  abroad  or  providing  temporary  services  cross-border,  the  information 
obtained from other sources suggests that,  whatever the gaps in the database, they are unlikely to 
alter the overall picture of limited cross-border mobility. 

Obviously, the RPD does not account for professionals and craftsmen moving to a MS in which a certain 
profession  or craft is not regulated. However, professionals and craftsmen moving towards these MS 
do not pass through the mechanisms of the PQD, as the recognition of professional qualifications is not 
necessary therein. Hence, the  PQD  can neither be  attributed administrative costs or burdens  falling 
upon these professionals and craftsmen, nor benefits because of their mobility. In brief, professionals 
and craftsmen moving towards MS where a profession or craft is not regulated are not relevant for the 
analysis of the economic effects of the PQD. This also means that the description of the main trends in 
cross-border mobility in the construction sector (reported in Section 3.2 below) does not account for 
the whole number of flows, but only for those that go through the PQD mechanisms.  

95 Cf. Section 1 above for the full list of regulatory effects. 
96  Cf.  Inception  Report  (Revised),  19  October  2015,  at  Section  4,  in  particular  the  sub-sections  on 
substantive and administrative costs. 
97 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/qualifications/regprof/ (last accessed on March, 2016). 
98 Data were retrieved from the PQD in November 2015. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

5.  Other  secondary  sources,  including  the  EU  Impact  Assessment  (IA),99  the  PQD 

Evaluation,100 and the mutual evaluation reports101. 

The PQD aims at facilitating the mobility of professionals and craftsmen and intra-EU trade in 
services    by  ensuring  that  EU  professionals  enjoy  the  freedom  both  of  establishment  and  to 
provide  professional  services  in  another  MS  on  a  temporary  basis.  To  this  purpose,  the  PQD 
establishes different frameworks. For the freedom of establishment, the PQD consolidates three 
recognition regimes: 

1.  The  automatic  recognition  system  based  on  harmonised  minimum  training 

requirements, currently applicable i.a. for architects; 

2.  The  automatic  recognition  system  based  on  professional  experience,  currently 

applicable for certain craft activities; 

3.  The  general  system,  applicable  to  all  professions  not  covered  by  specific  rules  and 
professionals  that  do  not  meet  the  conditions  of  the  other  recognition  systems,  i.a. 
engineers, architects whose title is not included in Annex V to the PQD, and craftsmen 
without sufficient working experience to access the automatic recognition system  
As for temporary service provision (‘temporary mobility’), the PQD prescribes that the host MS 
may  only  require  incoming  professionals  and  craftsmen  a  yearly  declaration  including  details 
concerning  the  insurance  cover,  the  nationality  and  the  professional  qualifications.  When  the 
profession has public health and safety implications and is not subject to automatic recognition, 
the  host  MS  may  also  conduct  a  prior  check  of  these  qualifications.  This  regime  did  not  exist 
before the introduction of the PQD. 

The section is structured as follows:  

  Section 3.2 analyses the main trends in cross-border mobility;  
  Section 3.3 provides an overview of the most mobile construction professions;  
  Section  3.4  quantifies  the  added  value  generated  by  cross-border  mobility  of 

professionals and craftsmen in the construction sector; 

  Section 3.5 quantifies the administrative costs and cost savings linked to the recognition 

process;  

  Section 3.6 concisely concludes. 

3.2 Main Trends in Cross-Border Mobility 

Overall,  under  the  PQD  framework  more  than  31,000  decisions  were  made  between 
2003/2004  and  2014  on  the  mobility  of  construction-related  professionals  and 

99  Commission Staff Working Paper, Impact  Assessment, Accompanying document to the Proposal for a 
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition 
of  professional  qualifications  and  Regulation  on  administrative  cooperation  through  the  Internal  Market 
Information System, SEC(2011)1558. Hereinafter, ‘PQD IA’. 
100  European  Commission  (2011),  Evaluation  of  the  Professional  Qualifications  Directive,  Brussels, 
05.07.2011. Hereinafter ‘Evaluation PQD’. 
101  Directorate  General  for  Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs  E/5  (2015),  Mutual 
evaluation of regulated professions: Overview of the regulatory framework in the business services sector 
by using the example of architects Report based on information transmitted by Member States and on the 
meeting of 30th September 2014. Hereinafter ‘Mutual evaluation – Architects’; and Cf. Directorate General 
for  Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs  E/5  (2015),  Mutual  evaluation  of  regulated 
professions Overview of the regulatory framework in the construction sector by using the example of civil 
engineers Report based on information transmitted by Member States and on the meeting of 30 September 
2014, at §2. Hereinafter, ‘Mutual recognition – Engineers’. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

craftsmen102  towards  EU  countries  where  such  professions  are  regulated.103  The  vast 
majority of these decisions (about 89%) concern the permanent establishment in the host MS, 
while  about  3,500  relate  to  temporary  mobility.104  Construction  professions  represent  a  small 
share of the decisions taken under the PQD, respectively 9% for establishments and 21% for 
temporary mobility. Figures are summarised in Exhibit 3.1 below.  

Exhibit 3.1   Number of construction professionals establishing or temporary moving 

in another MS 

To EU 
Countries  

Establishment 
27,623  
(9% of total PDQ 
mobility) 

Source: RPD 

Temporary Mobility  
3,525  
(21% of total PDQ 
mobility) 

For  construction  professionals  and  craftsmen,  the  geographical  distribution,  in  terms  of 
country of origin and destination, does not have a clear pattern across regimes and professions. 
Temporary mobility tends to concentrate in one or a couple of bilateral flows, usually between 
bordering countries. As for establishments, a significant difference between the distribution of 
crafts, and other professionals, such as architects and engineers, seems to exist. The latter are 
rather  dispersed,  and  their  bilateral  flows  are  in  most  cases  correlated  to  the  population  or 
market  size  of  each  country,  although  with  some  notable  exceptions.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
figures  relating  to  the  establishment  of  craftsmen  are  influenced  by  the  number  of  countries 
having a dedicated regulation in place. For instance, this is the case for masons and bricklayers, 
and painters and decorators, moving virtually only towards Austria and Belgium. 

Exhibit  3.2  below  shows  the  number  of  decisions  for  both  establishments  and  temporary 
mobility, and the share of decisions related to the construction sector  over total decisions. In 
the  period  2003/04  to  2014,  the  number  of  decisions  introduced  by  Member  States  in  the 
database regarding the establishment of professionals within the EU varied between 1,300 and 
4,000, with a peak in 2007, followed by a decline during the subsequent economic crisis. For 
temporary mobility, the provisions became operational only in 2007, and fully so in the following 
years,  due  to  the  progressive  transposition  and  implementation  of  the  PQD.105  Based  on  the 
decisions entered by Member States in the database, the number of construction professionals 
opting  for  temporary  mobility  is  significantly  lower  (several  hundreds  rather  than  several 
thousands applications per year), with a peak in 2009. Over the last years, annual applications 
for temporary mobility stabilised between 300 and 500.  

technician/Heating/Central  heating 

102 25 professions out of the 361 included in the RPD were identified as relevant for the construction sector: 
(i)  air  conditioning 
technician/installer/repairer/Maintenance-
Installation  of  ventilation  equipment;  (ii)  architect;  (iii)  building  contractor;  (iv)  building  engineer;  (v) 
building  insulator/building  insulation;  (vi)  building  site  coordinator;  (vii)  civil  engineer;  (viii)  electrical 
engineer;  (ix)  electrical  equipment/appliances  contractor/repairer/installer;  (x)  electrician  /senior 
electrician/specialised electrician; (xi) engineer; (xii) floor layer; (xiii) gas installer/repairer; (xiv) interior 
designer-architect;  (xv)  joiner/carpenter;  (xvi)  junior  architect;  (xvii)  mason/bricklayer;  (xviii)  master 
builder;  (xix)  painter-decorator;  (xx)  plasterer;  (xxi)  plumber;  (xxii)  roofer/roofing;  (xxiii)  scaffolder; 
(xxiv) technical expert for the quality of construction projects; and (xxv) tiler. 
103 The RPD does not track flows of workers towards countries in which a profession or craft is not regulated. 
Cf. Box 3.1 above. 
104 The Commission notes that the RPD may be incomplete as for temporary mobility figures. Cf. Evaluation 
PQD. 
105 The PQD was fully transposed only in 2010, which is almost three years after the deadline. Ibid. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 3.2   Decisions on mobility  

Establishment  

Temporary Mobility  

Note: Applications for 2003/04 and 2005/2006 were equally split over two years. Source: RPD 

As  shown  in  Exhibit  3.3  below,  the  success  rate  of  the  applications  is  nearly  90%  for 
establishments,  and  over  95%  for  temporary  mobility.  In  both  cases,  the  percentage  is 
comparable  with  the  success  rate  for  the  entire  dataset  for  the  same  period.  Expectedly,  the 
success  rate  is  higher  under  the  automatic  system  (e.g.  architects)  than  the  general  system 
(e.g. engineers). 

Exhibit 3.3   Success rate of decisions 

Establishment 

Temporary Mobility 

Notes: Construction data refer to the top 10 most mobile professions106. Source: RPD 

The over 20,000 decisions issued by host countries in which a craft or professions is regulated 
and which were actually entered in the database were highly concentrated among a handful 
of professions. Architects and civil engineers are among the most mobile professions for both 
establishment  and  temporary  mobility,  accounting  cumulatively  for  more  than  one  fourth  of 
intra-EU movements of construction professionals. The other 5 most mobile professions in the 
sector are crafts, and namely masonry, painting and decoration, carpentry, and scaffolding. The 
most mobile construction professions are analysed more in details below in Exhibit 3.4. 

106 I.e. (i) Architect; (ii) Mason /Bricklayer; (iii) Civil engineer; (iv) Painter-decorator; (v) joiner/carpenter; 
(vi)  Plasterer;  (vii)  Engineer;  (viii)  Master  builder;  (ix)  Tiler;  and  (x)  Electrical  equipment/appliances 
contractor/repairer/installer. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 3.4   The most mobile construction professions 

Establishment 

Temporary Mobility 

3.3 Overview of the key construction professions 

Source: RPD 

Architects  

Architects  are  among  the  professionals  with  the 
highest  mobility  within  the  EU,  for  both  permanent 
establishment and temporary mobility. The profession 
is regulated in 25 EU countries.107 In the 2003/2004 – 
2014  period,  approximately  5,000  decisions  were 
introduced  in  the  database  regarding  the  intra-EU 
movement  of  architects,  of  which  some  4,400 
concerned the establishment in another country, while 
approximately  600  regarded  temporary  mobility.  The 
success  rate  is  very  high  in  both  cases,  with  shares 
well over 95% for the establishment and up to 100% 
for  temporary  mobility  (see  Exhibit  3.5).  The  high 
success  rate  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  architects 
benefit from the automatic system. 

Exhibit 3.5   
Success Rates of Decisions 

Source: RPD 

With  regard  to  establishments,  after  a  peak  in  2007-2008,  the  number  of  decisions  issued 
stabilised at 300-400 per year. Compared to the case of electricians, the flows of architects are 
much more equally distributed among EU MS, with most countries experiencing both an inflow 
and outflow of professionals. 

107 Non-regulating countries are Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. Cf. Mutual evaluation – Architects. As for 
Estonia, the Mutual evaluation reports that architects are not a regulated profession therein, while the RPD 
reports  a  different  findings.  The  analysis  is  basis  on  the  RPD  (thus  including  Estonia  among  regulating 
countries).  

57 

0%20%40%60%80%100%Establishment(Tot: 4,412)Temporary(Tot: 611)SuccessfulUnsuccessfulPending 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 3.6   Establishments of Architects – Selected issues 

Countries with relevant regulations 

Top 10 Flows - Establishments 

 Regulation in place for architects 

Time trend – Establishments 

Masons / Bricklayers and Painters / Decorators 

Source: RPD 

Albeit pertaining to two different categories, these professions can be jointly analysed because 
of  similar  time  and  geographical  patterns.  Overall,  approximately  5,600  decisions  on 
establishments were issued for these professions, with a success  rate amounting to 93%. On 
the  contrary,  the  number  of  decisions  regarding  temporary  mobility  is  negligible  (i.e.  a  few 
dozens of temporary movers per year). After a peak around 2005-2007, the number of decisions 
stabilised at some 400 per year.  

One of the most specific aspects in the mobility of masons, bricklayers, painters, and decorators 
is the geographical pattern of the flows. In particular, over 80% of all decisions concern mobility 
towards only two countries, which are relatively small in terms of both population and market, 
namely Austria and Belgium, with Belgium accounting for more than 70% of the total incoming 
craftsmen. Movements occur between neighbouring countries, as well as between new MS and 
Northern-Western European countries. As shown in Exhibit 3.7, these professions are regulated 
in 8 EU countries (but only 7 for decorators and painters). 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 3.7   Establishments  of  Mason,  Bricklayers,  Painters,  and  Decorators  – 

Selected issues 

Trend in # Decisions  

Countries with relevant regulations 

Top 10 Flowes - Establishments  

Main countries of destination 

Regulation in place for mason/bricklayers 

Regulation in place for painters/decorators 

Civil and Building Engineers 

Source: RPD 

As in the case of architects, civil engineers are among the most mobile construction professions 
for both establishments and temporary mobility. In general, the engineering profession covers 
various disciplines, with the scope of activity varying across MS.108 For reasons of completeness, 
civil engineers are analysed jointly with building engineers, which are less numerous, albeit still 
significant, in terms of decisions regarding establishments.  

Overall, 3,500 decisions were issued between 2003-2004 and 2014, with a success rate of about 

108 Cf. Evaluation PQD, at §4.3.4. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

68%. Notably, the share of positive decisions is significantly lower than in the case of architects, 
as  engineers  do  not  benefit  from  the  automatic  recognition  regime.  The  number  of  decisions 
followed an overall decreasing trend over time, particularly as regards the movement of building 
engineers, which decreased from approximately 150 per  year to none over the decade under 
review.  As  in  the  case  of  architects,  the  geographical  distribution  of  movements  is  rather 
dispersed,  with  some  of  the  main  flows  occurring  between  neighbouring  countries  (e.g.  from 
Portugal  to  Spain,  from  Ireland  to  the  UK,  from  the  Czech  Republic  to  Poland)  or  between 
linguistically similar countries (e.g. from Greece to Cyprus and from Italy to Spain).  

Exhibit 3.8   Establishments of Civil and Building Engineers – Selected issues 

Countries with relevant regulations 

Top 10 Flows - Establishments 

Regulation in place for civil and building 

engineers 

Trend in # Decisions 

Source: RPD 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Electrical equipment/appliances contractor/repairer/installer109 

The profession is regulated in 14 EU countries.110 Between 2003/2004 and 2014, nearly 1,500 
decisions were made regarding the establishment of EU electrical equipment installers in other 
EU countries. Out of the nearly 1,500 decisions, more than 95%  were successful. The craft 
had a high success rate throughout the whole period. The most peculiar aspect of the mobility 
of  electrical  equipment  installers  across  Europe  concerns,  however,  their  geographical 
distribution. Approximately 95% of all decisions concern movements to Belgium alone, and about 
90% of the electrical equipment installers come from five European countries (see Exhibit 3.9 
below). 

Exhibit 3.9   Establishment of Electricians – selected issues  

Countries of Destination 

Countries of Origin 

Main Flows 

Countries with relevant regulation 

Regulation in place for electricians 
and/or electrical equipment/appliances 
contractors/repairers/installers 

109 Hereinafter just ‘electrical equipment installers’. 
110 Note that some countries have different regulations for electricians and electrical equipment/appliances 
contractors/repairers/installers.  The  number  of  regulating  countries  refers  to  either  one  of  the  two 
professions. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Time Trend – Establishment 

3.4 Assessment of Costs and Benefits 

Source: RPD 

New Business Opportunities 

Based  on  the  data  from  the  RPD  shown  above  in  Sections  3.2  and  3.3,  the  new  business 
opportunities created by the PQD for architects, engineers (including both civil and building) and 
craftsmen  (including  electricians,  masons,  bricklayers,  painters,  and  decorators)  are  now 
assessed. 

The  methodology  adopted  is  based  on  the  calculation  of  the  added  value  generated  by 
professionals and craftsmen moving abroad. In particular, the Consultants attempted to highlight 
the  cross-border  added  value,  i.e.  the  supplementary  added  value  generated  by  the 
professionals or craftsmen moving to another country compared to the one that they would have 
generated by remaining in their home MS. To do so, the differential added values per pairs of 
MS  and  per  profession  were  calculated  based  on  the  Eurostat  SBS  Database.  Details  on  the 
treatment of added value data are discussed below in Box 3.1. 

Box 3.2 Calculation of the average added value and differential added value 

Architects. For the period 2008-2013, data on the added value at factor cost and the number of persons 
employed are retrieved from the Eurostat SBS database for the NACE Rev. 2 class 71.11. For 2014, data 
are extrapolated through the minimum square method applied on 2008-2013 data. For the period 2004-
2007, data are available in the NACE Rev 1.1 classification, where architecture, engineering and testing 
services are considered jointly. As retrieving data at a more granular level is impossible, to estimate both 
the value added and the number of persons employed, the share of architecture services over architecture, 
engineering  and  testing  services  in  2012  is  calculated  over  NACE  Rev.  2  data,  assuming  that  the  same 
share applies over the 2004-2007 period.111 

Engineers. For the period 2008-2013, data on the added value at factor cost and the number of persons 
employed are retrieved from the Eurostat SBS database for the NACE Rev. 2 class 71.12. For 2014, data 
are extrapolated through the minimum square method applied on 2008-2013 data. For the period 2004-
2007, data are available in the NACE Rev 1.1 classification, where architecture, engineering and testing 
services are considered jointly. As retrieving data at a more granular level is impossible, to estimate both 
the value added and the number of persons employed, the share of engineering services over architecture, 
engineering  and  testing  services  in  2012  is  calculated  over  NACE  Rev.  2  data,  assuming  that  the  same 
share applies over the 2004-2007 period.112 

111 Cf. also ‘Mutual recognition – Architects’, at §2. 
112 Cf. Mutual recognition – Engineers. 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Masons, bricklayers, electricians, painters, and decorators. For the period 2008-2013, data on the 
added  value  at  factor  coss  and  the  number  of  persons  employed  are  retrieved  from  the  Eurostat  SBS 
database for the NACE Rev. 2 classes 43.21, 43.34, and 43.99. For 2014, data are extrapolated through 
the minimum  square  method applied on  2008-2013 data. For the  period 2004-2007, data are  retrieved 
from the Eurostat SBS database for NACE Rev. 1.1 classes 45.25, 45.31, 45.34, and 45.44. 

Differential added value. Using 2013 national data for the average added value per person employed, a 
28X28 matrix is created to calculate the differential added value for each pair of EU MS,113 with the value 
being  floored  at  0.114  Bilateral  differences  are  then  averaged,  using  as  weight  the  number  of 
professionals/craftsmen originating from each MS (retrieved from the RPD). The number of significant MS 
pairs, i.e. pairs of MS between which a flow of professionals or craftsmen took place over the 2003/04  – 
2014 period are the following: (i) 540 for architects; (ii) 270 for engineers; and (iii) 458 for craftsmen. Due 
to changes in the NACE classification, consistent data series for the added value per profession and MS 
cannot be retrieved. For this reason, it is assumed that the differential added value followed the same trend 
as the average added value, and differential added values are extrapolated based on this parameter over 
the 2004-2014 period. 

This  method  enables  to  identify  the  additional  productivity  generated  by  professionals  and 
craftsmen moving from a MS with a low average added value to a MS with a high average added 
value.  Those  flows  account  for  most  of,  though  not  all,  movements  of  professionals  and 
craftsmen in the construction sector. For both architects and engineers, 60% of the movements 
go  in  this  direction;  for  craftsmen,  the  share  is  significantly  higher,  that  is  86%  of  the 
movements, implying that craftsmen are more likely to move for economic reasons, i.e. look for 
destinations where they can enjoy a higher value added. This also explains why the differential 
added  value  (2013)  for  craftsmen  is  higher,  amounting  to  €  22,166  per  moving  worker, 
compared to €11,626 and €14,739 for architects and engineers respectively.  

However,  the  above-mentioned  analysis  is  not  be  complete,  as  it  does  not  take  into  account 
movements fostered by unemployment. When an unemployed professional or craftsman moves 
and  works  in  another  MS,  the  whole  added  value,  and  not  only  the  differential  one,  is  to  be 
considered as cross-border added value. Unfortunately, data on unemployment rates per sector 
of activity do not exist. For this reason, the Consultants have used the average EU unemployed 
rate in the 28 MS, weighted by the number of professionals and craftsmen in the construction 
sector  moving  from  each  MS.  Data  series  are  reported  in  Exhibit  3.10  below.  The  weighed 
unemployment rates for craftsmen are significantly higher than for architects or professionals, 
signalling that MS with high unemployment rates represent the bulk of MS from which craftsmen 
migrate. 

Exhibit 3.10  Employment 

rates  weighed 

for  moving  professionals/craftsmen 

originating from each MS 

2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014 
9.3%  9.0%  8.2%  7.2%  7.0%  9.0%  9.6%  9.7%  10.5%  10.9%  10.2% 
Total 
9.0%  8.9%  8.2%  7.2%  7.0%  8.6%  9.1%  9.1%  10.1%  10.5%  10.0% 
Architects 
6.7%  6.4%  5.9%  5.3%  5.4%  7.4%  8.3%  8.8%  9.9%  10.2%  9.5% 
Engineers 
Craftsmen  18.7%  17.6%  14.6%  11.0%  9.0%  10.8%  12.3%  12.3%  12.8%  13.3%  12.0% 
Source: RPD and Eurostat 

113 No data available for Croatia. For the Czech republic, data are calculated as the average of the added 
value  for  Hungary,  Poland  and  Slovakia;  for  Estonia,  the  added  value  for  architects  refers  to  2011,  for 
engineers to 2012; for Ireland, the added value for architects refers to 2012, for engineers and craftsmen 
to 2011; for Malta, the added value for architects and craftsmen refers to 2010, for engineers to 2009. 
114 Where the differential was negative, i.e. the professional or craftsman was moving from MS with a high 
added value to a MS with a low added value, the differential added value was considered to be 0. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

In conclusion, the cross-border added value is calculated as follows: 

1.  The  full  added  value  generated  by  the  share  of  moving  professionals  and  craftsmen 

corresponding to the unemployment rate; 

2.  The  differential  added  value  generated  by  the  rest  of  moving  professionals  (i.e.  the 

complementary value of the unemployment rate).  

Once the average added value per person employed is calculated for the three professions, the 
following assumptions are made to calculate the cross-border added value: 

1.  For  establishment,  professionals  and  craftsmen  established  abroad  in  each  year  are 
assumed  to  remain  abroad  for  the  whole  period.  For  instance,  professionals  and 
craftsmen  established  in  2004  create  mobility  added  value  for  11  years,  while 
professionals and craftsmen established in 2010 create mobility added value for 5 years; 
2.  For  temporary  mobility,  professionals  and  craftsmen  operating  abroad  are  assumed  to 

create mobility added value for one year. 

The assumptions made may have an impact on the robustness of the results. For example, these 
values  may  be  overestimated  if  professionals and  craftsmen  established  abroad  return  to  the 
country of origin after a certain number of years (a period shorter than the one in scope of the 
analysis), or if temporary mobility concerns projects shorter than one year. At  the same time, 
the values may be underestimated if professionals and craftsmen moving abroad generate an 
added  value  above  the  sector  average  (but  no  evidence  could  be  found  in  this  respect),  or  if 
temporary mobility concerns projects longer than one year. However, given the marginal share 
of cross-border added value over the sectoral added value, any refinement is unlikely to generate 
a significant effect on total results. 

The added value generated by professionals and craftsmen moving abroad is then multiplied by 
the  number  of  successful  establishments  cumulated  over  the  period  2004-2014  given  the 
assumption  of  non-return,  and  the  number  of  successful  demands  for  temporary  mobility. 
Results are shown in Exhibit 3.11. The impact of the mobility of professionals and craftsmen, in 
any case, remains low, amounting in 2014 to 0.04% of the value added for engineering services, 
0.41% for the four crafts considered, and, 0.29% for architects. 

Exhibit 3.11  Mobility Added Value in the period in scope of the Assignment 

Mobility 
Added  Value 
(€mln) 
% 
over 
Sector  Added 
Value  
Mobility 
Added  Value 
(€mln) 
% 
over 
Sector  Added 
Value  
Mobility 
Added Value 
(€mln) 
% over 
Sector Added 
Value 

Architects 

Engineers 

Masons, 
bricklayers, 
electricians, 
painters, 
and 
decorators 

2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014 

0.08 

4.15 

8.16 

21.95  39.83  43.49  50.20  53.23  60.57  64.57  60.35 

0.00%  0.02%  0.04%  0.10%  0.15%  0.19%  0.22%  0.24%  0.27%  0.29%  0.29% 

2.59 

6.82  10.86  14.70  17.62  21.76  27.08  31.87  37.79  46.41  41.59 

0.00%  0.01%  0.01%  0.01%  0.02%  0.02%  0.03%  0.03%  0.03%  0.04%  0.04% 

5.47  21.12  37.82  104.55  166.21  182.01  219.45  279.78  338.08  393.81  472.02 

0.01%  0.02%  0.03%  0.08%  0.12%  0.15%  0.18%  0.23%  0.28%  0.34%  0.41% 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

3.5 Administrative costs and savings of mobility 

To assess the costs and cost savings of professionals moving abroad, data were retrieved from 
professional  bodies  members  of  the  Architects’  Council  of  Europe  through  a  written  survey 
administered via e-mail, with the support of the Council itself. As for the profession, architects 
were selected because they are the most mobile profession in the construction sector, and may 
undergo both the automatic and the general system (depending on whether the academic title 
is included in Annex V.7 to the PQD). Ten professional bodies replied to the survey. 

The information retrieved from the various systems is the following: 

1.  Automatic  system.  On  average,  professional  bodies  require  3.6  documents  per 
application (median value: 3).  Of these, on average 1  document  shall be presented in 
original, and 1.5 documents shall be translated by the applicant (in most cases, a certified 
or  sworn  translation  is  required).  The  complexity  of  the  documents  may  vary,  from  a 
copy of the applicant’s ID, to a certified translation of university degrees or the proof of 
professional  qualifications  in  the  home  MS.  Fees  amount  on  average  to  €103  (median 
value: €133), and the average lead time is estimated to be about 36 days; 

2.  General system. On average, professional bodies require 4.1 documents per application 
(median value: 5). Of these, on average 1 document shall be presented in original, and 
1.8 documents shall be translated by the applicant (in most cases, a certified or sworn 
translation is required). The complexity of the documents may vary, from a copy of the 
applicant’s ID, to a certified translation of university degrees or the proof of professional 
qualifications in the home MS. Fees amount on average to €103 (median value: €133), 
and the average lead time is estimated to be about 45 days; 

3.  Temporary  mobility.  On  average,  professional  bodies  require  3.7  documents  per 
application (median value: 4).  Of these, on average 1 document  shall be presented in 
original, and 1.7 documents shall be translated by the applicant (in most cases, a certified 
or sworn translation is required). The type of documents is similar to those required for 
the establishment regimes. Fees amount on average to €20 (median value: €0). 

Based on these data, cost parameters are estimated as follows: 

1.  Automatic system. The familiarisation with the information obligation is estimated to 
require 1 person/day. The production of documents is estimated to require 2 hours per 
document,  including  retrieving  the  necessary  data,  filling  in  forms,  and  preparing  the 
document,  hence  7.2  hours  in  total.  For  translated  documents,  the  unitary  cost  is 
estimated at €100 (based on market values), for a total cost amounting to €150. For both 
original documents and certified/sworn translations, tax stamps and costs of reproduction 
are estimated at €100. Fees, based on average values, are estimated at €103.  

2.  General  system.  The  familiarisation  with  the  information  obligation  is  estimated  to 
require 2 person/days, because of the higher complexity of the system. The production 
of  documents  is  estimated  to  require  2  hours  per  document,  including  retrieving  the 
necessary data, filling in forms, and preparing the document, hence 8.2 hours in total. 
For  translated  documents,  the  unitary  cost  is  estimated  at  €100  (based  on  market 
values),  for  a  total  cost  amounting  to  €180.  For  both  original  documents  and 
certified/sworn translations, tax stamps and costs of reproduction are estimated at €120. 
Fees, based on average values, are estimated at €103. 

3.  Temporary mobility. The familiarisation with the information obligation is estimated to 
require 1 person/day. The production of documents is estimated to require 2 hours per 
document,  including  retrieving  the  necessary  data,  filling  in  forms,  and  preparing  the 
document,  hence  7.4  hours  in  total.  For  translated  documents,  the  unitary  cost  is 
estimated at €100 (based on market values), for a total cost of €170. For both original 
documents  and  certified/sworn  translations,  tax  stamps  and  costs  of  reproduction  are 
estimated at €100. Fees, based on average values, are estimated at €20. 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

To monetize the time spent to apply, the average hourly salary inclusive of overheads of € 16.90 
(source:  Eurostat)  is  used.115  The  costs  for  compensation  measures  or  aptitude  tests  are  not 
considered,  because  they  depend  on  the  demand  itself,  rather  than  being  attributable  to  the 
PQD  framework.  The  costs  are  calculated  over  all  accepted  demands,  distinguishing  between 
those applying for establishment under the general or the automatic system, and those applying 
for temporary mobility. 

Here  below  in  Exhibit  3.12,  the  administrative  costs  for  the  most  significant  construction 
professions and crafts are summarised. Estimates show that the costs over the 2004-2014 period 
amount approximately to € 18 mln, i.e. a fraction of the estimated cross-border mobility added 
value.  

Exhibit 3.12  Administrative costs linked to mobility of professionals (€ ‘000) 

2004  2005  2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

Total 

Architects 

€ 5 

€ 194  € 194 

€ 612 

€ 611 

€ 307 

€ 267 

€ 248 

€ 269 

€ 221 

Engineers  € 144  € 217  € 217 

€ 163 

€ 112 

€ 242 

€ 200 

€ 207 

€ 232 

€ 279 

€ 40 

€ 36 

€ 2,968 

€ 2,047 

Craftsmen  € 162  € 489  € 489  € 1,609  € 1,249  € 1,213  € 1,084  € 1,618  € 1,814  € 1,767  € 1,252 

€ 12,746 

Total 

€ 310  € 900  € 900  € 2,384  € 1,971  € 1,762  € 1,551  € 2,073  € 2,315  € 2,266  € 1,328  € 17,760 

€ 3,000

€ 2,500

€ 2,000

€ 1,500

€ 1,000

€ 500

€ 0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Here below, the administrative cost savings linked to the introduction of the PQD are estimated. 
Importantly,  those  cost  savings  should  not  be  subtracted  from  the  costs  described  above,  as 
they  represent  an  estimate  of  the  positive  effect  brought  about  by  the  consolidation  of  the 
system and the introduction of the temporary mobility regime. In simpler words, those costs are 
costs saved because of the simplification effect of the PQD. Cost savings are more difficult to 
determine than the actual costs for two reasons:  

1.  For the freedom of establishment, the PQD rationalised and consolidated the pre-existing 
groups  of  acts  on  the  mobility  of  professional  and  craftsmen,  also  rationalizing  and 
harmonising the existing regimes for the establishing in another MS, but not substantially 
altering the administrative steps and requirements, which are in any case set by national 
legislation, administrative practices and professional bodies.116 Interviewed professionals 
signalled that in the recent years the recognition of professional qualifications turned out 
to  be  simpler,  e.g.  because  contact  with  local  professional  bodies  are  made  easier, 
barriers which de facto prevented or restricted movement were removed, and, in general, 
local  professional  bodies  gained  experience  in  managing  the  process.  In  particular, 
professionals reported that no problem was encountered concerning the requirement to 
establish a permanent structure in the host country, the obligation to restructure or to 
change the ownership structure, the use of equivalent documentation issued in the home 

115  This  average  value  is  considered  as  representative  across  the  very  diverse  professions  and  crafts 
covered,  also  because  professionals  may  delegate  the  tasks  to  an  employee  (e.g.  an  administrative 
assistant). 
116 Cf. Evaluation PQD, at § 2.2. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

MS, and the use of their own equipment. Differently, issues still persists concerning the 
mutual  recognition  of  insurance  requirements,  and  the  need  to  duplicate  procedural 
steps, formalities or controls already undertaken in the home MS. 

2.  Most of the benefits generated by the PQD concern the abatement of regulatory barriers, 
that  is  the  possibility  to  move  across  the  EU,  rather  than  administrative  cost  savings; 
hence, they are subsumed within the cross-border added value estimated in Section 3.4 
above.  

3.  On  the  contrary,  savings  concerning  the  temporary  mobility  regimes  are  easier  to 
calculate, since prior to the PQD, temporary movers had to undergo the establishment 
procedure.117 However, certain stakeholders mentioned that for professions covered by 
the automatic recognition, the high rate of success of this procedure makes establishment 
even more convenient than temporary mobility. 

Based on these considerations, savings parameters are estimated as follows: 

1.  Automatic system. The professional/craftsman saves 0.5 person/days for familiarizing 
with  the  Information  Obligation  and  0.5  person/days  in  contacts  with  the  public 
administration; furthermore, he/she saves €100 of out-of-pocket costs linked to a lower 
number of documents, including production of originals and certified/sworn translations; 
2.  General system. The professional/craftsman saves 1 person/days for familiarizing with 
the Information Obligation and 0.5 person/days in contacts with the public administration 
furthermore,  he/she  saves  €150  of  out-of-pocket  costs  linked  to  a  lower  number  of 
documents, including production of originals and certified/sworn translations; 

3.  Temporary  Mobility.  Architects  and  craftsmen  save  the  difference  between  the 
automatic system and the temporary application, that is about €80 of out-of-pocket costs 
and €83 of fees. Engineers save the difference between the costs for the general system 
and the temporary application, that is about 1 person/days €130 of out-of-pocket costs 
and €83 of fees. 

To monetise working time, the average hourly salary inclusive of overheads of € 16.90 (source: 
Eurostat) is used. 

Here  below  in  Exhibit  3.13,  administrative  costs  and  cost  savings  for  the  most  significant 
professions  and  crafts  are  summarised.  Data  are  provided  for  the  period  2008-2014,  i.e. 
following the date of transposition of the PQD. 

Exhibit 3.13 – Administrative cost savings linked to mobility of professionals (€ ‘000) 

2008 

2009 

2010  2011  2012 

2013 

2014 

Total 

Architects  € 236 

€ 117 

€ 102 

€ 94 

€ 102 

€ 85 

Engineers 

€ 49 

€ 109 

€ 99 

€ 108  € 116 

€ 159 

€ 15 

€ 23 

€ 750 

€ 663 

Craftsmen  € 481 

€ 510 

€ 457  € 693  € 778 

€ 756 

€ 491 

€ 4,166 

Total 

€ 765  € 736  € 658  € 895  € 996  € 1,000  € 529  € 5,579 

€ 1,200

€ 1,000

€ 800

€ 600

€ 400

€ 200

€ 0

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

117 Or exercise the freedom to provide services based on the relevant Treaty articles.  

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

3.6 Conclusions  

Based  on  the  quantification  of  costs  and  benefits  described  in  the  previous  sections,  the 
magnitude of the regulatory effects created by the PQD on the construction sector turns out to 
be small and unlikely to generate more than 0.5% of the sectoral added value for the categories 
concerned.118 The limited effects are mainly due to the number of construction professionals and 
craftsmen  going  abroad  for  permanent  establishment  or  temporary  mobility  through  the  PQD 
mechanisms, which is very low compared to the size of the sector.  

Interviews with stakeholders showed clearly that most operators work abroad jointly with a local 
partner. Operators choose so for reasons of regulatory compliance, as the local partner is much 
better  versed  with  local  building  requirements  and  is  already  in  line  with  qualification 
requirements, as well as for market reasons, because local partners have the specific knowledge 
of  demand  conditions  and  customer  relationships.  Construction  professions  and  crafts  are 
considered  by  stakeholders  as  mostly  local  activities,  especially  since  infrastructure  and  civil 
engineering works are excluded from the scope of this Assignment. Box 3.2 below discusses the 
mobility of architects. 

Box 3.3 Mobility of architects 

Architects  are  the most mobile construction professions within the EU. However, in 2014, only 2.3% of 
architects worked or resided in a country different from the one in which they are mainly established, down 
from 7% in 2008. The fall, however, is not related to regulatory barriers to establish abroad, including the 
PQD,  whose  provisions  for  architects  were  largely  left  unchanged  in  this  period  –  but  to  market 
developments. 

Even considering architects who worked in whatever form – thus including cases not covered by the PQD 
– in another European country in the last 12 months, mobile architects only account for 5% of the sector. 
Only  in  small  countries  (e.g.  Luxembourg,  Slovenia,  or  Estonia),  or  in  medium-to-small  countries  with 
larger neighbours speaking the same language (e.g. Austria, Belgium, or Ireland), the share is equal to or 
higher than 10%. 

Source: Architects Council of Europe (2015), The Architectural Profession in Europe 2014 

In  the  few  cases  in  which  going  abroad  is  ‘worth  the  buck’,  regulatory  requirements  on 
professional qualifications are complied with through limited efforts and do not represent a major 
barrier.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  opinions  of  the  professionals  interviewed,  as  a  large  share 
indicated  that  the  regulatory  simplifications  are  not  a  very  important  issue  in  the  decision  to 
operate abroad, and that the general assessment of the opportunities for cross-border mobility 
is positive or very positive. This consideration is largely shared by most professional associations. 
The  situation  is  different  for  professionals  and  craftsmen  covered  by  the  general  system,  for 
which  a  more  burdensome  application  and  a  lower  rate  of  success  reportedly  still  prevent  a 
higher mobility. However, for certain professionals, attempts were made in the past to establish 
a  database  of  professions  and  educational  titles  across  MS,  but  the  fragmented  regulatory 
landscape, the diversified competences and the professions involved are so different across MS 
that the attempts did not succeed. 

In  a  nutshell,  reducing  regulatory  barriers  in  this  field  would  make  the  life  easier  and  reduce 
costs  for  professionals  moving  abroad;  at  the  same  time,  whether  a  reduction  would  have  a 
noticeable impact on cross-border activities is unclear. In this regard, a special case should be 
mentioned,  that  is  operators  living  in  border  regions,  who    are  more  likely  to  provide  cross-
border services, and hence are more largely impacted, in terms of both costs and benefits, by 

118  This  estimate  relies  on  the  quality  and  comprehensiveness  of  data  included  in  the  RPD  database. 
However, given the estimated limited magnitude, large variation of data quality would not generate large 
impacts, when compared to the total sectoral added value. 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

the regulatory framework, including the PQD.119 

The situation is more nuanced for craftsmen. Albeit the numbers extracted from the RPD are as 
low  as,  if  not  lower  than,  for  professionals,  some  national  trade  associations  mentioned  an 
increasing inflow  of  foreign  workers  in  sub-sectors  characterised  by  lower  skills,  more  limited 
capitals, and higher work intensity (e.g. masons, plasterers, tilers, painters). These flows are 
not always captured by the database, not tracking craftsmen moving towards countries where a 
profession is not regulated or moving as employees (also of temporary agencies). At the same 
time, the impact of PQD on the overall work flows of craftsmen can hardly be disentangled from 
the impact of the SD, the Posting of Workers Directive, and irregular jobs. 

119 Professions and craftsmen in border regions may also be covered by bilateral cross-border employment 
agreements between MS. 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

4.  EFFECTS  OF  THE  SERVICES  DIRECTIVE:  INTERNAL  SIMPLIFICATIONS, 
CROSS-BORDER ACTIVITIES AND INWARD FLOWS 

4.1 Introduction 

In this section, the regulatory effects of the Services Directive (SD) are assessed.120 As the 
SD  aims  at  establishing  ‘general  provisions  facilitating  the  exercise  of  the  freedom  of 
establishment for service providers and the free movement of  services’, its effects fall, in the 
first place, on companies operating cross-border. However, the SD also has an effect on within-
border operators, in terms of simplification of the regulatory framework. Furthermore, the SD 
also  produces  indirect  effects  on  companies  operating  locally,  due  to  the  possible  increase  in 
competition caused by the facilitation of cross-border establishment and provision of services. 

Hence, the analysis is structured over three main blocks: 

  Section 4.2 presents the effects of simplifications introduced by the SD for construction 

companies; 

  Section 4.3 explores the effects of the SD on companies operating cross-border, via 

both the freedom of establishment and the free movement of services; 

  Section  4.4  presents  the  indirect  impacts  of  cross-border  liberalisation  on 

construction companies operating locally. 

  Section 4.5 concisely concludes. 

Issues related to the  recognition of professional qualifications and  more generally with cross-
border activities of professionals are dealt in section 3 above. However, professionals are also 
covered in section 4.2, where simplification effects on purely internal situations are discussed.121  

The  analysis  relies  on  the  methodology  for  the  estimation  of  the  effects  presented  in  the 
Inception Report122and on the following sources: 

1.  Primary information obtained through interviews with construction companies; 
2.  Primary  information  obtained  through  interviews  with  trade  associations,  public 

authorities and other stakeholders; 

3.  Secondary sources, including the Commission working paper on mutual evaluation of 
the SD,123 the performance checks on the construction sector,124 the recent Ecorys study 
on the impacts of the SD on the construction sector,125 and the study on the cost of non-
Europe and the untapped potential of the single Market126. 

4.2 The Services Directive and Internal Simplification for Construction Companies. 

The  SD  includes  provisions  affecting  the  regulatory  framework  of  certain  service  activities, 
including construction services.127 While some articles and paragraphs solely target the cross-
border service provision, the SD also imposes certain requirements on MS which benefit 
local operators. In particular, MS are required to: 

120 Cf. Section 1 above for the full list of regulatory effects. 
121 Obviously, construction product manufacturers, which are not covered by the SD, are not dealt with in 
this Section. 
122  Cf.  Inception  Report  (Revised),  19  October  2015,  at  Section  4,  in  particular  the  sub-sections  on 
substantive and administrative costs. 
123  Commission  Staff  Working  Paper  On  the  process  of  mutual  evaluation  of  the  Services  Directive, 
accompanying document to the Communication from the Commission, Towards a better functioning Single 
Market for services – building on the results of the mutual evaluation process of the Services Directive, 
SEC(2011)102, 27.1.2011. Hereinafter, ‘Mutual Evaluation’. 
124 Performance Checks, State of Play of the Internal Market in the Construction Sector, Background 
Note, Expert Group Meeting, 22nd March 2012. Hereinafter, ‘Performance Check’. 
125  Ecorys  (2015),  Simplification  and  mutual  recognition  in  the  construction  sector  under  the  Services 
Directive, Final Report for DG MARKT. Herinafter, ‘Ecorys Study’. 
126 PWC and London Economics (2013), Study on ‘The cost of non-Europe: the untapped potential of the 
European Single Market’, Final Report for the European Commission. Hereinafter, ‘PWC Report’. 
127 Explicitly mentioned at Recital 33. 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

1.  examine,  and  where  necessary,  simplify  procedures  and  formalities  applicable  to  the 

access to and exercise of a service activity (art. 5);  

2.  create  a  Point  of  Single  Contact  (PSC)  for  providers  to  complete  procedures  and 

formalities needed to access or exercise their service activity (art. 6 and 7); 

3.  introduce e-government solutions for procedures and formalities related to the access to 

and exercise of a service activity (art. 8); 

4.  remove authorisation schemes for access to or exercise  of a service  activity which are 
discriminatory, unjustified or non-proportional. In particular, MS are required to review 
requirements which could be arbitrary and dispositions on the duration of authorisations. 
Furthermore, the SD imposes to prevent unduly complex procedures, and to charge to 
service providers fees which are proportional to the costs borne by the public authority, 
as well as to make tacit approval (‘silent is consent’) the rule for granting authorisations, 
rather than the exception (art. 9-13);  

5.  remove certain requirements to which access to or exercise of a service activity may be 
subject,  such  as  preliminary  case-by-case  economic  testing  or  the  involvement  of 
competing operators in the procedure (art. 14); 

6.  assess,  and  remove  if  found  discriminatory,  unnecessary  or  non-proportional,  certain 
requirements to which access to or exercise of a service activity may be subject, such as 
quantitative  or 
requirements,  shareholding 
requirements, reserve of activities, limitation on the number of establishments in the MS 
territory, norms on the minimum number of employees, fixed tariffs, or service bundling 
requirements (art. 15); 

restrictions, 

territorial 

legal 

form 

7.  allow  multidisciplinary  activities,  except  for  justified  cases  concerning  regulated 

professions and accreditation and testing activities (art. 25).128 

The applicability of the SD to within-border situations, i.e. to construction companies operating 
within  their  home  MS,  is  not  obvious  from  a  legal  point  of  view.  The  matter  was  recently 
discussed before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the joined cases C-340/14 
and C-341/14.129 The referring Court demanded the CJEU whether certain provisions of the SD 
could be applied in purely internal situations. The Advocate General, in his opinion, suggested 
the Court to answer affirmatively this question and thus declare the SD applicable even when a 
cross-border element is missing.130 However, the Court did not clarify the applicability of the SD, 
considering that an element of cross-border service provision was present in both cases, at least 
potentially.131 While the remaining part of this section does not presuppose de iure that the SD 
is applicable to purely internal situations, the assessment is based on the de facto consideration 
that  it  would  be  impossible,  if  not  for  political  reasons,  that  procedures,  formalities  and 
requirements  governing  access  to  and  exercise  of  service  activities  are  simplified  only  for 
providers established in another MS, thus ‘discriminating’ home providers. E.g., the PSC can also 
be  consulted,  or  e-government  solutions,  where  available,  can  be  exploited  also  by  national 
operators.  Given  the  relatively  low  share  of  construction  companies  providing  cross-border 
services,132 most probably the bulk of the simplification benefits due to the SD falls on purely 
internal operators rather than companies operating cross-border. 

In addition to the application of the SD to purely internal situations, another legal conundrum 
concerns what regulation of construction activities falls under the SD, that is the applicability of 
the  SD  ratione  materiae.  Recital  9  of  the  SD  states  that  ‘[t]his  Directive  applies  only  to 
requirements which affect the access to, or the exercise of, a service activity. Therefore, it does 
not apply to requirements, such as road traffic rules, rules concerning the development or use 
of land, town and country planning, building […] which do not specifically regulate or specifically 

128 Other SD simplifications are relevant for local operators, such as the generalization of alternative dispute 
resolution  systems.  However,  in  both  primary  and  secondary  sources,  the  Consultants  could  find  no 
evidence of such issues being relevant for construction companies. 
129  Joined  cases  C-340/14  and  C-341/14,  R.  L.  Trijber  v  College  van  burgemeester  en  wethouders  van 
Amsterdam and J. Harmsen v Burgemeester van Amsterdam. 
130 Joined Cases C-340/14 and C-341/14, Opinion of the Advocate General Maciej Szpunar, at §44 et ff. 
131 Joined Cases C-340/14 and C-341/14, Judgment of the Court, at §40-42. 
132 Discussed below in Section 5.3. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

affect the service activity but have to be respected by providers in the course of carrying out 
their economic activity in the same way as by individuals acting in their private capacity.’ Product 
regulation, that is the regulation of the characteristics of a building, would also fall outside its 
scope. While a grey area remains, because building regulations largely impact both the service 
activity and the product delivered, the SD is generally assumed to apply to all rules affecting 
construction companies in their operations before building completion (e.g. building permits), 
but not to rules affecting buildings once completed, and zoning and planning requirements, as 
excluded by Recital 9.  

In  several  MS,  the  SD  was  considered  as  generating  a  positive  effect  in  terms  of 
simplification.  One  stakeholder  association  commented  that  ‘the  SD  had  positive  effects  at 
national  level,  e.g.  for  the  simplification  of  certain  legal  requirements  applicable  to  the 
construction  activity’.  In  Italy,  several  procedures  for  the  construction  sector  were  simplified 
following the implementation of the SD, including the exclusion of certain construction activities 
from permit schemes, the introduction of lighter procedures for building permits, the substitution 
of ex ante with ex post checks, the introduction of e-government procedures, the approval of a 
nation-wide building code, and the extension of the ‘silent is consent’ rule. The Mutual Evaluation 
exercise  lists  other  simplifications  relevant  to  construction  operators,  such  as  the  abolition  of 
requirements on the minimum number of employees for certain construction services in Spain.133 

Little evidences could be found concerning the simplification of general authorisation schemes 
regulating market access for construction companies. These general authorisations do not seem 
to  be  imposed  in  all  MS.  The  Ecorys  study  could  find  only  6  countries  in  which  general 
authorisation schemes for construction operators are in force (out of the 14 MS covered134), and 
some of them (e.g. in Denmark) only apply to specific market segments. 135 Simplifications of 
these general authorisations under the Services Directive has been minimal or, in most Member 
States,  non-existent.136  Simplifications  of  general  schemes  applicable  to  specific  construction 
sector segments were reported in the context of the Mutual Evaluation exercise, e.g. in Spain 
for lifting equipment.137 

Though simplifications of the regulatory framework for the exercise of the construction activities 
were clearly introduced following the implementation of the SD, it is clear that they are limited 
to  a  small  number  of  MS.  And  even  in  relation  to  those,  two  key  questions  remain  to  be 
answered.  First,  to  what  extent  these  simplifications  can  be  causally  attributed  to  the  SD. 
Secondly,  to  what  extent  these  simplifications  benefited  stakeholders.  The  two  questions  are 
linked,  as  the  attribution  of  benefits  enables  to  identify  the  share  of  benefits  of  EU  origin. 
However, as it will become apparent below, no quantification is possible; still, the Consultants 
considered appropriate to report the evidence concerning the causal role of the SD. 

The  stakeholders’  opinions on  the  attribution  of  simplifications  to  the  SD  were  non-
conclusive. Certain governments insisted that specific simplifications were adopted because of 
the overall revision of service regulations triggered by the SD. Other governments mentioned 
that  the  simplification  of  the  regulatory  framework  for  construction  companies  was  largely 
unrelated to the SD, whose role is considerably more relevant in other sectors. For example, one 
stakeholder association noted that in its country a new building regulation entered into force in 
2014, creating a more robust building permit system, largely paperless. Though having a positive 
view of both the general working of the system and the reform, the latter was claimed not to be 
related to the implementation of the SD. In France, several simplifications of the building and 
housing  code  were  introduced  from  2008  onwards  through  various  laws  aimed  at  reforming 

133 Cf. Mutual Evaluation, at p.77. 
134 General authorisations were found in Bulgaria, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain, and not in 
Poland, France, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, Netherlands and United Kingdom. 
135 In Belgium, small and micro enterprises with less than 50 employees active in the construction sector 
have to apply for a general authorization. Cf. Performance Check of the Construction Sector, at p.4. Cf. 
Ecorys Study, at p. 30. 
136 Cf. Ecorys Study, at p. 18 
137 Cf. Mutual Evaluation, at p.77. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

economic  regulation,138  hence  also  before  the  implementation  of  the  SD.  Other  stakeholders 
associations,  also  e.g.  in  Italy,  claimed  that,  though  introduced,  simplifications  could  not  be 
attributed  to  the  SD.  The  Consultants  could  hardly  retrieve  any  hard  evidence  concerning 
attribution, e.g. the mentioning of the SD in the recitals of preparatory documents of national 
legislation.  The  attribution  is  made  more  complex  by  the  fact  that  the  final  beneficiaries  of 
simplifications, i.e. construction companies, barely heard of the SD at all.  

Irrespective  of  the  attribution  being  clear  or  not,  final  beneficiaries,  i.e.  construction 
companies,  noticed  hardly  any  improvement  from  a  simpler  regulatory  environment 
given the limited number of MS which implemented the Services Directive in relation 
to construction service provision and, in those MS that did so, in view of the limited 
scope of implementation, as opposed to a fully-fledged implementation of the Directive's rules 
and principles for all rules impacting construction service provision.  In the few cases when their 
answers  were  positive  about  a  (partial)  improvement,  beneficiaries  could  not  provide  any 
quantitative  estimate.  Through  the  interviews,  construction  companies,  installers,  and 
professionals  were  surveyed  on  whether  the  simplifications  of  administrative  procedures 
introduced after the implementation of the SD in their country led to an improvement for their 
business.  Exhibit  4.1  below  shows  the  answers  for  four  types  of  authorisations:  (i)  general 
authorisation  schemes;  (ii)  building  permits;  (iii)  operational  permits  required  for  certain 
activities  during  construction  works;  and  (iv)  completion  and  use  permits.139  Over  the  four 
types  of  authorisation,  the  perception  of  improvements  for  construction  business 
activities is limited. The most optimistic view concerns the simplification of building permits, 
which  was  perceived  as  leading  to  an  improvement  by  30%  of  the  surveyed  construction 
companies, installers and professionals. Very limited simplifications were perceived concerning 
general authorisations schemes and operational permits.140 

138  Cf.  i.a.  Loi  n°  2008-776  du  4  août  2008  de  modernisation  de  l'économie  (Law  for  modernising  the 
economy)  and  Loi  no  2015-990  du  6  août  2015  pour  la  croissance,  l’activité  et  l’égalité  des  chances 
économiques (Law for growth, economic activities, and equality of economic opportunities).  
139  General  authorisation  schemes  include  authorisations  or  registrations  required  from  construction 
operators to legally enter and/or operate in the market, not referring to actual construction activities taking 
place on the ground; building permits include ex-ante procedures through which the construction operator 
or  the  professional  or  the  developer/owner  demands  from  or  communicates  to  a  public  authority  the 
possibility  to  carry  out  certain  construction  activities,  including,  but  not  limited  to,  new  buildings; 
operational  permits  include  procedures  through  which  a  construction  operator  demands  from  or 
communicates  to  a  public  authority  the  possibility  to  carry  out  certain  activities  in  the  course  of  the 
construction work (e.g. scaffolding); completion and use permits include all procedures and checks that 
are carried out on a completed (or close to completion) building and/or in case of other completed (or close 
to completion) construction works, so that the building or other construction work can be deemed legally 
completed and/or can be used for residential and non-residential purposes. 
140 Data on building permits and use permits were retrieved from construction companies, installers, and 
professionals.  Data  on  general  authorisations  and  operational  permits  were  retrieved  from  construction 
companies and installers. Respondents were preliminary screened on whether they had experience with 
each type of authorization after the implementation of the SD. Number of respondents is as follows: 31 for 
general  authorisations;  38  for  building  permits;  29  for  operational  permits;  32  for  completion  and  use 
permits. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 4.1  Perception  of  improvements  over  four  types  of  authorisations  by 

construction companies 

General 
Authorisations 

7%

Building Permits 

Operational Permits 

Completion and Use 
Permits 

30%

4%

14%

93%

70%

96%

86%

Notes: in red, no improvement; in blue, some improvement. 

Specific reasons were identified by stakeholders as possible causes for limited improvements on 
the ground. Two reasons concern the legal and institutional framework, and in particular the role 
of local authorities and the fact that the SD was implemented through norms of principle in many 
MS. Three reasons concern the economics and incentive of construction activities, including the 
cost of familiarisation with simplified procedures, the role of public authorities in ensuring legal 
certainty, and the overall impact of simplifications on the cost and time for construction works. 
The above-mentioned reasons are explored in greater detail below: 

1.  Legal principles vs. specific regulation. First and more importantly, in most MS the 
SD has been implemented by means of horizontal legislation only, thus via legal principles 
valid for the whole services economy,141 which have not always translated into detailed 
procedural norms to be followed by public offices in charge of specific economic activities. 
This is particularly the case for construction services.142 Especially in civil law countries, 
where public authorities, including local ones, are not used or even allowed to apply new 
principles, in derogation of pre-existent detailed norms, this has limited the impact of the 
Services Directive to those MS which have implemented it specifically to the construction 
sector, and then again limited to the extent of such (partial) implementation. 

2.  Role  of  local  authorities.  The  simplifications  mentioned  above  largely  concern  the 
national  legal  frameworks.  However,  in  several  MS,  regional  authorities  also  have 
legislative  competences  over  building  procedures  and  technical  regulations;143 
furthermore,  local  authorities  are  called  upon  to  administer  most  of  the  building 
procedures.144  Certain  stakeholders  claimed  that  local  authorities  lack  ‘expertise, 
knowhow and means’ to implement the simplifications introduced. Besides, the regulatory 
playing field is reportedly uneven, with only a share of local authorities in the same MS 
administering simplified procedures. For instance, where the provision to set up a local 
one-stop-shop was introduced at national level, only a minority of municipalities did so.  

3.  Legal certainty and cost of familiarisation. Even when a simplification cuts time and 
costs for regulatory procedures, companies may prefer to rely on established formalities 
rather  than  attempting,  for  the  first  time,  a  new  and  simplified  version.  In  economic 
terms,  the  expected  savings  should  be  at  least  as  high  as  the  costs  for  familiarisation 
with  the  new  procedure  and  the  uncertainty  effect  should  be  sufficiently  low.  This 

141 Ibid. at p. 74. 
142 Cf. Ecorys Study at p. 4-19 
143 E.g. Germany, Spain, Italy, and the UK (Ecorys study, at p. 69). 
144  All  MS  covered  in  depth  by  this  Study  for  which  Ecorys  data  are  available  delegate  building  permit 
procedures to local authorities. Cf. Ecorys study, at p. 89. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

consideration also implies that simplifications are taken up only progressively and after a 
certain period of familiarisation and trust building. 

4.  Legal certainty and liability. In several cases, simplifications concerned the abolition 
of the (express) consent to a construction work granted by a local authority. For instance, 
in several MS an authorisation is no longer necessary for small works, and a professional 
can  declare  that  the  work  complies  with  local  requirements  without  a  public  approval. 
This  creates  two  possible  problems:  (i)  the  responsibility  for  declaring  that  a  work 
complies with the applicable rules is shifted from the public authority to the professional, 
which in turn may prefer to obtain a ‘rubber-stamp’ by a public body even though more 
costly  in  terms  of  time  and  fees  rather  than  bear  the  liability;  (ii)  reportedly,  as  the 
building regulatory environment is very complex (also due to the role of legal principles 
vs.  specific  regulation),  with  various  layers  of  overlapping  local  and  national  norms, 
relying on the express act of a public authority, ensuring a higher degree of legal certainty 
on the lawfulness of construction works, may be preferable. 

5.  Share of regulatory costs over the total costs and time of construction works. 
Depending  on  the  size  of  the  project,  and  especially,  but  not  only,  in  the  case  of  new 
buildings, construction works usually require a long time for completion and substantial 
funding. Put in this perspective, both companies and clients may have a limited interest 
in reducing the lead time due to authorisations by few days or in saving a few hundred € 
in  administrative  fees.  As  already  discussed  above,  for  construction  works,  the  legal 
certainty  and  a  proper  allocation  of  liability  for  certifying  compliance  with  building 
regulations may be worth more than savings from simplification. 

The  PWC  report  on  the  untapped  potential  of  the  EU  Single  Market  shows  that 
excessive/restrictive  regulation  is  the  most  prominent  obstacle  to  the  development  of  the 
construction of buildings market.145 During the interviews, respondents often complained about 
the complexity of the regulatory framework governing construction activities. It seems, however, 
they  fail  to  see  the  Services  Directive  as  a  potential  driver  for  simplification  already  at  their 
disposal. 

The  limited  perception  of  the  benefits  brought  about  by  the  simplification  of  the  regulatory 
environment for construction companies is further confirmed by the fact that firms were almost 
unable to provide any quantitative estimate. A Belgian company signalled that obtaining a 
construction permit is now much simpler, though local differences still persist. Another Belgian 
operator  claimed  that  now  all  building  permits  in  the  Wallonia  region  could  consistently  be 
granted in 60 days. Two companies in Italy mentioned that the introduction of lighter procedures 
for  building  permits  for  certain  construction  works  reduced  the  lead  time.  Another  Italian 
company  mentioned  that  thanks  to  the  ‘silent  is  consent’  rule,  obtaining  a  use  permit  for 
residential buildings is now much less burdensome and can take place immediately following the 
building completion. Similar considerations on the reduction of the lead time and the application 
of the ‘silent is consent’ rule to the building permit procedure were made by a French craftsman. 
A German company also appreciated the application of the ‘silent is consent’ rule in relation to 
the use permit for residential houses, pointing out in particular a reduction of fees and out-of-
pocket costs ranging from 15% to 20% and a reduction of lead time of 20%. Two UK construction 
operators, including one professional, praised the possibility of issuing a notice of construction 
works through electronic means, resulting in a reduction of the procedural steps and days needed 
to complete the procedure. 

In conclusion, the limited perception by construction operators of regulatory simplifications, and 
the  almost  complete  lack  of  quantitative  parameters  concerning  the  size  of  these  benefits, 
prevent any realistic quantification of regulatory benefits linked to the purely internal effects of 
the SD. 

145 PWC study, at p. 372. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

4.3 The Services Directive and Cross-Border Operations 

The  first  and  foremost  aim  of  the  SD  is  to  reduce  barriers  to  cross-border  mobility  of 
service providers, including construction operators, with regard to both the establishment 
in  another  MS  and  the  cross-border  provision  of  service.  The  reduction  of  these  obstacles  is 
expected to generate new business opportunities for companies. In addition to the simplifications 
applicable  to  both  local  and  cross-border  activities,  discussed  above  in  section  4.2,  the  SD 
includes the following specific provisions relating to norms specifically targeted at the freedom 
of establishment and cross-border activities: 

1.  the simplification of administrative procedures for all cross-border situations, resulting in 
simple form documents, acceptance of equivalent documents and tacit approval (art. 5 
and 13); 

2.  the  elimination  of  a  large  group  of  requirements  and  formalities  concerning  the  cross-
border  provision  of  services  on  an  occasional  basis,  including  the  elimination  of  the 
requirement of the establishment (article 16). These requirements may remain in place 
if found non-discriminatory, necessary and proportional; necessity is defined as justified 
for  reasons  of  public  policy,  public  security,  public  health,  or  the  protection  of  the 
environment; 

3.  the elimination of the need to hire local staff when operating in another MS (art. 15(2)(f) 

and 16(2)(d)); 

4.  the  elimination  of  the  need  to  proceed  with  corporate  restructuring  to  meet  entry 

requirements in another MS (art. 15(2)(b) and (c) and 25); 

5.  the disapplication of local rules on equipment and materials (art. 16(2)(f)) and of many 

other host MS requirements (art. 16); 

6.  the elimination of the need to acquire local insurance coverage when operating in another 
MS, provided that the provider already has an equivalent coverage in its home MS  (art. 
23); 

The first step to measure the benefits of the SD in reducing cross-border barriers would be an 
estimation of how many construction companies operate in another MS. However, these 
data are scarce, from either secondary sources146 or stakeholder associations and governments. 
During  the  interviews,  associations  and  public  authorities  were  asked  for  additional  data  or 
estimates,  but  no  information  could  be  retrieved.  Box  4.1  below  summarizes  the  information 
retrieved from Italian stakeholders, providing some hints, though partial and broader than the 
scope of the present Study, at least for Italy. 

146 A recent Commission document provides information on the relative Internal Market openness of several 
services sector, including construction. This is based on cross-border trade intensity (the average of intra-
EU imports and exports over the total turnover of the sector); and intensity of secondary establishment 
(the share of value added generated by intra-EU foreign affiliates over total value added). Evidence shows 
that the construction sector is the least open among those covered by the analysis. Cf. Commission Staff 
Working  Document,  A  Single  Market  Strategy  for  Europe  -  Analysis  and  Evidence,  Accompanying  the 
document ‘Upgrading the Single Market: more opportunities for people and business Brussels’, 28.10.2015, 
SWD(2015)202.  Cf.  also  Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  European  Competitiveness  Report  2014 
‘Helping Firms Grow’, SWD(2014)277. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Box 4.1 Cross-border activities of Italian construction companies 

ANCE, the Italian construction federation, publishes a yearly report147 on the activities of 38 large Italian 
construction companies148 abroad, covering both construction of buildings and civil engineering. In 2014, 
Italian companies had a cumulated portfolio of 682 works abroad, worth about €73 bln. 11% of this value 
is generated in other EU MS,149 and this share is growing, as the EU represented more than a quarter of 
new works obtained in 2014. However, only 6.6% of the cumulated portfolio concerns building works, the 
rest being attributable to civil engineering. Disentangling the share of building works in the EU from the 
total share of construction works in the EU is impossible.  

The Italian commission of construction social security institutions (Commissione nazionale paritetica per le 
Casse Edili) collects data on Italian companies going abroad and posting workers from Italy, which can be 
used as a proxy for Italian companies providing cross-border services, though only concerning a subset of 
these  companies.  These  data cover  three  countries, that are Austria, Germany, and  France, with  which 
bilateral agreements between social security institutions were signed. Even though distinguishing between 
various types of construction works is impossible, over 5 years (2010-2014), 32 Italian companies operated 
and posted workers in Austria, 69 in France, and 183 in Germany. Considering that both Austria and France 
are neighbouring countries, and are thus likely to be among the most frequent MS of destination, these 
data confirm that foreign operations by Italian building companies are quite limited.  

Though  estimates  of  foreign  activities  could  not  be  provided,  all  stakeholders  agreed  on  one 
consideration: cross-border operations by construction firms are currently very limited, 
for  structural  reasons.  The  PWC  report  identifies  four  main  reasons  why  the  mobility  of 
construction companies is limited: 

1.  The  limited  radius  of  activity  of  micro  and  small  companies  (representing  the 
majority of firms in the sector), due to the high costs of transport of both workers and 
construction materials, with one stakeholder estimating this radius at about 50 to 60 km. 
The limited mobility of construction companies implies that cross-border activities may 
be relevant mostly in border regions, as confirmed by stakeholders (‘[the] cross-border 
provision of services on an occasional basis is a major issue only for companies in border 
areas’); 

2.  The high labour intensity, making it difficult to move a large labour force over a long 

distance; 

3.  The  complexity  of  the  supply  chain,  as  construction  activities  require  multiple 
competences  and  professional  figures,  which  are  usually  not  available  within  a  single 
company,  especially  if  micro  or  small.  As  a  result,  construction  companies  rely  on  an 
established network of trusted counterparts, which can hardly be moved or replicated in 
distant geographical locations; 

4.  Knowledge  of  the  local  market,  including  both  local  building  customs  and  demand 

features, as well as local building regulation.150 

All  in  all,  in  the  PWC  report  cross-border  activities  are  considered  the  least  important 
driver of competitiveness by construction companies.151  

However, the PWC report also states that: “[t]he case of the construction sector is not one of 
regulatory  barriers  in  certain  Member  States  inhibiting  cross-border  activity  but  rather  each 
Member State’s plethora of regulations deterring market entry by non-domestic firms.”152 This 
is even a more significant barrier for foreign construction service providers intending to enter 
the market. Several studies (although mostly related to professional services) have shown that: 
(i)  heterogeneity  of  regulation  across  the  EU  is  harmful  for  cross-border  activities,  and  (ii) 

147 ANCE (2015), Rapporto 2015 sulla presenza delle imprese di costruzione italiane nel mondo. 
148 These companies are considered representative of most of the foreign revenues generated abroad by 
Italian construction companies. 
149 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, France, Greece, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, 
and Sweden. 
150 PWC Report, at p. 336. 
151 Out of a list of 10 possible drivers. Ibid. at p. 371. 
152 PWC Report, at p. 340. 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

domestic regulation often has a de facto discriminatory effect on foreign service providers. 

In any case, some of the drivers for the limited mobility of construction companies (e.g. limited 
radius of activities and knowledge of local markets) are mostly related to mobile entry modes. 
These obstacles can (at least partially) be overcome by entering the market in a more 
permanent way (e.g. through a branch set up for long-term local business development in the 
host  market).  For  this  reason,  some  studies  have  shown  that  construction  companies  going 
abroad prefer a permanent establishment when the host market is unfamiliar, risky, with intense 
competition or with entry restrictions.153 

Stakeholders  largely  confirmed  these  findings  and  analysis,  with  respect  to  both  the 
limited foreign activities of construction companies, especially SME, and the reasons explaining 
this phenomenon. Several stakeholders mentioned that, for the building market, companies have 
an incentive to go abroad only for large works, both public (e.g. hospitals) or private (e.g. large 
industrial plants). This  per se  reduces  feasible business  opportunities for SME, which are less 
likely to access these market segments, at least as main contractors. In particular, a stakeholder 
association  reported  that  the  main  barrier  for  a  SME  to  go  abroad  is  the  ‘lack  of  capacity  in 
offering “all-inclusive” building services to foreign customers’. Furthermore, as suggested by one 
stakeholder, an SME not only lacks the capacity to handle very large projects, but also ‘sufficient 
financial  means  and  [the]  human  resources  necessary  to  operate  abroad’,  even  as  sub-
contractor. One exception are SME with expertise in specialised construction services operating 
in niche markets, which are more likely to have a multi-country scope of activities.154  

Hence, in the current stage of deficient and sometimes inexistent implementation of the Services 
Directive for construction service provision, all evidence points to the fact that most of foreign 
construction services are provided by large companies, which, because of their dimensions, are 
the  least  impacted  by  regulatory  costs.  Several  stakeholders  concurred  that  these  companies 
have the structure and expertise to deal with persistent regulatory barriers, and that operations 
abroad are ‘a permanent part of their business strategy’. In other words, the incentives provided 
by large building projects abroad and the fact that a company is well positioned to access foreign 
markets reduce the impact of any regulatory obstacle even if often contrary to internal market 
legislation.   

Importantly,  as  indicated,  construction  companies  consider  regulatory  barriers  are  less 
important in preventing activities abroad than other structural drivers mentioned above. 
One  national  stakeholder  association  commented  that  ‘the  main  reason  [for  not  operating 
abroad] remains the need to adapt to local building customs, linguistic barriers, cultural barriers, 
and  business  practices’.  One  stakeholder  association  even  reported  that  regulatory  costs  for 
construction  companies  may  be  lower  in  other  EU  MS  than  in  the  home  market,  without  this 
being a sufficient incentive for going abroad.  When confronted with the hypothetical question 
about whether lower regulatory barriers would spur an increase in cross-border activities, most 
of  the  interviewees  signalled  that  this  is  unlikely,  at  least  in  non-border  regions  or  in  non-
specialised market segments. . Also, and importantly, a number  of avenues  exist  for tackling 
regulatory barriers or reducing their possible negative impact. The most used consists in teaming 
up with local partners, which are knowledgeable of the local regulatory environment, and can 
thus drastically reduce the costs of familiarisation; also, local partners are already licensed to 
operate  in  the  host  MS  (e.g.  in  case  of  professionals  or  craftsmen  in  regulated  segments). 
Another  strategy  that  was  mentioned  consists  in  acquiring  local  companies,  so  that  the  firm 
intending to operate abroad can incorporate local expertise and avoid the need to proceed with 
secondary  establishments or via occasional a cross-border service provision.   However, these 
strategies have direct (shared profits, acquisition costs) and indirect costs (such as lost market 
visibility),  which  deter  cross-border  activity  and  limit  it  to  those  larger  projects,  as  often 

153  Chuan  C.  (2008),  Entry  mode  selection  for  international  construction  markets:  the  influence  of  host 
country related factors, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 26, No. 3. 
154 Examples provided by various stakeholders concerned SME operating in the segments of construction 
of wooden houses, construction of top-of-the-league energy efficient buildings, and energy renovations of 
social houses. 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

mentioned by construction companies, which in turn are only accessible to larger companies.  

A limited number of complaints on the functioning of the SD,  and more in general of 
the  Internal  Market  for  construction  services,  at  least  for  companies  already  benefiting 
from it, is another reason why regulatory barriers are not perceived as a main obstacle for cross-
border activities. This is the case again given the limited knowledge of internal market legislation, 
particularly by SME, and also due to the fact that larger companies have the means to deal with 
most regulatory obstacles, irrespective of their legality under internal market legislation, once 
the  most  restrictive  ones  have  been  scrapped.  One  stakeholder  association  commented  that 
‘[the]  freedom  of  establishment  is  not  an  issue,  though  few  problems  remain  concerning  the 
cross-border provision of services’. Another one commented that the SD ‘had a positive effect 
for  cross-border  companies:  though  the  Single  Market  is  far  from  being  perfect  and 
implementation is uneven, the most blatant requirements were indeed scrapped’ from national 
legislations. ‘Large contractors that intend to work abroad,’ – it was added – ‘can do so, without 
major  issues,  a  part  from  some  specific  bilateral  problems’.  In  a  nutshell,  large  construction 
companies  are  used  to  work  in  a  fragmented  market,  remaining  so  across  several  fault  lines 
including regulatory barriers. A national association praised the Commission’s efforts to tackle 
certain  regulatory  obstacles,  as  detailed  in  the  2015  Communication  on  upgrading  the  Single 
Market.155  Specifically,  the  initiatives  targeted  at  easing  the  identification  and  provision  of 
information  by  construction  companies  (including  the  ‘services  passport’)156  and  at  improving 
the effectiveness of the SD by reforming the notification procedures were considered as being 
potentially the most impactful. In addition to that, respondents mentioned that not all problems 
are  linked  to,  and  can  thus  be  solved  through,  the  SD:  other  pieces  of  legislation  on  social 
security, and the free movement of goods and professionals are relevant as well.157 Concerning 
the PSC, one association stated that ‘it is useful for secondary establishment, though much less 
for temporary provision’, but again due to implementation gaps, because the national PSC are 
largely not  suited to  provide  information on  local  building regulations  and  act as  liaison  point 
with the local authorities involved. 

Concerning other paperwork duties, the SD requires MS to accept attestations and documents 
that a company obtained in the home MS, without asking for additional equivalent certifications 
and verifications. However, the empirical findings suggest that that this acceptance rule is not 
implemented  in  some  MS.  Also,  mutual  recognition  is  not  working  to  its  full  extent  in  the 
construction  sector,  for  various  reasons.  The  Ecorys  report  found  e.g.  a  lack  of  specific 
recognition principles and established procedures concerning the use of equipment for building 
works,  and  that  the  mutual  recognition  of  insurance  coverage  is  hampered  because  of  both 
factual and procedural reasons (as discussed more in detail here below).158 With regard to the 
lack of specific procedure: in most MS, at least where the SD was transposed by means  of a 
horizontal act, the mutual recognition principle is included, but no specific procedures are  set 
out to apply it.159 When called to implement the mutual recognition principle, public authorities, 
especially at local level, usually lack established procedures to that end. As a result, this provision 
is only limitedly resorted to. In addition to that, mutual recognition is hampered by the fact that 
only few MS adopt performance-based standards, as opposed to specific rules.160 

155 Communication from the Commission, Upgrading the Single Market: more opportunities for people and 
business, COM(2015)550, 28.10.2015. 
156 Ibid. at §2.3. 
157  Further  than  the  PQD,  two  acts  were  mentioned:  (i)  Regulation  (EC)  No  883/2004  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of social security systems; and (ii) Regulation (EC) No 
764/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down procedures relating to the application 
of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another Member State and repealing 
Decision No 3052/95/EC. 
158 Ecorys study, at p. 74. 
159 Ibid. at p.79. 
160 Ibid. at p. 72. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Insurance  requirements.  A  specific  effort  was  made  to  identify  the  effects  of  insurance 
requirements on cross-border activities on construction operators. To this purpose, two national 
insurance federations were also interviewed. The applicable legal framework is as follows. Art. 
23  of  the  SD  allows  MS  to  require  the  subscription  of  a  professional liability  insurance  or  the 
provision of a financial guarantee from services carrying out activities presenting a risk to health, 
safety or financial security of recipients. The same article, though, requires that, when a provider 
establishes  itself  in  its  territory,  the  MS  shall  accept  an  equivalent  or  essentially  comparable 
insurance coverage already subscribed by that provider in its home MS. In particular, insurance 
or guarantees issued by another MS finance institution or insurance company shall be accepted, 
as long as equivalent or essentially comparable.161  

Insurance requirements may indeed create barriers to the free movement of service 
providers, in case of activities presenting health, safety or financial security risks. This is the 
case  for  example  for  medical  professions,  tax  advisors,  lawyers,  and  construction  operators. 
With  respect  to  the  latter,  the  problems  in  the  mutual  recognition  of  insurance  requirements 
have various roots, linked both to the regulatory framework and the functioning of the insurance 
market: 

1.  National  regulatory  frameworks  on  insurance  requirements  are  extremely 
different  from  country  to  country,  and  no  EU  piece  of  legislation  harmonises  the 
professional  liability  for  construction  operators.  Firstly,  national  frameworks  vary  with 
respect to the operators to which an insurance is mandated, i.e. construction companies, 
construction professionals, both, or neither of them. Secondly, national frameworks vary 
to an even greater extent with regard to the duration, the risks to be insured, the choice 
between  joint  and  several  liabilities,  and  the  coverage  of  post-completion  building 
defects.162  As  a  result,  assessing  whether  an  insurance  issued  in  country  A  can  be 
considered  as  ‘equivalent  or  essentially  comparable’  in  light  of  the  requirements  of 
country B is very difficult. 

2.  The professional liability insurance is a complex product, and the coverage granted 
to the insured company may vary over a large number of parameters, such as the type 
of insured risk, the insured sums, the ceilings, the deductibles, the coverage of accessory 
costs,  and  the  exclusions.  Consequently,  assessing  whether  each  insurance  coverage 
subscribed  by  a  foreign  construction  operator  is  ‘equivalent  or  essentially  comparable’ 
given the requirements of the host MS is even more difficult. Furthermore, toping-up an 
existing coverage so that it complies with the host country requirements can be extremely 
complex, because basic products may present features preventing such addition.163 

3.  Finally,  insurance  markets  tend  to  exclude  the  coverage  of  idiosyncratic  risks, 
i.e.  those  risks  for  which  an  insurer  cannot  estimate  ex  ante  the  statistical  (actuarial) 
distribution of probability of adverse events. This may be the case, for example, if a cross-
border service provider asks to its own insurance company to cover risks determined by 
a foreign regulatory framework, which the insurer does not know; or if a foreign cross-
border provider tries to buy a coverage from a host MS insurance company, which does 
not  know  the  provider.  In  both  cases,  distribution  risks  cannot  be  estimated  and  the 
cross-border service provider may not be able to buy a coverage.  

Broadly  speaking,  insurance  requirements  are  still  considered  a  barrier  by  stakeholder 
associations,  and  some  of  the  interviewees  reported  that  they  could  not  rely  on  their  own 
insurance  coverage  when  going  abroad.  However,  stakeholders  concurred  that  problems 

161 Art. 23 SD. Cf. also art 14(7). See Commission Staff Working Document, Access to insurance for services 
provided in another Member State, SWD(2014)130. 
162 For an overview of national practices, Cf. the ELIOS project (2010), liability and insurance regimes in 
the construction sector: national schemes and guidelines to stimulate innovation and sustainability, Special 
report on liability and insurance regimes in 27 EU Member States. 
163 Cf. Expert Group on European Insurance Contract Law (2013), Discussion Paper 5: Liability Insurance, 
Meeting of 9-10 September. 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

are less significant than a few years ago. In particular, reference were made to the fact that 
companies intending to operate in France found it very difficult to buy a coverage for the garantie 
décennale  required  from  contractors.  A  market-based  solution  was  eventually  identified,  and 
perceived as a working solution. Currently, in French neighbouring countries, stakeholders report 
that the purchase of such a coverage is possible, though problems can still exist concerning the 
insurance costs, which may not be worth to be incurred for small projects or for works with a 
short duration. Before 2010, buying an insurance coverage for the French  garantie décennale 
was  difficult,  or  even  impossible,  for  foreign  construction  operators.  In  2010,  the  French 
federation  of  insurance  companies  set  up  a  point  of  contact  for  foreign  companies,  providing 
information about insurance requirements and a guide on how to obtain a coverage.164  At the 
same  time,  agreements  were  signed  between  French  and  other  EU  insurance  companies  to 
ensure the flow of information about insured subjects and risks, and thus to sell, or have sold 
by a partner company, the coverage requested. 

In  a  nutshell,  today  a  construction  company  intending  to  operate  in  France  has  three 
possibilities:  

1.  If its own insurance company sells the coverage for the garantie décennale, the contractor 
can adapt its existing insurance contract. This service is available only through specialised 
insurance  providers,  such  as  VHV  in  Germany,  offering  a  coverage  for  the  garantie 
décennale to its German subscribers; 

2.  If  its  insurance  company  is  part  of  a  multinational  group  or  one  of  the  agreements 
mentioned above, the contractor can be redirected to its company’s French counterpart 
and  negotiate  the  purchase  of  the  coverage.  This  case  is  also  relevant  to  contractors 
wishing to operate in any other MS: to top-up or purchase a coverage in compliance with 
the host country legislation, a contractor may contact its own insurance company, which 
can redirect the client to an international partner, e.g. within the same insurance group 
or its network; 

3.  If  neither  of  these  situations  applies,  the  contractor  may  look  for  a  French  insurance 

broker, and may be supported by the federation’s point of contact in doing so.  

In any case, the fact remains that, also in relation to insurance, implementation of the SD by 
MS is virtually non-existent and construction companies are forced to resort to costly alternatives 
which  reduce  the  number  of  cross-border  activities,  limiting  it  to  larger  companies  which  can 
bear the costs of such alternative solutions. 

Insurance  federations  were  also  surveyed  concerning  the  number  of  cross-border  coverage 
provided obtain additional data to measure international flows. Data for two insurance companies 
were provided, and the number of contracts with foreign contractors entering the French market 
amounts approximately to a few hundreds per year.  

Interviews with companies. As mentioned above in Section 4.1, efforts were made to include 
construction companies with cross-border experience within the sample. In line with the analysis 
and  the  empirical  findings  of  this  chapter,  cross-border  construction  companies  are  limited in 
number, and usually not representative of the general universe, as they tend to be (i) larger; 
(ii) specialised in niche markets; or (iii) established in border regions.  

A quarter of the respondents provided cross-border services after 2009, i.e. including the period 
when the SD had already deployed its effects. Service were provided through the respondents’ 
own company, a subsidiary incorporated in the host MS, or both. The choice depends on the size 
of the companies, as only two large companies reported having established a subsidiary abroad. 
One respondent suggested that the easiest way for operating abroad is the following:  ‘a local 
subsidiary can be established – just an office – in the host MS, which can take care of all the 
administrative work, and then subcontract the bulk of the works to the mother company’. Small 
companies are more likely to work in their own name, and largely as sub-contractors of larger 
companies from the same MS. 

164  Available  at:  http://www.ffsa.fr/sites/jcms/p1_1591570/fr/construction-insurance-the-bureau-of-
european-manufacturers-set-up-by-the-ffsa?cc=p1_1371900 (last accessed on March, 2016). 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Few  companies  could  indicate  whether  certain  requirements  were  abolished  after  the 
introduction of SD, e.g. concerning the use of own equipment or the acceptance of equivalent 
documentation. Most significantly, as in the case of internal simplifications, no company could 
provide  an  estimate  of  the  cost  savings  linked  to  the  elimination  or  reduction  of  regulatory 
barriers.  A  large  Italian  company  mentioned  that  it  could  rely  on  equivalent  documentations 
issued from the home MS to comply with the host country requirements, reducing the lead time 
and paperwork costs. In addition to that, several firms mentioned that they were not subject to 
any requirement concerning the use of own equipment, and that the elimination of the obligation 
to hire local workers reduced the lead time and the risks linked to the limited knowledge of the 
local pool of expertise.  

4.4 The Inward Effects of the Services Directive  

Stakeholder associations, governments and companies – both those operating cross-border and 
those which only operate locally  – were also interviewed on the inward effects of the SD, i.e. 
asking whether they could see an increase in operators coming from other EU countries in their 
local markets. Since a limited number of construction companies currently operate abroad (as 
shown in section 3 above), grievances concerning the increase of competition were expected to 
be limited. Interestingly, this was not the case uniformly across the EU:  in some countries, 
and in some market segments, both stakeholder associations and companies reported 
an increase in competition. How can these findings be reconciled with those presented above 
not pointing out a significant effect attributable to the SD?  The most  plausible answer is that 
stakeholders  perceive  the  increased  competition  not  so  much  from  actual  cross-border 
construction  service  providers,  but  mostly  from  companies  merely  posting  workers  across 
borders. The posting of workers Directive,165 is therefore apparently attributed a larger role in 
bringing  competitors  from  other  EU  MS  in  relation  to  the  workforce  construction  market.  The 
role  of  irregular  jobs,  including  possible  abuses  of  certain  worker  status  (i.e.  the  ‘fake 
independent worker’) was also mentioned. The largest impacts are thus generated by the flow 
of  foreign  employees  which  falls  outside  the  scope  of  the  SD,  as  opposed  to  companies  or 
independent workers covered by the SD. 

Again, to the analysis should start from quantitative data or estimates concerning the number 
of construction operators active in other EU MS. As already discussed in section 4.3 above, such 
data  are  limited  Some  data  is  available  and  was  collected  concerning  posting  of  workers,  166 
which is however out of the scope of the study.  

The negative perception of increased competition within the Single Market is not equally spread 
across countries, firms and market segments. The most affected actors include: 

1.  SME. As discussed above, the bulk of cross-border activities in the construction sector is 
carried out by larger firms, which are better equipped to work at long distances and in 
different market environments, also because of a poor or inexistent internal market for 
construction services To the contrary, the benefit from the opening of the Single Market 
to  SME  are  more  limited,  for  the  same  reason.  This  implies  that,  in  a  cost-benefit 
comparison,  SME  are  more  likely  to  suffer  from  the  increased  competitive  pressure 
without enjoying more opportunities in other MS. This cleavage can be noticed both in 
the firms’ opinions, and in the considerations of SME-specific trade associations, both at 
national and EU level.  

165 Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the posting of workers in 
the framework of the provision of services. See also the so-called Enforcement Directive, that is Directive 
2014/67/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  enforcement  of  Directive  96/71/EC 
concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation 
(EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (‘the 
IMI Regulation’). 
166 See http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=471  

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

2.  Labour-intensive market segments. The competitive pressure due to labour mobility 
is  higher  for  certain  market  segments  with  a  higher  labour  intensity  and  a  lower  skill 
intensity, as in the case of certain building services such as plasterers, tilers, bricklayers. 
Those services are more mobile, i.e. can be provided at longer distance without incurring 
in  prohibitive  costs,  and  more  fungible,  i.e.  the  use  of  the  firm’s  local  network  of 
competences may not be necessary. On the contrary, contractors, i.e. those firms whose 
activity  has  higher  capital  endowments  and  added  value,  rarely  complain  about  the 
increase in competition. Rather, contractors may benefit from cheaper  sub-contractors 
originating  from  other  MS,  though  most  of  the  benefits  are  usually  attributed  to  the 
availability  of  foreign  workers  rather  than  firms.  Importantly,  this  cleavage  partially 
overlaps with the one above, as SME are more likely to populate the most affected market 
segments. 

3.  Geographical areas. The tone of comments and data retrieved shows a variation across 
geographical areas. First and foremost, the impact of increased competition is mostly felt 
in the Member States which (i) can be conveniently reached, e.g. are not islands or too 
peripheric;  (ii)  have  high  gross  labour  costs,  i.e.  including  taxation  and  social 
contribution; and (iii) have a healthier and sufficiently large construction market to justify 
access by foreign companies from an economic point of view. Furthermore, the impact 
on healthier markets has been exacerbated in recent times due to the  economic  crisis 
which  has  affected  severely  the  construction  markets  in  certain  MS.167  Belgium  and 
France  correspond  to  these  descriptions  and  were  among  the  countries  in  which  both 
companies  and  trade  associations  had  the  most  negative  assessment  of  increased 
competition, again with a distinction between SME and large companies and stakeholder 
associations. Italy is a case in point with regard to this difference, as foreign presence is 
relevant  in  Northern  regions,  which  are  more  easily  reachable  and  have  a  healthier 
market, but almost absent in Southern areas.  

Clearly,  stakeholders rarely  attributed the  negative  effects of  increased  and possibly 
unfair  competition  to  the  SD.  Actually,  even  in  one  the  most  affected  countries,  one  SME 
stakeholder association considered the impacts of the SD as  ‘marginal’, and that the situation 
did not significantly change after the implementation of the SD. Stakeholders’ grievances were 
mainly  targeted  at  the  posting  of  workers  Directive,  with  regard  to  both  its  provision  and  its 
enforcement,  and  the  abuse  of  workers  status  by  so-called  ‘fake  independents’.  As  for  the 
former,  the  posting  of  workers  Directive  is  perceived  as  an  attempt  to  create  a  playing  field 
which is not even, because of substantial differences in wage costs and wage components across 
MS. Furthermore, both governments and associations underlined that a proper enforcement of 
the Directive, including a verification that workers  respect the conditions required in the host 
country,  is  complex  and  the  results  are  not  yet  satisfactory.  At  the  same  time,  respondents 
recognised  that  the  new  provisions  making  the  main  contractor  co-responsible  for  frauds 
provides disincentives against misuses or abuses.168 As for the latter, the abuse of the status of 
independent worker concerns the case in which a foreign construction worker operates de facto 
as an employee, but, based on its status of independent worker granted in the home MS, is not 
subject  to  the  local  regulation  on  salaries,  taxes,  contributions  and  working  conditions  for 
employees. Also in this case, problems relate not only to the EU legislative framework, though 
the  SD  has  a  role  in  improving  conditions  for  the  free  movement  of  independent  service 
providers, but also to the controls at national and local level by labour authorities. The relative 
importance  of  the  role  of  the  EU  framework  and  enforcement  actions  is  not  clear:  both  a 
government and a stakeholder association from the same country suggested that enforcement 
is difficult because the SD allows services providers to operate freely in other MS. However, the 
verification of whether an independent worker is working as such or is an employee in disguise 
is  not  covered  by  the  SD  and  remains  largely  within  national  legislative  and  administrative 
competences. Framework control rules recently put in place by the Enforcement Directive of the 
Posting of Workers Directive are expected to facilitate and streamline controls in this regard. 

167 See Section 1.1 above. 
168 The Enforcement Directive was approved in 2014 and is yet in its transposition phase, so the findings 
do not concern the effect of this piece of legislation. 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Interviews with companies. Construction companies and installers were first asked whether 
they  could  observe  a  stronger  presence  of  foreign  operators  from  other  EU  MS  from  2009 
onwards  with  68%  reporting  that  this  was  the  case.  For  those  who  answered  affirmatively, 
subsequent questions asked whether their business was affected by additional competitions from 
EU  operators,  and  whether  they  had  lost  any  business  for  this  reason.  22%  of  respondents 
reported a positive impact from the increased presence of EU operators, e.g. due to lower price 
sub-suppliers or the possibility of resorting to a larger pool of expertise; 28% reported no impact 
from  foreign  competition;  and  50%  reported  a  negative  impact.  When  asked  whether  the 
negative impacts translated into lost business, 57% of the respondents answered affirmatively. 
The results are shown in Exhibit 4.2 below.  

Exhibit 4.2   Impact  of  EU  competition  on  construction  operators  (contractors  and 

Impact on business 

Business Loss 

installers)169 

Stronger presence of EU 
operators 

33%

50%

67%

22%

28%

43%

57%

Yes No

Positive

Neutral

Negative

Yes No

Considering  the  cleavages  discussed  above,  large  companies  are  less  likely  to  have  noticed 
stronger EU competition over the recent years (50% of affirmative answers against 68% among 
the  total  number  of  respondents).  As  for  geographical  areas,  100%  of  Belgian  and  French 
respondents reported an increase in competition, while, at the other end of the spectrum, the 
share is the lowest for British and German operators.  

As  anticipated,  about  one  fifth  of  the  respondents  did  enjoy  benefits  from  a  more  intense 
presence of EU operators. The benefit mentioned the most is the availability of cheaper suppliers, 
reportedly  without  significant  losses  in  terms  of  quality  of  the  works.  A  German  respondent 
mentioned  that  it  could  position  itself  in  higher  market  segments,  while  foreign  operators 
occupied lower quality segments. A Belgian company had to focus on training and sustainable 
construction to change market segment and escape the downward pressure on price created by 
foreign  competitors.  The  comments  reported  by  respondents  which  are  negatively  affected 
largely mirror the previous ones: foreign competitors put a downward pressure on prices, which 
can hardly be sustained, especially if, as repeatedly pointed out, foreign companies structurally 
have lower  costs (e.g.  because  of  social security contributions) or do  not respect local labour 
legislation. These considerations are almost unanimous across companies and MS. In the words 
of  one  of  the  respondents,  ‘choosing  to  open  borders  without  harmonising  fiscal  and  social 
security systems is a serious fault and a non-understandable error’. In a nutshell, those firms 
reporting a negative impact are very likely to perceive this competition us unfair, rather than 

169 Number of respondents: (i) stronger presence of EU operators: 36; (ii) impact on business: 27; (iii) 
business loss: 22. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

based on merit. This evidence confirms that the perception of impacts comes rather from labour 
and social security legislation and not from the impact (or lack thereof) of the SD. 

4.5 Conclusions 

The assessment of the effects of the SD on the construction sector focused on three different 
areas: (i) simplifications; (ii) new business opportunities for cross-border companies; and (iii) 
the impact of increased foreign competition. Across all these areas, the effects were discussed, 
significant  data  gaps  with  regard  to  cross-border  construction  activities  notwithstanding.  The 
impacts  are  considered  not  to  be  significant  for  various  reasons,  including  the  challenge  in 
implementing simplifications at local level and the limited mobility of construction companies. 
Furthermore,  as  the  regulatory  framework  for  both  internal  and  cross-border  construction 
activities depends on a complex group of intertwined pieces of legislation, at EU, national and 
local  level,  attributing  specific  impacts  clearly  to  the  SD  based  on  the  evidences  retrieved  is 
difficult. 
It appears clearly that, due to a very limited and sometimes inexistent specific implementation 
of  the  Services  Directive  for  the  construction  sector,  the  impact  of  simplification  and  new 
business opportunities is also, accordingly, very limited or inexistent.  This, in turn, translates 
into a lack of perceived impact by construction operators. Due to a generalised lack of knowledge 
of the SD, its lack of implementation on the ground and to a specific focus on labour and social 
security issues, the perceived assessment by firms of the impact of the elimination of barriers 
can  only  marginally  be  attributed  to  the  SD  itself,  instead  referring  to  other  fields  of  EU  law 
governing labour and social security issues. 

Exhibit 4.3  
Firm overall assessment of the elimination 
of barriers to cross-border operations 

4%

17%

21%

Very Positive

Positive

Neutral

Negative

Very Negative

33%

25%

To conclude, Exhibit 4.3 (left) portrays the 
overall  assessment  of  the  elimination  of 
barriers  to  cross-border  operations  for 
construction companies and installers. That 
is,  the  question  takes  into  account  the 
benefits due to new business opportunities 
abroad,  the  benefits  due  to  the  entry  of 
other  operators  in  the  home  market,  and 
the  costs  due  to  increased  competition.  A 
quarter of the respondents170 had a positive 
or  very  positive  view,  while  50%  held  a 
negative or very negative view. The sample 
of  companies  interviewed  appears  thus 
split  between  a  group  of  companies 
benefiting  from  Single  Market  integration, 
more likely among those operating abroad 
sub-
from 
or 
contractors,  and  a  majority  of  companies 
for which costs overcome benefits. 

benefiting 

cheaper 

170 Number of respondents: 24. 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

5 MARKET OPPORTUNITIES LINKED TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN BUILDINGS 

5.1 Introduction 

The analysis carried out at the inception stage suggested that EU legislation, and in particular 
the EPBD, could result in “New business opportunities linked to the growing demand for energy-
efficient  buildings,  building  systems  and  materials  in  order  to  meet  energy  performance 
requirements.”171  This  section  is  devoted  to  the  assessment  of  these  market  opportunities, 
through an estimation of the turnover linked to the introduction of stricter energy efficiency (EE) 
standards, hereinafter referred to as the ‘EE market’. 

The assessment of the EE market focuses on the residential buildings sub-sector, with a detailed 
analysis of both new buildings and building renovation. Due to lack of information, no attempt 
was  made  to  cover  the  non-residential  buildings  sub-sector.  The  analysis  relies  on  the 
methodology for estimating the effects of EU legislation presented in the Inception Report.172 In 
practice, the exercise relied on a combination of elements drawn from secondary sources and 
information obtained during interviews with stakeholders and firms. In general, the information 
from secondary sources was used as a starting point, with interviews being used for validation 
purposes.  

The section is structured as follows: 
  Section 5.2 reviews the key developments in the regulatory framework; 
  Section 5.3 provides an overview of the main EE-related support measures; 
  Section 5.4 provides an assessment of the EE market for the new buildings segment; 
  Section 5.5 does the same regarding the EE market for the buildings renovation segment; 
  Section 5.6 summarizes the results and elaborates on the influence exerted by EU legislation. 

5.2 Developments in the Regulatory Framework173 

The requirements for energy performance in buildings (EPB) are incorporated in building codes 
or equivalent regulations developed by governments’ authorities at the national and/or at the 
regional/local levels. Most of the countries covered by  this Study have a fairly long history  of 
regulating EPB, with the first provisions often dating back to the 1970s or even the 1960s. During 
the  2004  –  2014  period,  the  regulatory  framework  underwent  significant  changes  in  all  the 
countries. The main developments in each of the ten countries analysed in detail are summarised 
in the following paragraphs. 

Belgium. In Belgium, the responsibility for the setting of energy requirements in buildings rests 
with regional authorities. Until the end of the 1990s, in all the regions EPB requirements mostly 
consisted  of  minimum  levels  of  thermal  insulation.  Subsequent  developments  led  to  some 
differentiation  across  the  regions.  In  the  Flanders,  a  new  set  of  energy  performance 
requirements was introduced in 2006, covering both new buildings and major renovations. The 
standards were strengthened in 2008, entailing a 20% reduction in energy requirements. This 
was followed by a further tightening in 2011, entailing an additional 10% reduction in energy 
requirements.  In  Brussels  and  Wallonia  the  regulatory  framework  had  a  similar  evolution, 
although with a time lag of a couple of years. As a result, the EPB parameters in force at the end 
of  the  period  under  consideration  were  comparatively  less  stringent  (e.g.  in  Wallonia  the 
transition from the so called E100 to E80 standard for new buildings was to be  completed by 

171 Inception Report (Revised), 19 October 2015, page 17. 
172 See Inception Report (Revised), section 4, in particular the paragraph concerning the estimation of new 
business opportunities and efficiency gains. 
173 Information for this section was mainly derived from the documents produced in the framework of the 
Concerted Action Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (hereinafter ‘Concerted Action’). In particular, 
reference was made to the volume Concerted Action, Implementing the Energy Performance of Buildings 
Directive – Featuring Country Reports 2012, October 2013 (hereinafter, ‘Concerted Action 2013’) and to 
the previous implementation reports in the various countries (hereinafter, ‘Country Reports’). 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

December 2013, whereas in Flanders this was achieved two years earlier) 

Denmark.  In Denmark, the first prescriptive provisions on  energy  requirements for buildings 
date back to 1961. Requirements were progressively refined over time, with a major tightening 
in  1995.  In  2005,  a  major  reform  of  the  Building  Code  led  to  a  strengthening  of  technical 
parameters  for  both  new  buildings  and  renovations,  entailing  a  25%  reduction  in  energy 
requirements  compared  with  the  1995  levels.  In  addition,  the  implementation  of  selected 
measures was made mandatory in all renovations, irrespective of their size. A further tightening 
of parameters for new buildings took place in 2010, requiring a 25% reduction compared with 
2005,  with  another  25%  improvement  expected  to  take  place  by  2020.  In  addition,  the 
implementation of measures with a short payback period was made mandatory in all renovations. 

France.  In  France,  the  first  Réglementation  Thermique  (RT)  covering  insulation  and  heating 
systems in new residential buildings was introduced in 1974 (RT1974). New regulations were 
adopted in 1988 and 2000, extending the coverage to non-residential buildings and introducing 
stricter primary  energy requirements. After the adoption of the  EPBD 2002, a new regulation 
was passed in 2005 (RT2005), with the lowering of energy requirements to 150 kWh/year/sqm. 
In 2007, energy requirements were for the first time extended to building renovations and the 
concept of low energy building was introduced. In the late 2000s, following the adoption by the 
government  of  an  ambitious  environment  plan,  special  measures  were  introduced  for  heating 
systems  (2009)  and  air  conditioning  (2010).  Finally,  a  new  regulation  was  adopted  in  2012 
(RT2012),  requiring  a  drastic  reduction  in  energy  consumption  levels  in  new  buildings,  with 
targets of 50 and 70 kWh/year/sqm for, respectively, residential and non-residential buildings. 

Germany.  In  Germany,  requirements  concerning  the  energy  performance  of  buildings  have 
been in place since 1977. Stricter parameters for the thermal insulation of new buildings were 
introduced  in  the  following two  decades,  and  in  1995  permissible  primary  energy  levels  were 
lowered  by  some  40%.  Energy  performance  requirements  were  significantly  strengthened  in 
2002, with the approval of the first Energieeinsparverordnung (EnEV2002), which set a limit of 
100  kWh/year/sqm  for  new  buildings  and  introduced  requirements  for  building  renovations. 
Important changes took place at the end of the 2000s, with the approval of the EnEV2009, which 
reduced the upper limits for new buildings by 30%, introduced the obligation to generate at least 
15%  of  the  energy  through  RES,  and  imposed  several  specific  measures  for  renovations 
(insulation  of  attics,  replacement  of  boilers  more  than  30  years  old).  Finally,  following  the 
adoption  of  the  EPBD  2010,  a  new  regulation  was  approved  at  the  end  of  2013  and  became 
effective in 2014 (EnEV2014). The regulation entails a further tightening of requirements, with 
the objective of achieving the nearly-zero energy standard in all new buildings by 2021. 

Ireland.  In  Ireland,  the  first  thermal  performance  standards  were  introduced  in  the  Building 
Regulations in 1992. The first performance-based code was adopted in 2002, with the setting of 
a  primary  energy  requirement  target  (156  kWh/year/sqm).  The  parameters  for  residential 
buildings were strengthened in 2007, with the introduction of a minimum requirement for RES 
and  a  40%  reduction  in  overall  energy  requirements  compared  with  2002  levels.  These 
requirements  were  extended  to  non-residential  buildings  in  2008.  A  major  revision  of  the 
Building Regulations took place in 2010, with a further 20% lowering of  energy  requirements 
compared with 2002 levels and the introduction of a series of specific provisions for residential 
buildings  (improvements  in  wall,  roof  and  floor  insulation;  deployment  of  higher  efficiency  oil 
and gas boilers; etc.). 

Italy. Legislation on EPB was first introduced in 1976, with additional measures adopted in the 
early 1990s. Regulations were modified in 2005, in parallel with EPBD 2002 transposition, with 
the setting of a set of stricter primary energy requirements to be implemented over a 6-year 
period, leading to a  final value of 71.2 kWh/year/sqm  starting from January 2010.  The same 
parameters were applicable for large renovations, while smaller scale renovations were subject 
to less strict requirements. Minimum requirements regarding RES were introduced in 2009, again 
to  be  implemented  gradually  over  a  5-year  period.  The  EPBD  2010  was  transposed  in  2013, 
paving the way for the adoption in mid-2015 of new regulations concerning the Near Zero Energy 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Buildings  (NZEB).  In  Italy,  energy  policy  is  a  shared  competence  between  the  state  and  the 
regions and the latter are entitled to adopt  stricter regulations. For instance, in Lombardia, a 
regional law passed in 2012 requires all new buildings to meet the NZEB standards from January 
2016, well ahead of what envisaged by national legislation. 

Poland. In Poland, energy performance standards were not particularly stringent until the mid-
late  1990s.  A  significant  step  was  undertaken  in  1998,  with  the  passing  of  the  Thermo-
Modernization Act, which established the first instrument aimed at improving energy efficiency 
in buildings. Prior to EU accession, a new set of requirements for individual building components 
was  adopted  in  2002.  The  systems  was  modified  in  2008,  in  parallel  with  the  EPBD  2002 
transposition,  when  performance-based  requirements  were  also  added.  However,  the 
coexistence  of  prescriptive  and  performance-based  approaches  resulted  in  inconsistencies,  in 
certain cases leading to a de facto lowering of standards. Minimum requirements for renewable 
energy in large building were introduced in 2009. Finally, a new set of stricter parameters was 
introduced in 2013, with the new requirements to be gradually fulfilled starting from 2014. 

Romania. In Romania, technical requirements concerning the energy performance of buildings 
are set in the so called C107 regulation. Originally approved in 1997 and entered into force in 
1998, the regulation was applicable to new buildings and extensions. Some amendments to the 
C107 regulation were introduced in 2000. The regulation was again amended at the end of 2005, 
in parallel with the transposition of the EPBD 2002, with the adoption of new requirements for 
both new buildings and major renovations that entered into force in 2007. The C107 regulation 
was again modified in October 2010, with the strengthening of thermal resistance parameters 
for renovations, and the setting of maximum heating energy consumption at 100 kWh/sqm/year.  

Spain. In Spain, minimum energy performance standards for new buildings were first introduced 
in  1979.  There  were  some  modifications  in  1998,  with  the  adoption  of  the  Reglamento  de 
Instalaciones Térmicas en los Edificios (RITE), but the regulatory framework remained basically 
unaltered  until  2006,  when  the  Código  Técnico  de  la  Edificación  (CTE)  was  approved.  The 
adoption  of  the  CTE  coincided  with  the  transposition  of  the  EPBD  2002,  resulting  in  the 
strengthening of minimum standards for new buildings (de facto corresponding to the EPC’s D 
class)  and  the  introduction  for  the  first  time  of  minimum  requirements  for  large  renovations. 
Additional requirements concerning ventilation and other aspects were introduced in 2007, with 
a modification of the RITE. The CTE/RITE were amended in 2013, as part of the transposition of 
the EPBD 2010. The new regulations entail a significant strengthening of EE parameters for new 
buildings, with minimum requirements equivalent to those applicable for the EPC’s B class. 

United Kingdom.174 In the UK, prescriptive energy requirements were first introduced in 1976, 
when a schedule on the ‘conservation of fuel and power’ was added to the Building Regulations. 
Over  the  subsequent  two  decades,  EPB  requirements  were  somewhat  strengthened,  with 
significant  changes  taking  place  in  1994  and  in  2000.  The  Building  Regulations  were  again 
modified in 2005 and 2006, in parallel with the transposition of EPBD 2002. These amendments 
lowered EPB requirements by 20% for residential building and by 23%-28% for non-residential 
buildings and made mandatory the installation of high efficiency condensing boilers. Following 
the  approval  of  the  Climate  Change  Act  of  2008,  a  new  change  occurred  in  2010,  when  the 
requirements  were  again  lowered  by  25%  for  both  residential  and  non-residential  buildings 
(although  leaving  largely  unchanged  the  minimum  performance  for  individual  building 
components).  Finally,  regulations  were  again  modified  in  2013.  Initially  motivated  by  the 
ambitious  objective  of  achieving  the  NZEB  stage  by  2016,  the  2013  revision  was  originally 
expected  to  result  in  another  major  cut  in  energy  requirements,  but  eventually  involved  a 
reduction  of  only  6%  for  dwellings  and  9%  for  non-residential  building.  The  new  provisions 
became effective in April 2014. 

174 The analysis presented here only refers to developments in England and Wales. In Scotland and Northern 
Ireland, EE regulations followed a similar pattern, with only marginal differences.  

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Summing Up. On the regulatory front, the 2004 – 2014 period is characterised by two elements 
common to all the countries, namely: (i) the significant strengthening of EPB requirements, and 
(ii)  the  growing  attention  paid  to  building  renovations.  However,  the  process  was  far  from 
uniform, with some countries opting for a more gradual approach and others modifying the levels 
of  ambition  ‘en  route’.  Differences  also  persist  in  the  way  in  which  the  EPB  requirements  are 
expressed.  While  there  was  a  general  trend  towards  the  adoption  of  performance-based 
requirements (i.e. considering the energy performance of buildings as a whole), in several cases 
prescriptive elements are still present in building codes. While this is justified on several grounds, 
especially  in  the  case  of  renovations,  it  also  makes  it  more  difficult  to  properly  compare  EPB 
requirements across countries. 

5.3 National Financial Support Measures175 

Changes  in  the  regulatory  framework  have  been  paralleled  by  the  deployment  of  financial 
measures  aimed  at  supporting  EE  in  buildings.  The  main  programmes  implemented  over  the 
2004 – 2014 period in the ten countries covered by the Study are illustrated in the following 
paragraphs.  It  is  important  to  note  that  EE-related  measures  coexist  with  a  number  of  other 
instruments  aimed  at  supporting  building  construction  and/or  renovation  ‘in  general’.  Notable 
examples of these general measures include: (i) the preferential VAT regimes adopted for the 
construction sector in France, Spain and Italy; (ii) the tax deductibility of certain categories of 
expenses for renovation works in Italy, Ireland and Germany; (iv) the accelerated depreciation 
scheme used in France for built-to-rent buildings (recently discontinued and replaced with a tax 
credit mechanism); and (v) various subsidised lending or (more rarely) grant schemes targeted 
at  special  categories  (e.g.  first-time  buyers)  in  all  countries.  Often,  these  ‘generic’  support 
schemes can be cumulated with EE-related schemes, making it difficult to precisely assess the 
separate impact of the various instruments.  

Belgium. In Belgium, support measures target both renovation and new buildings, and include 
preferential  tax  regimes,  grants  and  subsidised  loans.  At  the  federal  level,  a  tax  deduction 
scheme for EE measures was introduced in 2004. However, following the fiscal reform of 2012, 
since  2013  the  scheme  only  applies  to  roof  insulation  works.  Grant  and  subsidised  lending 
schemes  are  managed  by  regional  authorities.  Mostly  launched  in  the  mid-late  2000s,  these 
schemes have undergone several modifications, with changes in the scope of application and/or 
in  eligibility  requirements  and/or  in  the  level  of  subsidy.  For  instance,  in  Brussels,  the  grant 
available under the ‘Primes énergie’ scheme for the purchase of a ‘contruction neuve passive’ 
declined from € 100/sqm in 2009 to a maximum of € 40/sqm in 2014. In the Flemish region, 
new  buildings  displaying  better  than  mandatory  requirements  benefit  from  a  reduction  in 
property tax. Introduced in 2008, the scheme was revised in 2014 to reflect the tighter energy 
requirements  set  in  EE  regulations.  Finally,  at  federal  level,  since  the  year  2000  general 
renovation works benefit from a reduced VAT rate (6% compared with the 21% standard rate). 
Initially applicable to the renovation of buildings more than five years old, since 2015 this benefit 
only concerns buildings that are more than ten years old. 

Denmark. Denmark is a somewhat special case, as government authorities have scarcely relied 
on  ‘direct’  support  schemes,  involving  the  provision  of  grants  or  subsidised  loans.  The 
achievement of the EE objectives in the building sector is pursued primarily through tax policy 
(Danish energy tax rates are among the highest in the world), an extensive reliance on energy 
efficiency obligation schemes, and information diffusion and awareness increasing tools. 

175  EE-related  financial  instruments  have  been  analysed  in  a  variety  of  studies.  Comprehensive  reviews 
include: ODYSSE – MURE, Synthesis: Energy  Efficiency Trends and Policies in the EU, September 2015; 
Energy Efficiency Financial Institutions Group, Energy Efficiency – the first fuel for the EU Economy - How 
to drive new finance for energy efficiency investments, February 2015; and BPIE, Energy Efficiency Policies 
in Buildings – The Use of Financial Instruments at Member State Level, August 2012. This section is based 
on  these  reports  as  well  as  on  other  sources  (press  releases,  government  documents,  etc.)  providing 
information on the latest developments up to end 2014. 

89 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

France. In France, government measures supporting EE-related improvements mostly focus on 
building  renovation,  although  assistance  is  also  extended  to  new  buildings.  A  tax  credit 
mechanism (crédit d’impôt développement durable – CIDD) was established in 2005 to support 
a wide range of EE-related interventions, from insulation works to the acquisition and installation 
of high performance heating systems. The tax deduction rate varied depending upon the nature 
of  the  intervention,  with  higher  levels  of  support  reserved  to  complex  interventions.  The 
mechanism was replaced at the end of 2014, with the introduction of the crédit d’impôt pour la 
transition énergétique (CITE), with a standard 30% rate. A subsidised lending scheme (Eco-prêt 
à  taux  zero  -  eco-PTZ)  was  introduced  in  2009,  with  the  objective  of  supporting  ‘deep 
renovations’. This is a variant of a pre-existing scheme (Prêt à taux zero – PTZ) supporting the 
acquisition  or  renovation  of  buildings  by  first  time  owners.  EE-related  renovation  works  also 
benefit  from  a  considerably  reduced  VAT  rate  (5.5%  and  in  some  years  7%),  while  generic 
building renovation benefits from VAT at 10% (recently increased from the previous 7%). 

Germany.  In  Germany,  EE-related  support  measures  concern  both  new  buildings  and 
renovations and essentially consist of subsidised loans and grants. Both schemes are managed 
by Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW). In the case of new buildings, support is provided only 
for  those  outperforming  the  minimum  statutory  limits,  and  the  intensity  of  subsidy  (‘grant 
element’) increases with the level of energy performance. The same logic applies to renovations, 
although in this case the energy performance levels may well remain above the statutory limits 
for corresponding new buildings. In this case, assistance is mostly provided to comprehensive 
renovations, although support (in the form of grants) can also be provided to specific measures. 
Subsidised  loans  cover  up  to  30%  of  the  value  of  the  building,  with  a  maximum  value  of  € 
100,000, while grants for specific measures cover up to 10% of total renovation costs. EE-related 
tax  deductions  were  used  in  the  past  but  have  been  discontinued,  and  their  possible 
reintroduction was recently the subject of a heated debate. Instead, generic renovation works 
carried out by craftsmen still benefit from a 10% tax deduction. 

Ireland. Government support schemes focus on building renovation and mostly rely on grant 
funding. The oldest program, Warmer Homes, launched back in 2000 and implemented through 
a network of not-for-profit organizations and private contractors, provides free EE upgrades for 
vulnerable and fuel poor households. A second grant scheme, the Better Energy Homes scheme, 
was  launched  in  2011  to  replace  two  previous  similar  schemes,  the  Home  Energy  Savings 
Scheme and the Greener Homes Scheme. The programme provides small and medium grants 
(up  to  €  3,600)  to  support  a  wide  range  of  EE  interventions,  including  wall  insulation, 
improvement in heating systems, heating and heating controls upgrades, the installation of solar 
heating. Starting in 2014, grant programs are complemented by a supplier obligation program, 
the  Energy  Efficiency  Obligation  Scheme  (EEOS),  resulting  from  the  conversion  of  a  previous 
voluntary agreement with selected utilities and other energy players. 

Italy. EE-related measures mostly focus on building renovation, with limited support provided 
to the purchase of new buildings. A tax deduction mechanism supporting EE-related renovations 
was introduced in 2007. The mechanism allowed to deduct over a period of 10 years up to 55% 
of the total cost incurred by landlords (including VAT). In June 2013, tax deductibility was raised 
to  65%,  subject  to  maximum  value  depending  upon  the  nature  of  the  intervention  (from  € 
100,000 for the heating system to € 30,000 for heat pumps). This instrument is often used in 
conjunction with a similar tax deduction mechanism aimed at supporting building renovation is 
general. Introduced back in 1998, the scheme was repeatedly modified, with the tax deduction 
rate ranging from 36% to 50% depending upon the years. The purchase of new or existing EE 
buildings (A and A+ categories) is supported through a (mildly) subsidised lending scheme, the 
Plafond Casa. Initially launched in 2003, the scheme was revamped in 2013, but it is scarcely 
utilised. 

Poland. In Poland, government programmes only target building renovation, and financing from 
national  sources  is  supplemented  with  EU  funds.  The  main  support  program  is  the  Thermo-
Modernization Fund, operational since 1999 and managed by the Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego 
(BGK). In order to be eligible for financing, EE measures must achieve an energy saving ranging 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

between 10% (for interventions on the heating systems) and 25% (for complex renovations). 
Funding is provided in the form of a  subsidised loan, with a 25% grant element. Photovoltaic 
installations have been supported with subsidised loans, but the scheme was extended to micro-
installations only in 2015. Finally, funding for EE initiatives is also provided in the framework of 
European  Regional  and  Development  Fund  (ERDF)  programmes,  but  during  the  period  under 
consideration the focus was primarily on non-residential buildings. 

Romania. Support measures only focus on building renovation. The main government scheme, 
known as ‘Warmth and Comfort’ program, focuses on the rehabilitation of apartment buildings 
erected between 1950 and 1990. Launched in 2006, the program was due to expire in 2015 but 
it  was  recently  prolonged  until  2020.  Funded  by  the  national  budget,  the  program  provides 
grants worth up to 80% of rehabilitation costs, subject to certain maximum permissible values 
per sqm. Starting in 2012, the ‘warmth and comfort’ program was supplemented by a similar 
scheme partly funded by the ERDF in the framework of the Regional Operational Program 2007 
– 2013. The renovation of old apartment blocks is also extensively supported by the EIB, which 
since 2010 has approved a series of sizeable loans to four municipalities in the Bucharest area. 
Other measures include a small subsidised lending scheme supporting EE-renovation of houses 
completed  before  2000  and  the  Casa  Verde  program,  which  provides  small  grants  for  the 
installation of RES (heat pumps, photovoltaic). 

Spain. In Spain, support measures mostly concern building renovation, although there are also 
some measures focusing on new buildings. Renovation has been supported with grants provided 
under  various  schemes  implemented  since  the  early  2000s,  such  as  the  Plan  de  Ahorro  y 
Eficiencia Energética (PAEE) and the Programa de Ayudas para la Rehabilitación Energética de 
Edificios Existentes del sector Residencial (PAREER), and the subsequent PAREER-CRECE. The 
subsidy has ranged between 20% and 35% of the EE-related expenditure, depending upon the 
nature of the interventions and/or the energy savings achieved (as attested by an improvement 
in  EPC  classification).  The  adoption  of  renewable  energy  solutions  is  also  supported  by  some 
small  subsidised  lending  schemes  (e.g.  Programa  Biomcasa).  In  2010,  the  government  also 
introduced a tax rebate scheme (deducción por obras de mejora en la vivienda) allowing for the 
deduction of up to 20% of the expenditure incurred for  EE-related renovations. However, the 
scheme  was  discontinued  at  the  end  of  2012.  Finally,  since  2010  EE-related  renovations  can 
benefit from a preferential VAT regime (initially at 7% and then raised to 10% compared with 
the  21%  generally  applicable  rate)  introduced  to  support  renovation  ‘in  general’.  The 
construction of new EE buildings (A, B and C categories) was supported by the Plan Estatal de 
Vivienda y Rehabilitación 2009-2012, with the provision of small grants (between € 2,000 and € 
3.500 per dwelling), with additional funding sometimes provided by regional authorities. Finally, 
both new buildings and building renovation are covered by the recent Plan Estatal de Fomento 
del Alquiler de Viviendas, la Rehabilitación Edificatoria, y la Regeneración y Renovación Urbanas, 
covering the 2013 – 2016 period. While no comprehensive data are available about the results 
achieved  by  these  programs,  their  effectiveness  is  considered  to  be  rather  low  by  the 
Confederación Nacional de la Construcción (CNC).176 

United Kingdom. In the UK, government measures are predominantly targeted at supporting 
building renovation, with new residential construction receiving only marginal support in special 
cases (namely, exemption from the stamp duty land tax for new housing meeting very high EE 
parameters).  The  nature  of  government  programs  changed  significantly  during  the  period 
covered  by  this  Study.  Until  the  early  2010s,  support  to  EE-related  renovation  was  provided 
through  a  combination  of  grant  schemes  (mostly  targeted  at  low  income  households)  and 
company  obligation  programs,  requiring  energy  operators  to  implement  measures  to  reduce 
energy consumption in households. Starting in 2013, these programs were replaced by two new 
flagship initiatives, the Green Deal program and the Energy Company Obligation (ECO), inspired 
to a more market oriented approach. The Green Deal was a lending scheme based on the ‘pay-
as-you-save’ (PAYS) principle, intended to support a wide range of EE interventions, with focus 

176 Personal communication from Ms. Ángeles Asenjo, International Department Director of CNC, 7 June 
2016.  

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

on low cost measures. The scheme experienced a number of difficulties which severely limited 
its effectiveness and in 2014 the PAYS approach was abandoned, with a return to grant funding. 
As  for  ECO,  it  differs  from  previous  company  obligation  programs  insofar  part  of  the  cost  of 
interventions  is  passed  onto  consumers  through  their  energy  bills.  Aimed  at  supporting  more 
complex  EE-renovation  measures,  such  as  solid  walls  insulation  and  hard-to-treat  cavity 
insulation, ECO also experienced problems in the initial stages of implementation. However, the 
take up improved overtime and the scheme was renewed until 2017. 

Summing Up. Three main elements emerge from the analysis of government support schemes. 
First, in line with developments in the regulatory framework, in virtually all countries support 
programs  focus  primarily  (and  often  increasingly)  on  building  renovation.  Support  to  new 
buildings is still available in some countries, but typically on a much smaller scale and/or only in 
selected  cases.  Second,  the  range  of  instruments  deployed  is  extremely  varied,  reflecting 
national preferences and traditions. In some cases, the selection of instruments was influenced 
by considerations that have little to do with EE-related considerations. For instance, the use of 
reduced VAT schemes in Belgium, Spain and Italy was also (if not primarily) conceived to help 
combating the phenomenon of the ‘grey economy’, particularly widespread in the construction 
industry.  Third,  there  are  significant  differences  across  MS  regarding  the  selectivity  of 
government  assistance.  In  some  countries/regions  (e.g.  Germany  and  the  Flanders),  support 
schemes  are  increasingly  geared  towards  the  achievement  of  progressively  higher  EPB 
standards. In other countries, a significant share (sometimes the bulk) of support is provided 
through ‘broad’ schemes, that apply to a wide range of EE-related interventions, not necessarily 
entailing significant improvements in EE standards. 

5.4 EE-related Market for New Buildings 

5.4.1 Introduction 

The EE-related market for new buildings is defined as the turnover accruing to construction firms 
as a result of the extra costs linked to the adoption of stricter EPB requirements that are ‘passed 
onto’ clients. 

Estimating the EE-related market in the new buildings segment is a challenging task due to the 
presence of various concomitant factors. The two main variables to be considered are: (i) the 
increase in construction costs associated with the introduction of more stringent EE regulations; 
and the (ii) the extent to which construction firms are able to compensate higher costs with a 
corresponding increase in prices (the so called ‘pass-on’ factor). In turn, the ‘pass on’ factor is 
influenced by various factors, including: (a) the very magnitude of the extra costs determined 
by more stringent EE regulations (as smaller increases are more easily transferred to clients); 
(b)  general  market  developments,  i.e.  the  general  trend  in  real  estate  prices  and  volume  of 
transactions; (c) presence and scale of government financing schemes aimed at supporting the 
purchase of more energy efficient buildings; and (d) house buyers’ preferences, which may (or 
may not) result in the willingness to pay a premium for more energy efficient houses. 

In practice, the first step in the analysis consists in estimating the increase in construction costs 
linked  to  the  adoption  of  EE  regulations.  The  cost  increase  is  estimated  with  respect  to  the 
situation prevailing in 2004 (i.e. at the beginning of the period analysed), which is regarded as 
the ‘baseline’. As enterprises typically operate on a ‘cost plus basis’, the cost increase can also 
be regarded as indicative of the turnover linked to EE regulations. Therefore, as a second step, 
the cost increase, expressed in percentage terms, is multiplied by the value of the new buildings 
output, obtaining an initial estimate of the EE-related turnover. Since the ‘extra cost’ due to EE 
regulations and the new buildings output both vary overtime, this exercise is done for each year 
over the 2004 – 2014 period covered by the Study. The third step involves the estimation of the 
‘pass-on’ factor, i.e. the extent to which the cost increase actually did translate into an increase 
in  price.  Finally,  the  ‘pass  on’  factor  is  used  to  adjust  the  initial  estimate,  providing  the  final 
assessment of the EE market. An example illustrating the logic of the approach is provided in 
Box 5.1 below. 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Box 5.1 Example 

In  year  X  a  new  EE  regulation  entered  into  effect,  raising  construction  costs  by  5%  compared  to  the 
baseline. In that year, the new buildings output was € 100 billion, which prima facie suggests an EE-related 
turnover of € 5 billion. Year X was a bad year for the construction industry, with a major decline in the 
demand  for  new  buildings.  The  situation  was  aggravated  by  the  discontinuation  of  certain  government 
programmes,  due  to  budgetary  difficulties.  As  a  result,  in  order  to  remain  competitive,  construction 
companies had to reduce their margins by absorbing about 20% of the cost increase linked to EE regulations 
(i.e. the increase in the price charged to home buyers was only 4%, not 5%). Therefore, in year X the EE-
related turnover can be estimated at € 4 billion. 

The above approach incorporates a highly stylised version of the functioning of the new buildings 
market and this inevitably entails some limitations. For instance, the analysis is based on average 
values,  which  obviously  does  not  do  justice  to  extreme  diversity  of  the  new  buildings  market 
(e.g. detached family houses, semi-detached family houses, medium rise apartment buildings, 
high rise apartment buildings, etc.). Also, the approach is somewhat ‘naïve’ in the sense that it 
assumes  that  construction  firms  fully  comply  with  the  mandatory  EPB  requirements,  whereas 
there is significant evidence that this is not always the case, especially in the years immediately 
following  the  entry  into  force  of  a  new  EE  regulation.177  Finally,  the  approach  neglects  the 
possibility  that  the  EE-related  costs  may  decline  over  time,  due  to  some  form  of  ‘learning 
effect’.178 

5.4.2 Country Analysis 

Estimating  the  Extra  Costs.  The  sources  and  the  parameters  used  for  the  analysis  are 
presented in Exhibit 5.1 below.  

Exhibit 5.1   Assessment of Extra Costs – Sources and Parameters 

Countries  Sources of Information and Parameters Retained for the Analysis 

Belgium 

The extra costs were estimated primarily on the basis of engineering studies. 179 
The estimates provided by the firms interviewed were much higher (with some 
interviewees reporting extra costs of up to 20%), and appear to be inconsistent 
with general market developments. A further element of complication in providing 
an estimate at the national level lies in the different pace of implementation of 
EPB requirements across regions, with the Flanders moving at a faster pace. The 
cost increases retained for the analysis are: (i) 2% between 2006 and 2009, (ii) 
5% for the 2010 – 2012 period; and (ii) 6% for 2013-2014. 

177 On the issue of compliance with minimum statutory requirements, see the recent European Commission, 
Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) Compliance Study, December 2015 (especially section 
3). 
178 It is worth noting that on the magnitude of the learning effect in EE technologies in building views are 
not  unanimous.  Some  studies  assume  quite  high  learning  factors,  with  cost  reductions  of  up  to  50% 
(although  over  periods  of  time  typically  longer  than  the  period  covered  by  this  Study).  The  building 
construction professionals interviewed for the Study offer a more nuanced view, suggesting the possibility 
of  significant  cost  savings  for  certain  components  (heating  systems,  windows  and  doors),  but  not  for 
classical  construction  work.  For  a  fairly  optimistic  view,  see  Diana  Urge-Vorsatz  and  others,  Monetary 
Benefits of Ambitious Building Energy Policies. Research report prepared by ABUD for the Global Building 
Performance Network, January 2015. For a more reserved assessment, see the considerations provided in 
Giraudet Louis-Gaëtan and others, A model of the French residential demand for heating energy to evaluate 
the impact of policy instruments, CIRED, 2010. 
179 See Janssens B and A Verbruggen, Feasibility of upgrading the energy performance of recent massive 
brick  houses,  Frontiers  of  Architectural  Research,  2014;  and  Georges  L  and  others,  Environmental  and 
economic performance of heating systems for energy-efficient dwellings: Case of passive and low-energy 
single-family houses, Energy Policy, 2012 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Denmark 

France 

Germany 

Ireland 

Italy 

The  extra  costs  linked  to  EE  regulations  were  estimated  based  on  engineering 
studies and other publications180 and validated with stakeholders and firms. The 
cost increases retained for the analysis are: (i) 2% for the 2005  – 2010 period 
(i.e. in connection with the 25% reduction in energy requirements compared with 
1995 levels); and (ii) 8% for the 2011  – 2014 period (linked to a further 25% 
reduction compared with 2005).  
Estimates  of  extra  costs  were  based  on  engineering  studies  and  other 
publications,181  supplemented  with  information  provided  by  the  business 
associations  and  construction  firms  interviewed  (whose  assessment  was  less 
divergent than in other countries). The cost increases retained for the analysis 
are: (i) 3% over the 2006  – 2009 period (i.e. from the  entry into force of the 
RT2005 until the introduction of additional measures at the end of the 2000s); 
(ii) 5% over the 2010 – 2012 period (i.e. until the entry into force of the RT2012), 
and (iii) 8% in the years 2013 – 2014, corresponding to the initial phase of the 
RT2012. 
The extra costs were estimated based on two studies, one sponsored by business 
associations  and  the  other  commissioned  by  the  government,  that  -  while 
diverging in many respects - concurred in assessing the extra cost at 6% for the 
period  up  to  2014.182  The  firms  interviewed  typically  provided  much  higher 
estimates (up to 35%), which were deemed unrealistic. For the purpose of the 
analysis, the 6% cost increase was subdivided into two steps, namely: (i) a 3% 
cost increase from 2004 up to 2009 (i.e. up to the approval of the EnEV2009); 
and (ii) another 3% cost increase for the following years.  
Estimates of the extra costs are based on the impact assessments for the revision 
of the Building Regulations.183 The existence of an increase in construction costs 
was confirmed by government authorities and stakeholders, who however could 
not  provide  any  estimate.  The  cost  increases  retained  for  the  analysis  are:  (i) 
4.5% from 2008 (when the 2005 Building Regulation revision became effective) 
until  2010;  and  (ii)  6%  from  2011  onwards.  These  values  refer  to  a  semi-
detached house, the most common dwelling type in Ireland.  
The  extra  costs  were  estimated  based  on  information  provided  by  business 
associations and firms, eliminating the most extreme values. The cost increases 
used for the analysis are: (i) 1% over the 2006 – 2007 period; (ii) 2% for the 
biennium  2008  –  2009;  (iii)  3%  for  the  2011-2012  period;  and  (iv)  4%  since 
2012 (when the renewable energy requirements introduced in 2011 started being 
implemented). The progressive  cost increase  reflects the gradual phasing in of 
the requirements set by the 2005 reform.  

180  See  Aggerholm  S,  Skærpede  krav  til  nybyggeriet  2010  og  fremover:  Økonomisk  analyse,  Statens 
Byggeforskningsinstitut,  2009;  and  Thomsen  K  E  and  S  Aggerholm,  Denmark:  Impact,  compliance  and 
control of legislation, ASIEPI, 31 December 2009. 
181 Ministère de l'Emploi, de la Cohésion sociale et du Logement, Règlementation Thermique 2005 - Réunion 
départementale d’information (undated) ; Enertech/ADEME, Bâtiments performants – Etude économique – 
Rapport  Final,  2011;  Ministère  l'Écologie,  de  l'Énergie,  du  Développement  durable  et  de  la  Mer,  La 
réglementation  thermique  2012  (undated);  FFB,  Analyse  de  l’évolution  comparée  des  prix  et  des  coûts 
dans le bâtiment - Préconisations en matière de simplifications règlementaires, Juillet 2013. 
182  See  ARGE,  Kostentreiber  für  den  Wohnungsbau  -  Untersuchung  und  Betrachtung  der  wichtigsten 
Einflussfaktoren  auf  die  Gestehungskosten  und  auf  die  aktuelle  Kostenentwicklung  von  Wohnraum  in 
der 
2015; 
Deutschland, 
Baukostensenkungskommission, 
„Zukunft  Bau“  des 
Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit (BMUB) – Endbericht, November 
2015. 
183  Department  of  the  Environment,  Heritage  and  Local  Government,  Regulatory  Impact  Assessment  - 
Building Regulations Part L and Technical Guidance Document L, December 2007; and Department of the 
Environment, Community and Local Government, Regulatory Impact Analysis - Conservation of Fuel and 
Energy in New Dwellings - Proposed amendments to Building Regulations Part L and Technical Guidance 
Document L, 26 July 2010. 

and  Wissenschaftliche 
im  Rahmen  des  Forschungsprogramms 

Technische 

Begleitung 

April 

und 

94 

 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Poland 

Romania 

Spain 

United 
Kingdom 

It is unclear whether the technical regulations adopted in 2008 resulted in any 
cost  increase.  Stakeholders  and  firms  interviewed  mentioned  some  increase  in 
costs,  but  were  unable  to  provide  any  quantification.  For  the  purpose  of  the 
analysis a minimal extra cost of 1% was assumed starting in 2008. The effects 
of the technical regulation adopted in 2013 were not considered as the ensuing 
cost increase mostly materialised after 2014. 
There  are  no  studies  on  the  extra  cost  and  the  information  collected  through 
interviews is conflicting, as some interviewees did not notice any cost increase 
while  others  mentioned  a  15%  increase.  However,  this  latter  figure  is  derived 
from  the  maximum  permissible  value  for  renovation  works  under  the  ‘Warmth 
and Comfort’ program, which is scarcely relevant for new buildings. Considering 
that until recently Romania’s EPB requirements were not particularly stringent, a 
3%  cost  increase  was  conservatively  assumed,  applicable  to  the  2011  –  2014 
period (i.e. following the October 2010 revision of the C107 regulation). 
Estimates are based on engineering studies for large apartment buildings184 and 
were  adjusted  upward  by  about  50%  to  reflect  higher  unit  costs  in  smaller 
buildings. The estimates provided by the firms interviewed were only partly taken 
into consideration, due to the wide range of variations and the presence of some 
clear  outliers  (up  to  12%  cost  increase,  which  is  scarcely  credible  considering 
general market developments). The extra costs used for the analysis are: (i) 3% 
for the 2007 – 2013 period (i.e. following the adoption of CITE in 2006); and (ii) 
6% for the year 2014 (i.e. following the 2013 reform).  
Estimates of extra costs are based on the impact assessments for the Buildings 
Regulations revision,185 adjusted upward based on information collected through 
interviews, but without considering the highest values (some suggested up to a 
22% cost increase, which is clearly unrealistic). The extra  costs  considered for 
the  analysis  are:  (i)  2%  for  the  2007  –  2010  period  (i.e.  following  the  2005 
Building Regulations revision); and (ii) 4% for the 2011 – 2014 period (reflecting 
the 2010 revision). The cost increase associated with the 2013 revision was not 
considered as it became effective during 2014 and its effects de facto materialised 
afterwards. 

Estimating the ‘Pass  on’ Factor.  The information regarding the magnitude of the  ‘pass-on’ 
factor can be summarised as follows: 
 

In Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Poland and Romania and the UK, available 
evidence suggests that construction firms were generally able to incorporate the extra costs 
into prices, with a corresponding increase in turnover. After the real estate bubble of the mid 
– late 2000s, all the countries experienced periods of declining prices. However, this mostly 
resulted in a reduction in the ‘real estate rent’, and did not fundamentally alter the cost plus 
pricing mechanism used by construction firms. Also, in France and Germany, the demand for 
high  quality  buildings  was  actively  supported  by  subsidised  lending  schemes,  therefore 
reducing  the  downward  pressure  on  prices.  Moreover,  there  are  indications  that  in  West 
European  countries  home  buyers’  preferences  progressively  reoriented  towards  dwellings 
with higher EE standards, for which they are prepared to pay a premium.186 Finally, in the 

184  See  PRECOST&E,  Evaluación  de  los  costes  constructivos  y  consumos  energéticos  derivados  de  la 
calificación  energética  de  viviendas,  Universidad  Politécnica  de  Madrid,  Diciembre  2009  ;  and  García-
Navarro J and others, «Estudio Precost&e»: evaluación de los costes constructivos y consumos energéticos 
derivados  de  la  calificación  energética  en  un  edificio  de  viviendas  situado  en  Madrid,  Informes  de  la 
Construcción, Julio-Septiembre 2014. 
185 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Regulatory Impact Assessment Part L and Approved Document F, 
2006,  March  2006;  Department  for  Communities  and  Local  Government,  Implementation  Stage  Impact 
Assessment  of  Revisions  to  Parts  F  and  L  of  the  Building  Regulations  from  2010,  March  2010;:  and 
Department for Communities and Local Government, Changes to Part L of the Building Regulations 2013 - 
Impact Assessment, August 2013. 
186 See European Commission - DG Energy, Energy performance certificates in buildings and their impact 
on  transaction  prices  and  rents  in  selected  EU  countries  –  Final  Report,  19  April  2013  (hereinafter 
‘Transaction Prices Study’). The study found a positive effect of higher EE standards on prices in Belgium 

95 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

 

case of Romania and Poland, the estimated extra costs linked to EPB requirements are quite 
modest, which per se facilitate their ‘passing on’ to home buyers.  
In contrast, in the case of Ireland, Spain and Italy, there are indications that part of the 
extra costs linked to more stringent EPB requirements had to be absorbed by construction 
companies. In these countries the decline in construction activity was deeper and/or more 
prolonged,  resulting  in  a  stronger  downward  pressure  on  prices.  These  negative  market 
developments were only marginally mitigated by government programs targeted at energy 
efficient  new  dwellings,  that  either  did  not  exist  (in  Ireland)  or  were  scarcely  effective 
(Spain’s  Plan  de  Vivienda  and  Italy’s  Plafond  Casa).  Finally,  with  the  partial  exception  of 
Ireland,187 there is scarce evidence of home buyers willing to pay a premium for better energy 
performance. Under these conditions, it appears plausible to assume that, starting in 2008 
(in Ireland and Spain) and 2010 (in Italy), construction firms were able to recoup only three 
quarters of the EE-related extra costs. 

5.4.3 Results 

Over  the  2004  –  2014  period,  the  total  value  of  the  EE-related  market  for  new  buildings  is 
estimated at € 56 billion. This corresponds to  about 3%  of the total new residential buildings 
output over the same period. With more than € 20 billion, Germany accounts for more than one 
third of the total market, followed by France (€ 11 billion, i.e. about 20%) and the UK (€ 7 billion, 
i.e. 13%).  

Exhibit 5.2  EE-related New Buildings Market 

Annual Values (€ billion) 

Composition (percentages) 

Overtime,  the  value  of  the  EE  market  shows  a  contrasted  trend,  with  a  growth  until  2007, 
followed by a decline at the end of the 2000s, and by a recovery since 2010. The trend is the 
result of the interplay of two factors: (i) the overall evolution in the new building market; and 
(ii) the tightening of energy efficiency requirements. For instance, in France and Germany, the 
tightening of EE requirements combined with a recovery in the new buildings market, resulted 
in an overall growth since 2011.  In  contrast, in Italy and Spain, the effect of the progressive 
tightening of EPB is more than compensated by the drastic decline in the overall market, resulting 
in a negative trend. 

and France, while results were negative for a local UK market (Oxford). However, other  studies suggest 
the existence of a premium also in the UK. See Department of Energy and Climate Change, An investigation 
of the effect of EPC ratings on house prices, 17 June 2013. 
187 The Transaction Prices Study found a positive effects also in Ireland, but its magnitude was smaller than 
in other countries. This is confirmed by other studies, in particular Stanley S, R C Lyons and S Lyons, Price 
Effect  of  Building  Energy  Ratings  in  the  Dublin  Residential  Market,  Trinity  Economics  Papers  -  Working 
Paper No. 0415, June 2015.  

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 5.3  Developments  in  the  EE-Related  New  Buildings  Market  –  France  and 

Germany 

France (€ billion) 

Germany (€ billion) 

Exhibit 5.4  Developments in the EE-Related New Buildings Market – Spain and Italy 

Spain (€ billion) 

Italy (€ billion) 

5.5 EE-related Market for Buildings Renovation 

5.5.1 Introduction 

The EE-related market for buildings renovations is defined as the value of the works and related 
goods and services utilised to upgrade the energy efficiency of dwellings. 

There is little systematic information on the value of EE-related renovations and the analysis had 
to rely on a variety of sources. Comprehensive studies are available for only few countries and 
even in these cases there are at times discrepancies among the various sources. In most (though 
not  all)  the  countries  analysed  the  EE-related  renovation  activities  are  driven  by  government 
support programmes and, therefore, in certain cases the market was estimated based on data 
on the assistance provided. The information collected from stakeholders and firms was usually 
of limited use, as either they were not able to provide any quantification or the figures provided 
showed a wide range of variation, reflecting peculiar situations or distorted perceptions. Still, in 
few  cases,  information  from  interviews  was  the  only  one  available  forcing  the  Consultant  to 
resort to fairly rough ‘guess estimates’. 

Two points are worth noting. First, irrespective of the sources, sometimes the EE-related market 
was estimated as a share of the total renovation market. In these cases, the total market value 
was computed by multiplying the estimated share by the total value of residential renovations 
taken  from  sector  statistics.  Second,  the  definitions  of  ‘EE-related  renovation’  used  by  the 
various  sources  utilised  sometimes  differ.  The  main  difference  refers  to  expenditures  for 
renewable  energy  sources,  and  in  particular  photovoltaic  (PV)  domestic  installations,  that  are 
covered in some cases and excluded in others. 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

The  sources  of  information  utilised  and  the  main  findings  for  each  of  the  ten  MS  analysed  in 
detail are illustrated in the following paragraphs.  

5.5.2 Country Analysis 

Belgium.  There  are  no  studies  on  EE-related  renovations  in  Belgium.  Figures  provided  by 
construction firms invariably show a significant growth in the value of the EE renovation market 
(in some cases with a fivefold increase between 2009 and 2014), but coming from specialised 
operators,  they  overestimate  the  total  market.  The  growth  is  confirmed  by  some  real  estate 
professionals, who grossly estimated the share of EE-related works accounted for some 15% of 
total renovation expenditures, up from about 10% in the late 2000s. Using these rough estimates 
and  considering  the  total  value  of  residential  building  renovations,  the  market  for  EE-related 
renovation was estimated at € 7.4 billion over the 2009 – 2014 period, with an annual average 
of € 1.2 billion. 

Denmark.  There  are  no  comprehensive  studies  on  the  market  for  EE-related  renovations  in 
Denmark. The national construction industry association estimates that EE-related renovations 
accounted on average for 35% of the total renovation market over the 2006 – 2014 period.188 
This  estimate  was  discussed  with  some  construction  firms  who,  despite  somewhat  diverging 
views (for some it was too high, for others too low), on ‘average’ concurred with the assessment 
of the association. Considering the total value of residential building renovations, the market for 
EE-related renovations can be estimated at some € 32 billion, with an annual average of almost 
€ 3.4 billion. 

France.  In  France,  the  market  for  EE-related  renovation  is  monitored  by  the  Agence  de 
l’environnement et de la maîtrise de l’énergie (ADEME), through surveys carried out at regular 
intervals and special studies. According to the latest report published,189 over the 2006 – 2014 
period, the total value of EE-related renovations was € 116 billion, with an average of nearly € 
13 billion per year. These figures cover insulation, replacement of boilers and windows, as well 
as  expenditure  for  ventilation  and  heating  control  systems.  The  estimate  does  not  include 
expenditure  for  PV  home  systems,  for  which  no  separate  figure  is  available,  and  therefore 
underestimate the actual market value. In 2013, the average value of renovation interventions 
was about € 4,140, with values of specific interventions ranging from little less than € 4,000 for 
heating system improvements and replacement of windows, to  some more than € 10,000 for 
roof insulation interventions. Compared with 2010, the average value of renovation interventions 
declined by some 9%.190 

Germany.  Information on the value of the  EE-related renovation market was taken from the 
reports published annually by DIW, which cover the period since the year 2010. 191 Information 
on earlier years is provided in a study from a consulting firm.192 However, these data are not 
comparable with those of DIW due to major differences in the definition of ‘EE-related renovation’ 
and  therefore  could  not  be  considered  for  the  analysis.  Therefore,  according  to  DIW  data, 
regarded as the most reliable source by all the stakeholders interviewed, the total value of the 
EE  market  over  the  2010  –  2014  period  was  nearly  €  188  billion,  with  an  annual  average  of 
almost € 38 billion. In 2014, the value of the average value of building renovation intervention 
was € 4,450, with a 12% decline compared with the corresponding value in 2010. 

188 Dansk Byggeri, Byggeriets Energianalyse 2015, København, 2015. 
189 ADEME, Marchés et emplois liés à l'efficacité énergétique et aux énergies renouvelables: situation 2012-
2013  et  perspectives  à  court  terme,  November  2014.  Data  for  2014  are  estimates.  There  are  some 
discrepancies in the figures provided in different parts of the study. The figures presented here are from 
the tables presented on page 273. 
190 ADEME, Climat. Air et énergie 2014 – Chiffres Clefs, 2015. 
191 Gornig M and others, German construction industry: refurbishment lacks momentum, new residential 
construction gets second wind, DIW Economic Bulletin 49, 2015. 
192 Prognos, Ermittlung der Wachstumswirkungen der KfW-Programme zum Energieeffizienten Bauen und 
Sanieren, 8 March 2013. 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Ireland. In Ireland, the main source of information on EE renovations is the Sustainable Energy 
Authority  of  Ireland  (SEAI),  which  recently  published  a  report  covering  developments  since 
2009.193 Regarding the previous years, the value of EE renovations was estimated based on the 
funds disbursed by the government schemes operational at that time.194 Overall, the total value 
of the EE-related market from 2006 through 2014 can be estimated at some € 1.5 billion, with 
an annual average of about € 170 million. 

Italy.  In  Italy,  developments  in  the  building  renovations  market  are  monitored  by  the 
Parliament,  to  assess  the  influence  of  government  support  measures.  According  to  the  latest 
report published,195 over the 2007 – 2014 period some € 25 billion were invested in EE-related 
renovations.  However,  this  figure  only  refers  to  renovations  benefitting  from  a  scheme 
specifically  targeted  at  EE-renovation  and  does  not  consider  the  effects  of  another  scheme 
supporting  ‘general’  building  renovation.  Once  this  aspect  is  taken  into  account,  the  EE 
renovation market is estimated to total € 48 billion for the 2007 – 2014 period, with an annual 
average  of  €  6  billion.  In  2014,  the  average  value  of  interventions  supported  by  specific  EE-
related schemes was € 10,750, with a 9% decline compared with 2011. 

Poland. In Poland, building renovation is driven by government incentives. Based on data from 
the national development bank, a recent study provided an assessment of the value of the EE-
related renovation market for the 2006 – 2013 period.196 The study does not cover investments 
in renewable sources, but this appears to be a minor omission, as most the funding provided to 
RES was not in the residential sector. Overall, the total value of EE-related renovations over the 
2006 – 2014 period is estimated at 5 billion, with annual average of € 500 million. 

Romania.  There  are  no  studies  on  EE-related  renovations  in  Romania  and  little  useful 
information could be retrieved from interviews with stakeholders and firms. As in Poland,  EE-
renovation is primarily triggered by support programs and therefore,  the value of the market 
was estimated based on disbursement data concerning the main assistance schemes (‘Warmth 
and  Comfort’  program,  ERDF  co-financed  program,  and  EIB  lending  program  for  building 
renovation in Bucharest).197 Overall, the total value of the EE renovations for the 2009 – 2014 
period was estimated at € 366 million, with an average of some € 60 million per year. 

Spain. Little is known about the value of EE-related renovations in Spain. The theme is dealt 
with  in  several  studies,  which  however  only  speculate  about  the  future  market  potential, 
providing virtual no information on the past and current situation.198 The figures provided by the 
construction firms and professionals interviewed show major variations (from nihil to more than 
80%),  reflecting  the  interviewees’  peculiarities,  and  therefore  cannot  be  generalised.  Under 
these  conditions,  EE-renovations  were  ‘guess  estimated’  to  account  for  10%  of  the  total 
renovation market in the years 2007-2012, with an increase to 15% in 2013-2014. Accordingly, 
the total value of EE-related renovations can be estimated at some € 16 billion, with an average 
of € 2.4 billion per year. 

193 Ricardo-AEA, Ireland’s Sustainable Energy Supply Chain Opportunity, June 2014. 
194 Estimate, based on: (i) the value of the Warmer Houses grants disbursed; and (ii) the double of the 
value of the grants provided under the Greener Houses scheme. Data on grant disbursements are from the 
SEAI annual reports for 2006 through 2008. 
195  Camera  dei  deputati,  Il  recupero  e  la  riqualificazione  energetica  del  patrimonio  edilizio:  una  stima 
dell’impatto delle misure di incentivazione, 8 October 2015. The analysis of the building renovation market 
is carried out by CRESME. 
196 BPIE, Financing Building Energy Performance Improvement in Poland – Status Report, January 2016. 
197 EIB, The EIB in Romania in 2014, undated (but 2015). 
198  See  for  instance,  Asociación  de  Empresas  de  Eficiencia  Energética,  Estudio  sobre  el  Mercado  de  la 
Eficiencia  Energética  en  España  (undated,  but  probably  2012);  Grupo  de  Trabajo  sobre  Rehabilitación, 
Strategy for Buildings Renovation - Keys to Transform Spain’s Buildings Sector, December 2013; and CEOE, 
La rehabilitación de edificios como motor de crecimiento y empleo, Septiembre 2014. 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

United Kingdom. In the UK, information on EE renovations is scarce, and the data presented 
in the few studies and government documents available are outdated and/or refer only to some 
market  segments.199  Therefore,  the  market  for  the  main  EE  interventions  (various  types  of 
insulation, replacement of boilers, doors and windows) was estimated on the basis of the annual 
number of installations and the average prices per installation, with data originating from the 
Committee on Climate Change and the Energy Saving Trust.200 Overall, the total value of the EE 
renovation market is estimated at € 39 billion over the 2008 – 2014 period, with an average of 
€ 5.6 billion/year. 

5.5.3 Results 

Over the 2010 – 2014 sub-period, the only one for which data are available for all the ten MS, 
the  total  value  of  the  EE-related  renovation  market  is  estimated  at  nearly  €  364  billion.  This 
accounts for about 23% of the total residential renovation market. With € 189 billion, Germany 
is by far the leading market, accounting for 52% of the total, followed by France (€ 70 billion, 
i.e. 19%) and Italy (€ 36 billion, i.e. 10%). Obviously, the ranking of countries largely reflects 
the total size of the market, but it is also influenced by the intensity of the EE renovation effort, 
with Denmark posting a value (€ 18 billion) that is more than 50% higher than that of Spain (€ 
11 billion). 

Exhibit 5.5  EE-Related Renovation Market – 2010 - 2014 (€ billion and percentages) 

Annual Values (€ billion) 

Composition (percentages) 

Annual figures are in the € 74 – 72 billion range, with a marginally declining trend from 2010 
through 2013, with a partial rebound in 2014. However, this is the result of widely divergent 
trends  at  the  national  level.  Developments  were  globally  negative  in  Germany,  where  the  EE 
renovation market contracted from some € 40 billion in 2014 to less than € 35 billion in 2010. 
This  appears  to  be  due  to  a  decline  in  the  renewable  energy  segment,  as  the  reduction  of 
government incentives led to a major decline in  the value of RES installations. The decline in 
Germany is partly compensated by an increase in Italy, where the market grew from about € 6 

199 See for instance, Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes, An assessment of the size of the UK household 
energy efficiency market, November 2008. 
200 Data on installations for cavity wall insulation, solid wall insulation, loft/roof insulation and condensing 
boilers) were taken from Committee on Climate Change. Meeting Carbon Budgets – Progress in reducing 
the UK’s emissions - 2015 Report to Parliament, June 2015. Average prices were calculated on the basis of 
information published by the Energy Saving  Trust  http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/.  In  the case  of 
doors and windows, no data on installations could be located and the value of the market was estimated 
(e.g. 
to 
http://www.olympicglass.co.uk/Information/News/976-/Rising-demand-for-conservatories-and-glazed-
extensions-in-the-UK 
growth/). 

http://www.windowsactive.com/domestic-replacement-market-returns-to-

billion/year 

average 

various 

reports 

based 

press 

and 

0.8 

on 

at 

£ 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

billion in 2010 – 2012 to nearly € 8 billion in 2014, largely in connection with the increase of tax 
deductions for EE interventions starting in mid-2013. In France, after the strong growth recorded 
in the late 2000s, over the 2010 – 2014 period the market increased only marginally, by some 
€ 0.5 billion. Positive developments can be noticed also in Belgium and Denmark, but as the EE 
market was estimated as a fraction of the total renovation market, in these countries the trend 
is explained primarily by general market developments. The same applies to Spain, where the 
marginally  declining  trend  until  2013  is  due  to  a  contraction  in  the  general  market,  with  a 
rebound in 2014. The UK constitutes a special case, as the globally positive trend started in the 
late  2000s,  was  interrupted  in  2012  due  to  the  problems  encountered  by  the  Green  Deal 
programme, which led  to drastic decline in the insulation segment (whose value passed from 
more than € 2 billion to € 0.5 billion, with only a partial recovery to € 1.2 billion in 2014). 

Exhibit 5.6  Developments  in  the  EE-Related  Renovation  Market  –  France  and 
Germany 

France 2006 – 2014 (€ billion) 

Germany 2010 – 2014 (€ billion) 

Strong growth in early years, 
thanks to the launch of several 
support programmes 
fgsdfgsdfgsdfgsdfg 

Marked decline 
due to the cut in 
subsidies for  RES 

Exhibit 5.7  Developments  in  the  EE-Related  Renovation  Market  –  United  Kingdom 
and Italy 

United Kingdom (€ billion) 

Decline in 2013 due to 
problems experienced by the 
Green Deal programme 

Italy (€ billion) 

Growth since 2011 due to the 
increase in tax deductions 
from 55% to 65% 

5.6 Overall Assessment 

5.6.1 Cumulated Results 

Based on the results presented in the preceding two sections, for the sub-period 2010 – 2014 
for  which  there  are  comprehensive  data,  the  total  EE-related  turnover  for  new  and  existing 
buildings is in the order of € 399 billion, of which about 91% (€ 364 billion) refer to renovation 
and  €  35  billion  (9%)  to  new  buildings.  Predictably,  Germany  is  the  country  with  the  largest 
share, about 50% of the total, followed by France (19%) and by the UK and Italy almost at par, 
with respectively 10% and 9% of the total. The trend is somewhat oscillating, with annual values 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

ranging  between  €  78  billion  and  €  82  billion per  year.  While  renovation is  always  by  far  the 
largest segment, the share of turnover in the new buildings segment shows a clear upward trend, 
passing from some 7% in 2010 to about 11% in 2014. This result, however, is heavily influenced 
by developments in Germany which is one of the two only countries (the other being Spain) to 
record a decline in the value of EE-related renovations.  

Exhibit 5.8  Total EE-related Market – 2010 – 2014 

Annual Values (€ billion) 

Composition (percentages) 

In relative terms, over the 2010 – 2014 period, the EE-related market accounts for about 16% 
of  the  total  residential  buildings  market,  a  share  that  remained  stable  overtime.  EE-related 
business is comparatively more important in renovation, where it accounts for about 23% of the 
total,  again  with  little  variation  overtime.  Instead,  the  share  of  EE-related  business  in  new 
buildings, while minimal, is on the rise, passing from 3% in 2010 to 5% in 2014. 

Exhibit 5.9  Comparison  between  the  EE-related  and  the  Total  Residential  Market  – 

2010 – 2014 

New Buildings (€ billion) 

Renovation ( € billion) 

Total (€ billion) 

7 

5 

7 

7 

9 

167  178  170  164 

189 

 200

 150

 100

 50

 -

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

74

74

72

72

73

79 

… 78 

79 

82 

 600

 500

 400

 300

238

250

251

249

255

 200

405 

427 

420 

413 

444 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

 100

 -

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

5.6.2 Attribution Analysis 

Introduction.  The  relative  importance  of  EU  legislation  in  generating  the  EE-related  market 
cannot be neatly determined. The nature of the obligations imposed by the EPBD (and, whenever 
relevant, the EED and the RESD) upon MS is such that national authorities have a great degree 
of latitude. In particular, the progressive tightening of EPB requirements is indeed a requirement 
(albeit  implicit,  via  the  cost  optimality  mechanism)  of  EU  legislation.  However,  EU  legislation 
does  not  set  any  specific  performance  standards  to  be  fulfilled  by  the  building  sector  (e.g.  in 
terms  of  total  energy  requirements  or  transmittance  parameters  for,  say,  windows)  and  this 
prevents  the  establishment  of  an  ‘EU  benchmark’  (and  the  estimation  of  the  associated  EE 
market)  against  which the  performance  standards  actually  adopted  at  national level  (and  the 
associated  markets)  could  be  compared.  Similar  considerations  apply  to  the  deployment  of 
financial  support  measures.  The  establishment  of  these  measures  is  indeed  contemplated  by 
relevant  EU  legislation.  However,  national  authorities  retain  full  autonomy  in  determining  the 
nature, scale and intensity of these support measures and this prevents, again, the setting of 
any ‘EU benchmark’ against which the situation in the various MS could be assessed. 

Under these conditions, the assessment of attribution becomes an eminently qualitative exercise, 
involving the consideration of the various factors at play, in order to achieve an assessment of 
the  relative  importance  of  EU  legislation  relative  to  national  legislation  and  policy.  As  the 
quantification of the effects of EU legislation is at the core of this Study, the qualitative exercise 
was structured so as to provide a ranking of the influence of EU legislation, with the successive 
transformation  of  the  ranking  into  a  quantitative  assessment.  In  operational  terms,  the 
assessment  was  based  on  a  five-level  scale,  ranging  from  ‘very  low’  to  ‘very  high’,  with  a 
percentage value attached to each level of the scale. In turn, such a percentage was used to 
measure  the  estimated  contribution  of  EU  legislation  to  a  certain  market  (new  buildings  or 
renovation) in a certain MS over the 2004 – 2014 period (Exhibit 5.10). As in any other similar 
exercise, involving not only a precise rating of complex phenomena but also the transformation 
of ratings into quantitative results, the analysis is inevitably exposed to the risk of subjectivity. 

Exhibit 5.10  Ratings for Attribution Analysis 

Rating 

Meaning 

Very Low 

Low 

Medium 

High 

Very 
High 

EU legislation exerted a marginal influence on the factors 
driving the market developments compared with national 
legislation and policy 
EU legislation exerted a limited influence on the factors 
driving the market developments compared with national 
legislation and policy 
EU legislation exerted a medium influence on the factors 
driving the market developments compared with national 
legislation and policy 
EU  legislation  exerted  an  important  influence  on  the 
factors  driving  the  market  developments  compared  with 
national legislation and policy 
EU legislation exerted a crucial influence on the factors 
driving the market developments compared with national 
legislation and policy 

Corresponding 
share of 
relevant market 

10% 

30% 

50% 

70% 

90% 

Rating  Exercise.  The  rating  exercise  took  into  considerations  various  aspects  that  allow  to 
gauge  the  possible  contribution  of  EU  legislation  relative  to  national  legislation  and  policy, 
namely: 
  The influence exerted by EU legislation on the setting and/or tightening of EPB requirements, 
on the basis of the temporal and logical sequence of events (e.g. was a certain requirement 
set before or after the adoption of the EPBD?) 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

  The  influence  exerted  by  EU  legislation  in  directing  the  attention  of  national  authorities 
towards the theme of EE-renovation, again looking at the temporal and logical sequence of 
events  (e.g.  did  country  X  adopted  or  tightened  specific  requirements  for  renovations  in 
connection with transposition?); 

  The  extent  to  which  the  EE  market  is  influenced  by  support  programmes  involving  a 
significant  mobilization  of  government  resources  (i.e.  supported  with  national  taxpayers’ 
money); 

  The  timing  and  the  salient  features  of  these  support  programmes  (e.g.  when  were  the 
support programmes conceived and deployed? To what extent they pursue objectives other 
than EE in building, such as supporting the construction industry in general or combating the 
‘grey economy’ in construction?); 

  The presence and scale of EU-funded support programs (such as ERDF-funded programme, 

EIB lending schemes, etc.). 

The  results  of  the  exercise  are  summarised  in  Exhibit  5.11  below,  which  for  each  country 
provides separate ratings for the new buildings and the renovation markets as well as a summary 
justification of the ratings.  

Exhibit 5.11  Results of the Rating Exercise  

Countries 

New 
Buildings 

Renovations 

Ratings 

Comments 

Belgium201  Medium  

Low 

Denmark 

Very Low 

Very Low 

France202 

Medium 

Low 

Limited influence of EPBD in Flanders, where works 
for the strengthening of EPB had started in the late 
1990s  (but  no  plans  for  ventilation).  Greater 
influence  in  Wallonia  and  Brussels  region.  EPBD 
contributed to focus attention on EE renovation, but 
the  most  widespread  support  measure  (VAT 
rebate)  was  conceived  back  in  2000  and  without 
any connection with EE objectives. 
Long history of strict EPB requirements. Early focus 
on building renovation, with strict rules well beyond 
what  envisaged  in  EU  legislation  (e.g.  mandatory 
implementation  of  measures  with  short  payback 
period). 
in  parallel  with  EPBD 
Regulations  adopted 
transposition,  although  preparatory  works  started 
well  before  (e.g.  preparation  of  RT2012  began 
immediately  after  adoption  of  RT2005)  at  least 
partly  as  a  result  of  domestic  policy  debate 
(Grenelle  I  and  II).  EPBD  contributed  to  focus 
attention on EE renovation, but the market is highly 
dependent  upon  substantial  budgetary  allocations 
and  some  instruments  are  the  evolution  of  pre-
existing schemes (Prêt à taux zero and Eco-prêt à 
taux zero). 

201 Initially, a ‘Low’ rating was attributed in the area of New Buildings. The rating was increased to ‘Medium’ 
based on the comments received from the Construction Confederation, which noted that “EU legislation … 
has an important impact on Belgian national policy” although “impacts remain limited for the renovation of 
existing buildings as the requirements are too high”. See Construction Confederation, Validation Workshop 
– Fitness Check Construction Sector, 10 June 2016. 
202 Initially, a ‘Low’ rating was attributed for the New Buildings. The rating was raised to ‘Medium’ based 
on the comments received from the French authorities, which noted that the EPBD “a contribué à améliorer 
l’efficacité énergétique dans les bâtiments”, also  suggesting a closer link between the RT and the  EPBD 
transposition  process.  See  Note  des  autorités  françaises,  Paris,  le  23  juin  2016.  In  principle,  these 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Germany 

Low 

Low 

Ireland 

Medium 

Low 

Italy 

High 

Low 

Poland 

High 

Medium 

Romania 

Very High 

Very High 

Spain203 

High 

Medium 

in 

programmes, 

renewables.  EU 

influence  of  EU 

the  code.  Publicly 
also  with 

Limited 
legislation  on  EPB 
requirements:  the  two  key  regulations  in  force 
during  the  period  considered  (EnEV2002  and 
EnEV2009) both pre date EPBD transposition (and 
minimum  requirement  for  RES  pore  dates  RESD). 
Requirements for EE renovations already present in 
EnEV2002. KfW programmes launched well before 
adoption of EU legislation and massive deployment 
of national funds.  
Partial influence of EU legislation on the tightening 
of EPB requirements (building code revision of 2007 
linked to Kyoto, and EPBD 2002 scarcely mentioned 
in  the  impact  assessment,  whereas  EPBD  Recast 
plays  a  greater  role  in  subsequent  building  code 
revisions).  EU  legislation  contributed  to  focus 
attention  on  EE  renovation,  but  some  provisions 
funded 
were  already 
renovation 
social 
orientation.  
EPBD played an important role in modernizing EPB 
requirements that had remained largely unchanged 
since  1993,  and  the  same  applies  to  RESD 
regarding 
also 
contributed to focus attention on EE renovation but 
the  market  is  largely  driven  by  public  schemes, 
including  one  that  has  been  in  force  since  the 
1990s. 
EU 
in 
strengthening  EPD  requirements,  but  the  2008 
reform  triggered  by  EPBD  transposition  was  only 
partly  successful.  First  measures  to  support  EE 
renovation go back to the 1990s, pre dating EPBD. 
Limited  amount  of  EU  funding  (ERDF  financing 
mostly 
in  non-residential  and  slow 
for  RES 
disbursement of EIB loans). 
EPBD  played  a  major  role  in  strengthening  of 
energy  requirements,  including  the  renovation  of 
existing  buildings.  EIB  funding  contributed  to  a 
significant  increase  in  the  volume  of  renovation 
works  
EPBD  played  an  important  role  in  the  adoption  of 
the  2006  code,  with  tighter  standards  and 
introduction  for  the  first  time  of  provisions  for  EE 
renovations. Some support measures also linked to 
EPBD (PAEE) although the market is also influenced 
by  other  measures  aimed  at 
supporting 
construction activity in general. 

legislation  played  an 

important  role 

legislation 

comments also extend to Renovations. However, in this case the rating was left unchanged because of the 
major role played by national support programs in stimulating renovation interventions.  
203 The rating for New Buildings was commented in a written contribution submitted by CNC, which noted 
that “[i]n relation to national legislation we would not say that the impact is undoubtedly high because for 
example we do not have a definition of what is a nearly zero energy building.” See, personal communication 
from Ms. Ángeles Asenjo, International Department Director of CNC, 7 June 2016. The point is certainly 
worth noting. However, as the Study covers the period up to 2014 and requirements for nZEB are expected 
to become effective at a later stage, the rating was left unchanged. 

105 

 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

United 
Kingdom 

Low 

Low 

Limited influence of EU legislation with the setting 
of reduction targets clearly influenced by domestic 
policy  (and  political)  debate  (Energy  White  Paper 
2003, 2014 decision to lower level of ambition). The 
EE  renovation  market  is  mostly  influenced  by 
energy commitment schemes that were introduced 
already in the mid-1990s. 

It is worth noting that in the majority of the countries, the influence of EU legislation was found 
to  be  higher  in  the  case  of  New  Buildings  than  for  Renovations.  This  finding  was  broadly 
confirmed by the views expressed by stakeholders during the Validation Workshop as well as in 
some  subsequent  written  contributions.  In  particular,  the  comparatively  greater  role  of  EU 
legislation in the case of New Buildings was shared by EURIMA, Federation of European Window 
and  Curtain  Wall  Manufacturers’  Association  (FAECF),  Construction  Confederation,  FIEC,  European  Aluminium,  and 
Danish Association of Building Experts, Managers and Surveyors. Dissenting views were voiced by 
the European Property Federation, according to which the role of the EPBD was very important 
also  in  building  renovations,  and  by  the  Verband  Beratender  Ingenieure  (VBI),  according  to 
which the market for renovations “is driven since decades more and more by thermal comfort 
demands as a major quality of buildings and less and less by government incentives for renovations”.204 

Results – The Market Attributable to EU Legislation. The share of the EE-related market 
attributable to the EU legislation was computed using the percentages associated to the above 
mentioned qualitative ratings. Overall, making again reference to the 2010 – 2014 period, the 
EE-related market attributable to EU legislation (the ‘EU value’) is assessed at little more than € 
124  bln,  of  which  €  108  bln  for  the  renovation  segment  and  €  16  bln  for  the  new  buildings 
segment. Comparing these values with those presented in Section 5.6.1 above, EU legislation 
can  be  attributed  about  31%  of  the  total  EE  market,  with  a  higher  role  for  the  new  building 
segment  (45%),  and  lower  one  for  renovation  (30%),  in  which  national  support  programmes 
have a larger weight. When considering the overall residential market in the ten countries, EU 
legislation  can  be  attributed  some  5%  of  the  total  market,  with  a  higher  incidence  in  the 
renovation segment (almost 7%) and a marginal contribution to the new buildings segment (less 
than 2%).  

Exhibit 5.12  Estimated Contribution of EU Legislation – 2010 – 2014 (€ bln and %) 

New Buildings 
Market 
Renovation 
Market 
Total Market 

EU 
Value 

15.9 

108.3 

124.3 

Value Attributable to 
National Policy and 
Other Factors 

EU Value as a 
Share of the EE 
Market 

EU Value as a 
Share of the 
Total Market 

19.1 

255.3 

274.4 

45.4% 

29.8% 

31.2% 

1.8% 

6.7% 

5.0% 

204 VBI, personal communication, 10 June 2016. 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

6.  BUSINESS  OPPORTUNITIES  AND  COSTS  OF  THE  ENERGY  PERFORMANCE 
CERTIFICATES 

6.1 Introduction 

This section discusses three of the cost and benefits items generated by the EPBD:205 

1.  Administrative costs linked to the  obligation to obtain and display Energy Performance 

Certificates (EPC) of buildings (articles 11-13); 

2.  Substantive  compliance  costs  to  become  a  qualified  or  accredited  expert  for  building 

certification (article 17);  

3.  New business opportunities linked to issuance of energy performance certificates (articles 

11-16). 

The analysis relies on the methodology for the estimation of effects presented in the Inception 
Report.206  As  it  will  become  evident  below,  construction  companies,  manufacturers,  installers 
and professionals other than energy auditors are only lightly concerned by the EPC; the main 
effects  of  EPBD  on  these  operators  pass  through  energy  efficiency  requirements  and  support 
measures.207 For this reason, information on EPC could hardly be retrieved through interviews 
with firms, and this section relies on the following sources: 

1.  Primary  information  obtained  through  interviews  with  trade  associations,  public 

authorities and other stakeholders; 

2.  Secondary  sources,  including  the  Evaluation  of  the  EPBD,208  the  Open  Public 
Consultation  on  the  EPBD,209  the  Concerted  Action  on  EPBD  (CA  EPBD)  and  its 
publications,210  the  project  ZEBRA2020,211  the  BPIE  study  on  national  approaches  to 
EPC,212 country specific databases, and market surveys. 

In line with the scope of the Study, the evaluation of these items is done from the point of view 
of  the  construction  sector,  including  in  particular  construction  companies  and  professionals 
involved  in  the  certification  of  building  energy  performance.  Such  a  scope  has  two  main 
implications: (i) costs and benefits falling on other subjects, such as building owners, tenants, 
or public authorities are not considered in the quantification; (ii) substantive issues linked to the 
working  of  the  EPC  framework,  such  as  its  quality  and  effectiveness,  are  not  covered 
systematically, but only in relation to their effect on construction value chain operators.213 

The section is structured as follows:  

  Section 6.2 presents in broad terms the legal framework whose effects are going to be 

assessed and quantified; 

  Section 6.3 quantifies the administrative costs linked to the obligation to display energy 

performance certificates of buildings 

  Section 6.4 assesses the substantive compliance costs to become a qualified or accredited 

expert for building certification; 

  Section  6.5  quantifies  the  new  business  opportunities  linked  to  issuance  of  energy 

performance certificates. 

205 Cf. Section 1 above for the full list of regulatory effects. 
206  Cf.  Inception  Report  (Revised),  19  October  2015,  at  Section  4,  in  particular  the  sub-sections  on 
substantive and administrative costs. 
207 See Section 5 above 
208 Ecofys (2015), Ex-post evaluation of the application of Directive 2010/31/EU, Final report for DG ENER. 
Hereinafter, EPBD Evaluation. 
209 Ecofys (2015), Public Consultation on the Evaluation of Directive 2010/31/EU, Final synthesis report for 
DG ENER. Hereinafter, ‘Open Public Consultation’. 
210 Available at: http://www.epbd-ca.eu/ (last accessed on March, 2016). 
211 Available at: http://zebra2020.eu/ (last accessed on March, 2016). 
212  BPIE  (2014),  Energy  Performance  Certificates  Across  the  EU,  A  Mapping  of  National  Approaches, 
hereinafter ‘BPIE Study’ 
213 For further information on these aspects, the ex post evaluation of the EBPD has been recently published. 
Cf. EPBD Evaluation and BPIE Study.  

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

6.2 The legal framework 

The  EPC  was  introduced  by  the  EPBD  2002.  In  certain  countries  or  regions,  such  as  the 
Netherlands,  Denmark  Germany,  and  certain  parts  of  Austria,  certificates  on  the  energy 
performance of buildings had already been introduced before, though with a different format and 
different requirements.214 The EPBD 2002 required that, when buildings or buildings units are 
constructed sold or rented out, an energy performance certificate is made available to the owner 
or  by  the  owner  to  the  prospective  buyer  or  tenant.215.  Issuance  and  of  EPC  was  also  made 
mandatory for frequently visited buildings larger than 1000 m2 occupied by public authorities. 

Such a provision was then amended by EPBD 2010, by adding the following elements: 

1.  In  case  of  rent  or  sale  of  buildings,  including  newly  constructed  ones,  the  energy 

performance indicator is to be displayed together with the advertisement; 

2.  The EPC shall include technically-feasible recommendations for the cost-optimal or cost-
effective  improvement  of  the  energy  performance  of  the  building  unless  there  is  no 
reasonable  potential  for  such  improvement  compared  to  the  energy  performance 
requirements in force; 

3.  The  threshold  for  EPC  display  in  frequently-visited  public  buildings  was  progressively 

lowered to 500 m2 and then 250 m2.216 

Concerning  professionals  issuing  the  EPC,  the  EPBD  2002  mandated  that  the  certification  of 
buildings  should  be  carried  out  ‘in  an  independent  manner  by  qualified  and/or  accredited 
experts’.217  The  EPBD  2010  confirms  this  provision  and  requires  that  Member  States  make 
available a list of qualified and/or accredited experts providing building certification services. 218 
Modalities for accreditation or certification, including minimum requirements, trainings and life-
long learning have been defined at national or regional level. 

6.3  Administrative  costs  linked  to  the  obligation  to  display  energy  performance 
certificates of buildings 

The costs for issuing and displaying the EPC can fall upon different subjects: 
1)  Owners, for existing buildings or building units put for sale or rent; 
2)  Project developers for new construction buildings; 
3)  Real estate agents (at least for the duty to display and supply the EPC) involved in the 

sale or rent of buildings or building units; 

4)  Construction  companies,  when  they  operate  as  both  constructors  and  sellers  of  new 

buildings. 

According  to  the  scope  of  this  Assignment,  administrative  costs  falling  upon  construction 
companies are calculated here below. As such, only part of the EPC issued for new buildings are 
relevant,  excluding  those  issued  for  rent,  sale  of  existing  buildings,  or  for  frequently-visited 
public buildings. 

To estimate these costs, the following parameters are needed: 

1.  Average price of EPC per country; 
2.  Number of EPC per country issued for new buildings; 
3.  Share of buildings sold directly by construction companies. 

To  a  large  extent,  EPC  prices  are  set  on  a  market  basis,  and  they  depend  on  the  size  of  the 
building as well as on whether it is a new or existing one.219 Official regulation of the EPC price 

214 Cf. BPIE Study and CA EPBD. 
215 Art. 7 EPBD 2002. 
216 Art. 11-13 EPBD 2010. 
217 Art. 10 EPBD2002. 
218 Art. 17 EPBD2010. 
219 In general, EPC for new buildings are more expensive than for existing ones. Prices reported in Exhibit 
6.1  refer  to  average  prices.  Cf.  Santos  P.  and  K.  B.  Wittchen  (2011),  The  price  of  energy  performance 
certificates, CA EPBD. 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

is in force only in 4 MS (Croatia, Denmark, Hungary, and Slovenia). In Exhibit 6.1 here below, 
the  range  of  prices  for  the  10  MS  in  scope  of  the  study  are  presented,  based  on  experts’ 
estimation.220   

Exhibit 6.1   Average EPC prices 

MS 

BE 

DE 
DK 

ES 

FR 

IE 

IT 

PL 
RO 
UK 

Range 

Belgium €100 – 500  
Wallonia : €200 – 450  
Flanders: 
-  apartment (if plans are available): € 120.79 
-  apartment (if plans are not available): € 138.24  
-  single-family house (if plans are available): € 

158.30  

-  single-family house (if plans are not available):  € 

221.47  
€ 200 – 500  
€ 730 – 875  
€ 150 (apartments and small buildings)  
€ 1200 (large: ~1000 m2) 
€ 100 – 250 
€ 99 – 300. 
Average value for semi-detached houses: € 165  
Average value for apartments: € 156 
€ 50 – 450. 
Average value: € 120 
€ 15 – 120 
€ 50 – 150 
€ 50 – 90 

Source: BPIE and national surveys 

To estimate the number  of new buildings, the  number  of completed houses the period 2010-
2014  is  retrieved  from  CRESME  elaboration  on  Euroconstruct  data  (data  are  not  available  for 
Romania) and are shown in Exhibit 6.2 here below.221 

220  Cf.  BPIE  Study.  Country-specific  sources  are  used  where  available:  for  BE  (Flanders),  VEA  (2014), 
Evaluatie  van  de  energieprestatiecertificatieregelgeving;  for  BE  (Wallonia),  Record  Bank  (2013),  Le 
Certificat PEB À La Loupe, available at: https://blog.recordbank.be/fr/article/le-certificat-peb-%C3%A0-la-
loupe  (last accessed on March 2016); for FR, ADENE (2015), Le Diagnostic de Performance Énergétique, 
  http://www.ademe.fr/sites/default/files/  assets/documents/guide-pratique-diagnostic-
available  at: 
performance-energetique.pdf (last accessed on March 2016); for IE, Competition and Consumer Protection 
Commission  (2013),  Do  you  need  a  Building  Energy  Rating  (BER)  Certificate?,  available  at 
http://www.consumerhelp.ie/index.jsp  ?a=1005&n=475&p=121  (last  accessed  on  March  2016);  for  IT, 
ProntoPro  (2016),  Certificazione  Energetica: 
la  spesa  media  è  120€,  available  at 
http://press.prontopro.it/index.php/2016/ (last accessed on March 2016).  
221 Data on how many EPC refer to new or existing buildings are available for some countries. However, as 
shown in Section 6.3 below, data gaps exist both concerning the MS covered in this study and the years in 
scope  of  the  analysis.  For  this  reason,  CRESME  Elaboration  on  Euroconstruct  series  on  the  number  of 
completed houses is used. 

in  Italia 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 6.2   Number of new houses 2010 - 2014 (‘000) 

MS   

BE 

DK 

DE 

ES 

FR 

IE 

IT 

PL 

UK 

Family Dwellings 
Flats 
Total 
Family Dwellings 
Flats 
Total 
Family Dwellings 
Flats 
Total 
Family Dwellings 
Flats 
Total 
Family Dwellings 
Flats 
Total 
Family Dwellings 
Flats 
Total 
Family Dwellings 
Flats 
Total 
Family Dwellings 
Flats 
Total 
Family Dwellings 
Flats 
Total 

34 
48 
192.9 
123.4 
240.9  157.4 

2011 
22.3 
24.2 
46.5 
8.2 
4.3 
12.5 
97 
64.2 

2013 
20.6 
23.8 
44.4 
6.6 
8.5 
15.1 
102.2 
86.2 

2014 
2012 
2010 
20.8 
20.1 
21 
26.3 
22.3 
23 
47.1 
42.4 
44 
6.4 
6.8 
7.2 
7.2 
9.9 
4.7 
13.6 
16.7 
11.9 
106.8 
100.3 
85.4 
109.3 
76.3 
54.7 
140.1  161.2  176.6  188.4  216.1 
16 
12.5 
25 
48.8 
34.3 
90 
64.8 
46.8 
115 
203.1 
179.6 
207.3 
170 
232.4 
206.9 
231.8 
146 
412 
414.2  434.9 
316 
7 
6 
8.6 
1.8 
0.8 
2.1 
8.8 
6.8 
10.7 
31.4 
32.4 
36.5 
164.6 
72.2 
101.5 
201.1  158.8  133.9  118.7  103.6 
76.6 
81.1 
70.4 
66.8 
71.8 
65.4 
135.8  131.1  152.9  145.1  143.4 
99.7 
88 
71.7 
40.6 
47.9 
57.8 
140.3 
135.9 
129.5 

182 
154 
336 
5.2 
1.3 
6.5 
32.1 
126.7 

5.9 
0.7 
6.6 
32.4 
86.3 

87.1 
47.1 
134.2 

73.1 
58 

81.2 
63.9 

87.3 
42.7 
130 
Source: CRESME Elaboration on Euroconstruct Data  

As discussed above,  relevant costs are only those borne by construction companies, i.e. they 
refer to the case in which a constructor is also operating as developer and trader. Such operating 
modality is far from being the dominant modality in the real estate market: though it is more 
diffused  in  Southern  countries,  it  represents  a  small  share  of  total  new  buildings  at  EU  level. 
Though  data  on  the  share  of  houses  both  built  and  sold  by  construction  companies  are  not 
available, the following estimates are provided, based on evidences from stakeholders: 

1)  30% of the new construction market for Italy; 
2)  25% of the new construction market for Spain; 
3)  20% of the new construction market for France; 
4)  5% of the new construction market for all other MS.  

Based  on  these  assumptions  administrative  costs  are  calculated  by  multiplying  the  average 
prices,222 the number of new completed houses, and the share of houses both built and sold by 
construction companies. As for the BAU factor, it is assumed to be 0%, meaning that construction 
companies  would  not  adopt  such  a  certification  without  a  mandatory  requirement.  Hence, 
administrative costs and burdens coincide and are shown in Exhibit 6.3 below.  

222  Different  prices  for  dwellings  and  apartment  are  used  where  available,  i.e.  for  Belgium  and  Ireland; 
where  price  ranges  are  provided,  the  median  point  is  used;  for  Belgium,  Flemish  median  prices  for 
apartments  and  dwellings  are  used.  It  is  assumed  that  prices  for  certification  of  flat  remains  the  same 
regardless  of  the  number  of  units  within  the  same  building.  Though,  for  large  group  of  dwellings  (e.g. 
residential complex) built by the same company, the price of the EPC may be lower due to high and to 
replicability of input data.  

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 6.3   EPC  administrative  burdens  for  construction  companies  2010  –  2014 

(‘000) 

2013 
€ 359 
€ 606 
€ 2,449 
€ 2,430 

2011 
€ 374 
€ 502 
€ 2,096 
€ 5,903 

MS 
BE 
DK 
DE 
ES 
FR 
IE 
IT 
PL 
UK 
Total  € 30,986  € 27,316  € 27,985  € 26,338  € 24,692 

2014 
2012 
2010 
€ 384 
€ 342 
€ 354 
€ 546 
€ 670 
€ 477 
€ 2,809 
€ 2,296 
€ 1,821 
€ 1,755 
€ 4,313 
€ 9,034 
€ 11,060  € 11,760  € 14,497  € 15,222  € 14,420 
€ 56 
€ 4,820 
€ 516 
€ 476 

€ 73 
€ 3,730 
€ 484 
€ 491 

€ 88 
€ 7,240 
€ 458 
€ 453 

€ 54 
€ 5,717 
€ 442 
€ 470 

€ 54 
€ 4,273 
€ 490 
€ 455 

To  finalise  the  quantification,  the  share  of  costs  attributable  to  the  EU  level  needs  to  be 
estimated.  Out  of  the  10  MS  covered  in-depth  by  this  Study,  8  of  them  have  introduced 
mandatory energy performance certification for buildings only after the EPBD 2002. For them, 
the share of costs of EU origin is considered at 100%. In Denmark and Germany, some form of 
energy certifications had already been introduced before; for these MS, the share of EU costs is 
estimated at 50%, as the EPBD 2002 and then 2010 still had an impact on the coverage of the 
obligation, and the format and content of the certification. Administrative burdens of EU origin 
are  shown  in  Exhibit  6.4  below.  Across  the  five  years  for  which  data  are  available,  total 
administrative burdens of EU origins amounted to €20 to €30 million per year. 

Exhibit 6.4   EPC administrative burdens of EU origin for construction companies 2010 

– 2014 (‘000) 

2013 
€ 359 
€ 303 
€ 1,225 
€ 2,430 

2011 
€ 374 
€ 251 
€ 1,048 
€ 5,903 

MS 
BE 
DK 
DE 
ES 
FR 
IE 
IT 
PL 
UK 
Total  € 29,837  € 26,018  € 26,503  € 24,811  € 23,014 

2014 
2012 
2010 
€ 384 
€ 342 
€ 354 
€ 273 
€ 335 
€ 239 
€ 1,405 
€ 1,148 
€ 911 
€ 9,034 
€ 1,755 
€ 4,313 
€ 11,060  € 11,760  € 14,497  € 15,222  € 14,420 
€ 56 
€ 4,820 
€ 516 
€ 476 

€ 73 
€ 3,730 
€ 484 
€ 491 

€ 88 
€ 7,240 
€ 458 
€ 453 

€ 54 
€ 5,717 
€ 442 
€ 470 

€ 54 
€ 4,273 
€ 490 
€ 455 

6.4  Substantive  compliance  costs  to  become  a  qualified  or  accredited  expert  for 
building certification 

Here below, the substantive compliance costs linked to becoming a qualified or accredited expert 
for building energy performance certification are discussed. All these costs fall upon construction 
professionals, namely on those undertaking such activity. The following items are discussed: 

1.  Modalities for getting certification/accreditation in the 10 MS covered by the assignment; 
2.  Population, i.e. number of professionals accredited or certified in the 10 MS; 
3.  Price, i.e. cost for accreditation or certification. 

Exhibit 6.5 below shows the minimum requirements for qualified and/or accredited experts in 
the  10  MS  in  scope  of  this  assignment.  The  main  and  most  immediate  message  is  that 
accreditation  and  certification  modalities  vary  widely  across  MS,  and  at  country  level  it  often 
depends also on the types of buildings to be accredited for and the professional background of 
the expert,  as expected given the lack of binding provisions in the EPBD on this issue. More in 
detail: 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

1.  As for minimum education requirements, they are not provided for in Denmark and the 
UK,  where  the  system  is  competence  based.  Engineering  degree  is  required  in  Spain, 
Romania, as well as in Belgium (only for non-residential buildings). Higher education is 
required in Poland (except for certified specialists) and France (only for non-residential 
buildings). Italy, Germany and Ireland require technical education (or equivalent training 
in the case of Belgium). This choice determines the remaining part of the accreditation 
and  certification  system:  where  there  is  no  education  requirement,  certification  and 
accreditation  procedures  are  likely  to  be  more  demanding;  where  the  education 
requirement is very strict (e.g.  engineering degree), the certification and accreditation 
procedures  are  likely  to  be  less  demanding.  Furthermore,  in  some  countries  (e.g. 
Germany,  Italy),  the  higher  the  educational  background,  the  less  demanding  the 
accreditation or certification procedure.223 

2.  With respect to professional experience, it is required in Denmark, France and Romania; 
in Germany and Belgium, it is necessary when the professional does not have a higher 
degree, 

3.  Training  is  mandatory  in  all  countries,  except  from  Spain  and  Poland,  indeed  two 
countries where an engineering or higher education degree is mandatory. In certain MS, 
it is mandatory only in case the professional does not have a higher education degree or 
other certifications, or for some categories of certifiers; 

4.  To obtain the accreditation or certification, exams are required in all countries, except, 
again, for Spain. Engineers or certain categories of accredited professionals are exempted 
in Germany, the UK, and in certain Italian regions;  

5.  Accreditation may be required or not, and the approach is very much MS specific: it may 
not be required at all, it may be granted based on exam results, on qualification, or on 
external certification (e.g. in Denmark and the United Kingdom); 

6.  With regards to renewal of the accreditation or certification, this is not required in Belgium 
(Brussels Region), Germany, Spain, Italy and Poland. Renewal is paper-based in Romania 
and Belgium (Flemish and Walloon Regions). In Ireland, renewal is linked to a bi-annual 
exam; in Denmark, France and the UK, renewal is linked to mandatory re-training, with 
a frequency varying from every 3 to every 10 years; 

7.  All  MS,  except  for  Germany,  make  available  an  official  public  list  of  certifiers  and/or 
certifying companies; in Spain, Italy, and Belgium, the lists are available at sub-national 
level.  

Exhibit 6.5   Overview of the minimum requirements for qualified and/or accredited 

experts 

MS 

Minimum 
education  
requirements 

BE  
Brussels 
Region 

BE  
Flanders 

Engineering 
degree 
required for 
the certifiers 
of non-
residential 
buildings 

Engineering 
degree 
required for 
the certifiers 
of non-
residential 
buildings 

Prior Professional experience 
and/or additional training 

Professional 
experience 

Training 
(Mandatory or 
Voluntary) 

Verification 
of experts’ 
competences 
(i.e.  
mandatory 
exam) 

Accreditation 
of the 
certifiers 

Continuous 
Professional 
Development; 
renewal of 
the licence 

Public 
availability of 
certifiers and/or 
certifying 
companies’ lists 

Not required 

Mandatory 

Yes 

Based on exam 
results 

Not required 
[2] 

Distinguished per 
type of existing 
buildings and for 
new buildings  or 
renovations 

2 years of 
prior 
professional 
experience (if 
no 
engineering 
degree) 

Mandatory 

Yes 

Based on exam 
results 

Desk support 
for certifiers 
(i.e. FAQ, 
phone line) 

Distinguished for 
existing residential 
buildings and 
public buildings 

223 This conclusion concerns the 10 MS in scope of the analysis. Though, there are also EU countries where 
both an engineering degree and training are required. 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

BE  
Wallonia 

Engineering 
degree 
required for 
the certifiers 
of  non-
residential 
buildings 

2 years of 
prior 
professional 
experience (if 
no 
engineering 
degree) 

Mandatory 
(if no  
engineering 
degree) 

Yes 

Based on exam 
results 

Desk support 
for certifiers 

Distinguished for 
existing and new 
buildings 

DE 

DK[4]  

Technical 
education 
required or 
relevant 
training 

No minimum 
requirements, 
provided 
competence-
based 
accreditation 
procedure 

2 years of 
prior 
professional 
experience (if 
no 
engineering 
degree) 

Mandatory (if no 
engineering 
degree) 

Yes (if no 
engineering 
degree) 

Not required 
[3] 

Not required 

Not required [5] 

Required 
according to 
the type of 
certifier 

Mandatory; 
additional 
training required 
as alternative to 
professional 
experience 

Yes 

Established by 
accredited 
companies 
(EN ISO 9001) 

Mandatory 
training every 
3 years 

Distinguished per 
type of buildings 

ES  

Engineering 
degree 

Not required 

Voluntary 

Not required 

Not required 
[1] 

Not required 

List of certifiers 
provided by 
region/province 

2 years of 
relevant 
higher 
education 
required for 
the certifiers 
of  non-
residential 
buildings 

1-3 years of 
prior 
professional 
experience 
(depending 
on the level 
of education) 

Mandatory 

Yes 

Based on exam 
results 

Technical 
education 
required 

Not required 

Mandatory (for 
certifiers of 
residential 
buildings) 

Yes 

Not required 

Mandatory 
(if no 
professional 
certification) 

Yes 
(if training 
required) 

Renewal of 
accreditation 
every 5  years 
based on 
mandatory 
training 

Renewal of 
accreditation 
based on 
mandatory 
exam every 2 
years and 
support of 
certifiers;  [6] 

Distinguished per 
type of buildings 

Distinguished per 
type of certifier 

Not required 

List of certifiers 
provided by 
region/province 

Based on exam 
results and 
professional 
certification (if 
certifier for 
non-residential 
buildings) 

Depend on 
region; not 
required [1] or 
based on exam 
results 

FR 

IE  

IT  

PL 

RO 

Technical 
education 
required 

Relevant 
higher 
education 
required 
(except for 
certified 
building 
specialist) 

Engineering 
degree 
required 

Not required 

Voluntary 

Yes 

Based on 
qualification 

Not required 

Distinguished per 
type of certifier 

3-5 years 
(depending 
on the type 
of certifier) 

Mandatory 

Yes 

Based on exam 
results 

Renewal of 
accreditation 
every 5 years 
(i.e. proof of 
experience) 

Distinguished per 
type of certifier 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Not required 

Depending on 
the type of 
certifier and 
accreditation 

Yes (except in 
case of 
accreditation 
through APEL) 

Based on exam 
results or 
Accreditation of 
Prior 
Experiential 
Learning 
(APEL) which is 
requested for 
certifiers of the 
most complex 
buildings 

Mandatory 
training 
(minimum 5-10 
hours of CPD 
per year) 

Distinguished per 
type of certifier for 
residential 
buildings 
(Northern Ireland, 
England and 
Wales) or non-
residential 
buildings 
(Northern Ireland, 
England and 
Wales) 

Not required 

Voluntary 

Yes (except in 
case of 
accreditation 
through APEL) 

Based on exam 
results or APEL 

Mandatory 
periodic 
training and 
desk support 

Distinguished per 
certifier or 
company 

UK  
England, 
Wales 
and 
Northern 
Ireland  

No minimum 
requirements, 
provided 
competence-
based 
accreditation 
procedure 

UK 
Scotland 

No minimum 
requirements, 
provided 
competence-
based 
accreditation 
procedure 

Source: BPIE 2015 
Notes: [1] Based on trade licenses; [2] Complementary training required for certifiers accredited before June 2014 in 
Brussels Capital Region; [3] Based on self-declarations of certifiers; [4] New provisions by the Danish Energy Agency 
concerning certifiers trained after October 4, 2014; [5] Multiple voluntary lists available; [6] The penalty point system 
for certifiers that may lead to loss of the license 

While information on the modalities of accreditation or certification are comprehensive, data on 
the number of certifiers and the costs for such accreditation and certifications are not. Exhibit 
6.6 below shows the estimated number of certifiers in the 10 MS covered in-depth by the Study. 
Statistics  on  number  of  annual  registered  certifier  are  hardly  available,  apart  from  some 
countries (e.g. Romania) or specific years. Furthermore there is a significant difference between 
the number of registered certifiers and the number of certifiers who have actually issued at least 
an EPC in the same year (as e.g. in the Flemish data, where the number of active certifiers is 
also  detailed).    Estimates,  where  possible,  have  been  calculated  based  on  the  number  of 
certifications issued each year and the average number of EPC issued by certifiers.  

Exhibit 6.6   Number of certifiers per MS - estimated values in italics 

MS 
BE [1] 
DE [2] [3]  
DK [4] 
ES 
FR 
IE 
IT [5] 
PL [6] 
RO 
UK 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Start 
Start 
Start 

Start 
n.a. 
n.a. 

2014 
n.a. 
n.a. 
260 

2011 
n.a. 
n.a. 
240 

2012  2013 
n.a. 
6,428 
n.a. 
n.a. 
249 
n.a. 

2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

2015 
9,328 
28,000 
n.a. 
No exam or accreditation process required. List of certifiers publicly available only for some regions. 
n.a. 
575 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

4,000 
n.a. 
n.a. 
526 
n.a. 
n.a. 
Start  7,000 
397 
247 
n.a. 
n.a. 
Source: BPIE 
Notes: Start: year of start of the EPC system; n.a.: not available; [1] Flanders and Wallonia; [2] The figure refers only 
to professionals (including architects and engineers) which have been appointed ‘buildings energy consultant’ 
(Gebäudeenergieberater) by the federal organisation of craftsmen (ZDH); available statistics does not define how 
many of them are also registered  with KfW and BAFA support programmes, which currently include 13447 experts; 
[3] Statistics for 2015 include also certifiers of HVAC systems; [4] Data refer to accredited companies and not 
certifiers; before 2009 there were approximately 1000 experts in Denmark; [5] Data refer to 7 regions or provinces: 
Lombardy,  Piedmont, Liguria, Emilia Romagna, Sicily, Valle d’Aosta, and the Province of Trento; [6] 2010 data refer to 
experts certified between January 2009 and September 2010. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a 
696 
23,500 

n.a. 
n.a. 
71,822 
10,593 
1.386 
67,222 

9,700 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
1,146 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
892 
n.a. 

Start 
Start 

127 
n.a. 

214 
n.a. 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Only anecdotal information is available on the cost of training. The BPIE study reports only some 
training costs, which represent only one of the steps of the accreditation/certification process. 
Training costs, as well as duration, vary from MS to MS, and also within MS across regions224. 
Reported costs go from about €300 in Greece to €1,200 in Austria (for 5.5 days of training) and 
€1,600 in Estonia (for 10 days). Due to high variability of such parameters, precise information 
on other costs and time spent by certifiers on this task cannot be retrieved. Given the relatively 
poorer data concerning the population of certifiers, the lack of data on the cost of the obligation, 
and the low priority of this cost item for the overall construction industry, Consultants consider 
that there is no sufficient ground to provide any tentative quantification. 

6.5 New business opportunities linked to issuance of energy performance certificates 

The EPC generate new business opportunities for both professionals and construction companies: 
1.  For professionals active in the market for EPC, new opportunities are represented by the 
revenues  generated  by  the  EPC,  i.e.  by  the  market  size.  Since  our  analysis  takes  into 
account the intra-value chain distributional effects, this amount needs to be lowered by 
the share of the market paid for by construction companies (as discussed in Section 6.3 
above). 

2.  For construction companies and specialised construction service providers, the EPC may 
generate new business opportunities in two ways: (i) for new buildings and renovation 
works  with  improved  energy  efficiency  performance  (ii)  by  triggering  additional 
renovations in existing buildings via the recommendations included in the EPC.225 

With respect for professionals, the market size can be calculated by multiplying the number of 
EPC issued per country with the average price. Average prices in the 10 MS have already been 
reported in Exhibit 6.1 above. As for the number of EPC per country, data over the 2004-2015 
period  are  reported  in  Exhibit  6.7  below.  Data  provided  concern  the  number  of  EPC  issued, 
including  both  new  and  existing  buildings,  public  buildings,  and  both  for  rent  and  sale 
transactions; for all countries except Poland, at least one data point for one year is available. 
The sources are the EPC databases,226 provided by the ZEBRA2020 project or extracted directly 
from national sources. Additional information has been extracted from Concerted Action EPBD. 

224 This is particularly the case for country like Italy where training courses and administrative costs vary 
considerably across the country as showed in “Prospetto 26” and “Prospetto 27” of the report on the status 
of implementation of EPC in Italy. Cf. CTI (2014), Rapporto 2014 - Attuazione della certificazione energetica 
degli edifici in Italia. 
225 Though recommendations are not excluded for new buildings, they are of little practical uses and more 
often  neglected,  since  it  is  expected  that  new  buildings  already  comply  with  energy  performance 
requirements. 
226 EPC databases are part of the quality check process required by EPBD 2010. Since there are no specific 
requirements,  MS  are  free  to  develop  EPC  databases  according  to  national  circumstances,  and  this  has 
resulted in a wide spectrum of approaches. Cf. BPIE Study. 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 6.7   EPC issued in each year – estimated value in italics  

2004  2005 

n.a. 
n.a. 

n.a. 
n.a. 

2006 
4,565 
Start 
n.a. 
n.a. 

Start 
Start 

Start 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

21,095 

35,439 

197,493  184,027  224,488  243,784  212,391  253,015 

243,326 

n.a. 
n.a. 
Start 
n.a. 
127 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
3,794 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
97,054 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
93,134 

n.a. 
61,201 
n.a. 
n.a. 
109,441 

n.a. 
51,502 
n.a. 
n.a. 
77,696 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

321,996 
n.a. 
856,100 
n.a. 

n.a. 
64,078 
n.a. 
850,000 
108,537  119,982 
1,246,5
67 

419,650 

438,416 
n.a. 
n.a. 
1,098,979 
106,005 

n.a. 

EPC become mandatory in 2009 but until 2012 there was no central register; data on issued EPCs are still not available 
n.a. 

Start 

Start 

n.a. 
1,644,8
16 

n.a. 
2,242,4
96 

n.a. 
1,763,6
77 

n.a. 
1,573,8
07 

68,126 
1,556,6
75 

143,281 
2,107,0
68 

n.a. 
2,300,0
9 

1,865,165 

BE [1] 

DE [2] 
DK [3] 
ES [4]  
FR [5] 
IE 
IT [6] 
[7] 
PL 
RO 

UK  [8] 

Source: BPIE elaboration on ZEBRA 2020, CA EPBD, and own data. 
Notes: Start: year of start of the EPC system; n.a.: not available; [1] Flanders and Wallonia, which correspond to 
more than 90% of the total stock of EPCs; [2] First EPC was issued in 2002, but registration of EPCs has been 
introduced as of 01.05.2014; [3] The EPC scheme has undergone a major revision in 2010 and a revised scheme has 
been published in 2011; [4] Registration of EPCs is responsibility of the Autonomous Communities; [5] 2014 data refer 
to the number of EPC issued refers to the period June 2014 – June 2015; [6] Before 2012, it was allowed to omit the 
certification of the building if its performance was in the lowest class (G) [7] 2013 data refer to 11 regions; [8] 
Number of EPCs regards only England and Wales which correspond to more than 90% of the total stock of EPC, 

New  business  opportunities  for  professionals  issuing  EPC  are  calculated  in  Exhibit  6.8 
below.227  To  fill  data  gaps  in  the  number  of  certificates  per  country,  several  options  were 
considered. First of all, the number of EPC is not correlated only to the size of the construction 
market, since EPC are also issued for sale and rent of existing buildings and for frequently-visited 
public buildings. For this reason, data gaps where only filled for countries in which at least one 
data point is available, and only for the years following the first data point. Given the lack of 
good  proxies,  the  data-fill  rule  is  as  simple  as  possible:  EPC  in  year  t+1  in  Country  A  are 
estimated to be  equal to  EPC in year t. For  Poland, no  estimation was considered possible or 
realistic. As done for administrative burdens generated by EPC provisions, business opportunities 
of EU origin have been obtained by discounting by 50% values in Denmark and Germany, where 
energy performance certificates were required before the introduction of the EPC. In addition, 
as  already  anticipated,  to  take  into  account  for  intra-value  chain  distributional  effects,  those 
values are lowered by the amount of EPC paid for by construction companies (see Section 6.3 
above).228 The market size, or, in other words, the revenues generated for EPC professionals, 
amount to €614 mln in 2014, the  only year in which data for 9 MS are available. The steady 
amount is largely due to the increase of data coverage from additional MS, especially for larger 
MS, in 2013 and 2014, and should not be interpreted a sign of market increase. 

227 Different prices for dwellings and apartment are not used; where price ranges are provided, the median 
point is used; for Belgium, Flemish prices are used. 
228 From 2010 onwards, and with the exception of Romania, for which no data on new housing completion 
is available. 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 6.8   EPC: New Business Opportunities of EU Origin for professionals (‘000) 

MS 

2004  2005  2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

BE 

DE 

DK 

ES 

FR 

IE 

IT 

PL 

RO 

UK 

Total 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

€ 913 

€ 4,219 

€ 7,088 

€ 39,499 

€ 29,718 

€ 37,414 

€ 41,919 

€ 35,291 

€ 42,915 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

€ 34,672 

€ 15,007 

€ 10,634 

€ 12,310 

€ 13,594 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

€ 121,395 

€ 72,643 

€ 76,650 

€ 21 

€ 626 

€ 16,014 

€ 13,602 

€ 16,985 

€ 11,698 

€ 16,820 

€ 18,345 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

€ 36,114 

€ 137,156 

- 

- 

€ 6,813 

€ 14,328 

€ 14,328 

€ 115,137  € 156,975  € 123,457  € 101,101 

€ 99,573 

€ 137,982  € 151,906 

€ 913  € 4,240  € 122,851  € 212,487  € 166,777  € 170,508  € 170,637  € 325,486  € 610,961 

With  respect  to  new  business  opportunities  for  construction  companies  linked  to  EPC,  those 
linked to new construction and renovation of buildings with better energy efficiency performance 
are  already  discussed  at  length  in  Section  5  above.  With  respect  to  benefits  generated  by 
recommendations  included  in  the  EPC,  Exhibit  6.9  below  shows  the  relevant  features  of  the 
various national implementation modalities. 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 6.9   Content of recommendations included in EPC 

Type of 
recommendation 

Forecasted 
Energy 
Performance 

Recommendation 
for cost optimal 
improvements or 
cost effective 

Estimates 
on 
payback 
period 

Cost 
benefits 
over life 
cycle 

Financing 
possibilities 

Others 

BE 

Tailor-made and/or 
standardised 

Yes 

Yes 

N.a. 

N.a. 

No 

N.a. 

Differentiat
ion of 
proposed 
measure 
between 
"recommen
ded as a 
single 
measure" 
or "as part 
of a major 
renovation" 
No 

N.a. 

Advice for 
eco-
responsible 
use, 
definitions, 
link to 
website for 
more 
information 

N.a. 

N.a. 
No 

N.a. 

DE 

Tailor-made 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Costs per 
saved kWh 

No 

DK 

ES 

Tailor made 
Yes 
tailor made and/or  
standardised 

Yes 

- 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

FR 

Tailor made and 
standardised 

- 

Standardised 

No 

Tailor made 
Standardised 
Tailor made (EPC 
building), 
standardised (EPC 
apartment) 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes. Final 
energy, per 
services & 
cumulated 

IE 

IT 
PL 

RO 

UK 

It depends on the 
software used and 
data flows, but not 
required in the 
regulations 

No 

No 
No 

It depends 
on the 
software 
used and 
data flows, 
but not 
required in 
the 
regulations 
Short-
medium- 
long 
Yes 
No 

Cost effective 

No 

It depends 
on the 
software 
used and 
data flows, 
but not 
required in 
the 
regulations 

No 

No 
No 

No 

No, just link to 
website 

No 

No 
No 

No 

Different approach according to the country (England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland) 

Source: BPIE Survey 2014 and additional exchanges with national experts. 

In  the  period  within  the  scope  of  our  study,  the  conclusive  data  regarding  new  business 
opportunities  generated  by  EPC  recommendations  are  lacking.  The  stakeholders  did  not 
specifically mention effects from these recommendations.   To the contrary,  recommendations 
were sometimes criticised as ‘being of little or no use’ or ‘too general’. The recent summary of 
the EPBD Open Public Consultation reports that ‘recommendations […] are neither tailor-made, 
nor part of a holistic plan for the building’, and this might have prevented the EPC to fulfil the 
role  as  a  ‘renovation  accelerator’.229  The  EPBD  evaluation  considered  the  EPC  not  to  have 
triggered more ambitious renovations or more renovations.230 All in all, the impact of EPC on the 
rate  and  depth  of  renovation  is  estimated  by  stakeholders  to  be  limited.231  Up  until  now  the 
recommendations have therefore not been able to generate new business opportunities. 

229 Consultation Report, at p. 7. 
230 Evaluation Report, at p. 74. 
231 Consultation Report, at p. 34. 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

7. OTHER ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES 

7.1 Introduction 

In section, other issues related to the energy efficiency policy area, namely to the EED, RESD, 
and EPBD are discussed, in particular 

  Section 7.2 deals with the regulatory effects generated by the EED, and in particular: (i) 
new business  opportunities linked to the 3% target for renovating central government 
buildings;  (ii)  new  business  opportunities  linked  to  the  increase  in  public  demand  for 
energy-efficient  goods  and  services;  and  (iii)  new  business  opportunities  linked  to  the 
obligation for energy distributors to reduce their sales by 1.5%; 

  Section 7.3 deals with the accreditation and certification of (i) inspectors of heating and 

cooling systems (EPBD); and (ii) RES installers (RESD); 

  Section 7.4 deals with the impacts of energy efficiency provisions, in particular energy 
requirements  and  support  measures,  on  construction  product 

performance 
manufacturers. 

7.2 The Energy Efficiency Directive 

7.2.1 Introduction 

The present sub-section explores the regulatory impacts of the EED on the construction sector, 
and more specifically of three items identified during the previous steps of the assignment232 as 
possibly generating costs or benefits for construction operators, that are: 

1.  New business opportunities linked to the obligation to renovate the stock of existing public 
buildings, including the 3% target for central government buildings (articles 4 and 5); 
2.  New  business  opportunities  linked  to  the  increase  in  the  demand  for  high  energy 

efficiency goods and services (including construction) by public bodies (article 6); 

3.  New  business  opportunities  linked  to  the  increase  in  the  demand  for  energy  efficiency 
services associated to the obligation for energy distributors to reduce their sales by 1.5% 
per annum (article 7). 

As item 1 was introduced by the EED and was not included in its predecessor,233 the provision 
only applies to one year out of those covered by the study, as it is applicable from January, 1 st 
2014. Item 2 was deeply amended by the EED, compared to the previous version;234 the new 
provisions had to be transposed into national legislation as of June 5th 2014. For these reasons, 
the effects are unfolding only now, and the likelihood of retrieving information was considered 
very  low.  Furthermore,  those  business  opportunities  are  only  relevant  for  the  share  of 
interviewees working, directly or indirectly, for the public sector. For this reason, information on 
these effects was retrieved via:  

1.  Primary  information  obtained  through  interviews  with  trade  associations,  public 

authorities and other stakeholders; 

232 Cf. Revised First Progress Report, 15 January 2016, at p. 11. 
233 Directive 2006/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on energy end-use efficiency and 
energy services and repealing Council Directive 93/76/EEC, hereinafter ‘EED 2006’. 
234 Art. 5 of the EED 2006 required MS to ensure that the public sector fulfilled an ‘exemplary role’ with 
respect to energy efficiency. This obligation included the duty to select at least two measures from a least 
of  six,  reported  in  Annex  VI  to  the  Directive.  One  of  these  measures  concerned  rental  and  purchase  of 
energy efficient buildings. 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

2.  Secondary sources, including the 2011 IA on EPBD, 235 National Energy Efficiency Action 
Plans  (NEEAP)  submitted  by  the  MS  to  the  European  Commission  in  2014236,  and  the 
National Green Public Procurement (GPP) Action Plans (policies and guidelines).237 

The  situation  is  different  for  the  obligation  for  energy  distributors  to  achieve  energy  savings. 
Similar  provisions  were  already  included  in  the  Energy  Services  Directive,  though  the  EED 
introduced the quantitative mandatory target of 1.5% of annual savings. However, also in this 
case, early findings indicated that these provisions affected construction operators only in certain 
MS, and especially the installer segment. For this reason, those effects were not studied through 
firm interviews, but based on the following sources: 

1.  Primary  information  obtained  through  interviews  with  trade  associations,  public 

authorities and other stakeholders; 

2.  Secondary sources, including the national reports submitted in force of Art. 7 EED,238 

and the Concerted Action EPBD (CA EPBD) and its publications239.  

The sub-section is structured as follows 

1.  Section 7.2.2 analyses the impacts of the 3% renovation rate for public buildings; 
2.  Section 7.2.3 assesses whether new business opportunities arose from the obligation for 

public authorities to purchase energy-efficient goods and services; 

3.  Section  7.2.4  discusses  the  impacts  of  energy  distributor  obligations  with  regard  to 

energy savings. 

7.2.2 The 3% renovation target for public buildings 

Art. 5(1) of the EED requires all Member States, as of 1 January 2014, to renovate (on a yearly 
basis) 3% of the total floor area of heated and/or cooled buildings owned and occupied by its 
central government. Such renovations have to be carried out in compliance with the Minimum 
Energy Performance Requirements (MEPR) set by national requirements set in line with Art.4 of 
EPBD.  More  specifically,  Art.5  of  the  EED  applies  to  buildings  owned  and  used  by  the  central 
government with a usable floor area over 500 m2 and, as of July 2015, also with floor areas over 
250 m2. However, the 3% requirement may be opted out of, in case a MS decides to implement 
other  cost-effective  measures  (e.g.  energy  audits,  deep  renovations,  behavioural  changes  of 
occupants) leading at least to an equivalent amount of energy savings (Art. 5(6) EED).  

While not implying any significant direct and/or indirect cost for industry, Art. 5 EED may instead 
generate benefits to firms involved in building renovations as well as to the entire construction 
value chain through an increased demand for renovation services. In fact, as the BAU energy-
efficiency renovation rate is only 1.7%, the 3% target set in the EED could pave the way for new 
business opportunities. Such benefits are expected to decrease from 2015 onward as the total 
floor area not meeting the MEPR is likely to be gradually reduced.240  

It  is  worth  remarking  that  some  ‘alternative’  measures  under  Art.  5(6)  EED,  such  as  deep 
renovations, might still imply construction and renovation works, thus leading to new business 
opportunities  for  the  industry;  nonetheless,  actual  benefits  for  the  construction  sector  fully 
depend on the extent to which Member States have opted for other ‘alternative’ measures that 

and 

2006/32/EC, 

SEC(2011)779. 

235 Commission Staff Working Paper  – Impact Assessment, accompanying the Directive of the European 
Parliament and of the Council on energy efficiency and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 
2004/8/EC 
IA’. 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/sec_2011_0779_impact_assessment.pdf  
236  http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency-directive/national-energy-
efficiency-action-plans  
237 The National GPP Action Plans (policies and guidelines) document provides a comprehensive overview 
of the state of affairs in the 28 EU Member States with regard to Green Public Procurement. This document 
is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/action_plan_en.htm (last accessed in March, 2016). 
238  Available  on  the  Commission’s  website,  at  https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency-
directive/obligation-schemes-and-alternative-measures (last accessed on March, 2016). 
239 Available at: http://www.epbd-ca.eu/ (last accessed on March, 2016). 
240 EED IA. 

Hereinafter, 

‘EPBD 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

do not involve construction and renovation activities (e.g. behavioural changes). In this respect, 
one industry associations highlighted how the choice not to implement the 3% renovation target 
significantly  limited  the  impact  of  the  Directive  on  the  national  construction  sector.  Member 
States that have chosen the ‘default’ approach should have made available to the Commission 
a  complete  inventory  of  heated  and/or  cooled  central  government  buildings  by  31  December 
2013;  conversely,  in  the  case  of  ‘alternative’  approaches,  they  should  have  notified  the 
‘alternative’ measures by the same date. In the latter case, Member States should have reported 
an energy saving target rather than a target expressed in floor area to be  renovated.  In any 
case, while a building inventory was not mandatory for MS notifying ‘alternative’ measures, it 
was highly recommended in order to ensure the accuracy of the energy saving target itself. At 
the current date, 11 Member States decided to opt for the 3% renovation rate while 17 Member 
States opted for ‘alternative’ measures (Exhibit 7.1). As the implementation deadline of Article 
5 was set to 1 January 2014, tangible effects are likely to have been produced only during the 
last year of the time horizon covered by the present Study. 

Exhibit 7.1   Current status of implementation of Art. 5 EED 

Default approach 
(i.e. 3% renovation 
rate) 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus* 
Estonia* 
Greece 
Hungary 
Latvia* 
Lithuania* 
Luxembourg* 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Spain* 

Alternative approach 

Austria 
Belgium 
Croatia 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Ireland 
Italy 
Malta 
Nederland 
Poland 
Portugal 
Slovakia 
Sweden 
UK 

Source: The Coalition for Energy Savings (2015).241  
Notes: in bold, MS covered in-depth by this Assignment; 
*Member States that have officially notified the required inventory to the Commission  

Default approach under Art. 5(1) EED 

Among  the  sampled  countries,  only  Romania and  Spain  adopted  the  ‘default’  approach  under 
Art. 5 EED. Nevertheless, while Spain reports a complete list of all central government buildings 
with their floor area and Energy Performance Certificates (EPC), the Romanian inventory only 
provides aggregated information per group of buildings under the authority of one government 
body.  More  specifically,  Spain  officially  notified  the  required  inventory  to  the  European 
Commission while Romania reported its inventory only in the NEEAP (Exhibit 7.2).242  

241 The Coalition for Energy Savings (2015) - Implementing the EU Energy Efficiency Directive: Analysis of 
Member States plans to implement Article 5. Available at:  
http://energycoalition.eu/sites/default/files/20150520%20Coalition%20for%20Energy%20Savings%20-
%20Article%205%20analysis%20Report.pdf  (last accessed in April, 2016).  
242 For Romania see: MDRAP (2015), Annex to Government Resolution No. 122/2015 for the approval of 
the National Energy Efficiency Action Plan, at p. 72 - Official Journal of Romania, Year 183 (XXVII) – No. 
at: 
169 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/NEEAP%20Romania_en%20version.pdf 
(last 
accessed in April, 2016). For Spain see: Ministerio De Industria, Energia y Turismo (2014),  - 2014–2020 
at: 
National 

Efficiency 

Available 

Available 

Energy 

p.102. 

Action 

Plan, 

bis. 

at 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 7.2   Inventory of total floor area reported as Art. 5(5) EED (‘000 m²) 

Country  

Total floor area 

Romania 
Spain 
Total 

6,739.2 
11,200.2 
17,939.4 

3% annual renovation target 
in 2014 
202.2 
336.0 
538.2 

Source: MDRAP and Ministerio De Industria, Energia y Turismo 

In these countries, the size of the regulation-induced market  stemming from Art. 5(1) EED can 
be  estimated  by  multiplying  the  floor  area  under  renovation  in  2014  by  the  costs  per  m2  to 
renovate  such  area.  Estimates  for  costs  of  renovations  in  compliance  with  energy  efficiency 
requirements  are  available  on  the  ENTRANZE  database  of  energy  efficient  technologies.243  In 
this  respect,  average  renovation  costs  for  Spain  and  Romania  have  been  calculated  as  the 
average cost of 20 different energy efficiency interventions for a representative office building 
of 2,340 m2 in Madrid and Bucharest respectively. 

In  this  context,  for  Spain  the  total  useful  area,  as  of  1  January  2014,  was  equal  to  11,200 
thousand  m2  with  a  renovation  obligation  of  336.0  thousand  m2  in  the  same  year.  Estimated 
costs  for  energy  efficiency  renovation  are  equal  to  €391.4/m2.  This leads  to  revenues  for  the 
construction sectors of €131.5 mln in 2014. To calculate the additionality of the 3% requirement 
over  the  normal  renovation  rate,  the  EU  renovation  rate  of  is  1.7%  is  used;244  hence,  the 
remaining  1.3%  of  renovations  is  attributed  to  the  EED’s  renovation  target.  Accordingly,   the 
additional revenues for the construction industry deriving from the implementation of art. 5(1) 
EED  in  Spain  amounted  to  some  €57.1  mln  in  2014.  Nevertheless,  according  to  industry 
associations, the impact of Art. 5(1) EED on the Spanish industry still remained limited so far.   

In the same vein, the Romanian total floor area of 6,739.2 thousand m² under inventory required 
renovation works on 202.2 thousand m² in 2014.245 Estimated costs for renovation in Romania 
are  equal  to  €251.1/m2.  Hence,  in  2014  total  revenues  for  the  construction  sectors  from 
renovating buildings owned and used by the central government were equal to €50.7 mln and, 
applying a BAU renovation rate equal to 1.7%, €22.0 mln can be considered additional Art. 5(1) 
revenues.  

Alternative approach under Art. 5(6) EED 

The majority of countries within the sample have opted for the ‘alternative’ approach that should 
deliver at least the same amount of savings of the ‘default’ one (Art. 5(6) EED).246 As Exhibit 7.3 

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2014_neeap_en_spain.pdf    (last  accessed  in 
April, 2016). 
Differently from Romania, Spain combines EPC with other energy indicators, such as kWh/m2/year. 
243  These  data  are  accessible  at:  http://www.entranze.eu/pub/pub-optimality  (last  accessed  in  March, 
2016). 
244 EPBD IA. 
245 No information regarding the prospective energy savings was provided in the NEEAP. 
246  Alternative measures are  reported  in the Notifications and/or in the National Energy  Efficiency Plans 
(NEEAP) submitted to the Commission. For France see Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable development and 
Energy  (2013),  Transposition  de  l’article  5  de  la  directive  européenne  2012/27/UE  relative  à  l’efficacité 
énergétique. Rôle exemplaire des bâtiments appartenant à des organismes publics. fiche de synthèse, at 
pp.14-18. For Belgium see Belgian Energy Efficiency Action Plan According to the Directives 2006/32/EC 
and 2012/27/EU article 24.2 Annex XIV part 2, at p. 23.  For the Brussels, Flemish, and Walloon regions 
see  Notification  belge  du  rôle  exemplaire  des  bâtiments  appartenant  à  des  organismes  public. 
Conformément à l’article 5 de la directive Efficacité Energétique 2012/27/EU at pp. 26-28. For Denmark 
see  Danish  Energy  Agency  (2013),  Notification  to  the  Commission  regarding  Denmark's  anticipated 
implementation of Article 5 of the Energy Efficiency Directive, at p. 3. For Italy see Ministry of Economic 
Development  (2014),  Application  of  Article  5  of  Directive  2012/27/EU  on  the  exemplary  role  of  public 
bodies’ buildings, at pp. 9-13. For Poland see Information for the European Commission on the alternative 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

shows, these measures appear to be highly variegated and not following a specific pattern. In 
addition, even when construction and/or renovation activities are involved (e.g. in case of deep 
renovations  or  building  envelope  renovations),  the  lack  of  information  regarding  the  building 
area at stake does not allow to estimate benefits for the construction industry. 

Exhibit 7.3   Alternative measures adopted by country under the Art. 5(6) EED 

Alternative measures 

BE 
(Federal 
Government) 

BE  
(Brussels 
Region) 

BE 
(Flemish 
Region) 

BE 
(Walloon 
Region) 

FR 

DK  DE 

IT 

PL 

IR   UK 

Countries 

Behavioural changes 
Deep renovations 
Building envelope renovations 
(e.g. insulation works) 
Technical systems renovations 
Renewable generation  
(e.g. installations and incentives) 
Office space rationalization and 
selling off 
Installation of EE technologies 
Other(s)247 
Expected annual savings (GWh) 
Equivalent 2014-2020 cumulative 
savings (GWh) 

x 

x 

x 

x 
na 

na 

x 

x 

x 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 
na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

na 

Source: NEEAP 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

na 

x 

x 

x 
x  
na 

x  
na 

x 
na 

x 
x 
2.12  1.3  na 

x 

2,447 

na 

na 

459 

na 

na 

na 

x 
x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

All  the  sampled  countries  have  notified  behavioural  changes  as  an  alternative  measure  to  be 
implemented. Interestingly, Ireland plans  to achieve equivalent savings through these ‘softer’ 
measures only and, more exactly, through the so-called ’Optimising Power @Work staff energy 
awareness campaign‘ managed by the Office of Public Works (OPW).248  At the moment of the 
notification, €9 mln in Government funding were already made available for the expansion of 
the programme, which has been running already since 2008. 

In  Belgium competence for adopting energy  efficiency measures is  shared by the  federal and 
regional  government.  For  instance,  the  Brussels  Region  envisages  the  implementation  of  the 
PLAGE programme which declines energy savings targets within selected organizations,249 thus 

approach adopted to implement Article 5(1)-(5) of Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU 
and  repealing  Directives  2004/8/EC  and  2006/32/EC  (OJ  L  315,  14.11.2012,  p.  1),  For  Ireland  see 
Department for communications, Energy and Natural Resources (2013), National Energy Efficiency Action 
Plan  2014, at pp.26-27. For Germany see 3rd National Energy Efficiency Action Plan (NEEAP) 2014 for the 
Federal Republic of Germany, at p.32. For UK see Department of Energy and Climate Change (2014), UK 
National Energy Efficiency Action Plan, pp. 32-34. 
247 Other measures include investment contracts (Belgian Fed. Gov.), PLAGE programme (Brussels Region), 
operations and land  use  optimization  (Denmark), ESB programme (Germany), energy saving funds and 
energy savings targets (Italy), support programmes to thermal modernization projects implemented by the 
National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management (Poland), support to projects for energy 
efficiency and renewable energy use in the public and housing sectors (Poland) and facility management 
(UK). 
248  OPW  will  be  responsible  for  delivering  the  target  savings.  Its  duties  include  the  management  and 
maintenance of the State’s property portfolio. 
249 The organizations falling under the scope of the PLAGE Programme are indicated in the Annex V 4 of 
the  COBRACE  (Code  bruxellois  de  l’air,  du  climat  et  de  la  maîtrise  de  l’énergie),  namely:  any  company 
owning and/or occupying buildings on the territory of Brussels Region together representing a total area of 
over 100,000 m²; non-profit associations, international non-profit  associations and foundations,  owning 
and/or occupying buildings on the territory  of  the Brussels Region  representing together a total area  of 
over 100,000 m²; public powers owning and/or occupying buildings representing together a total area of 
50,000 m²; federal, regional and European authorities owning and/or occupying buildings. 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

strongly relying on a principle of subsidiarity. Introduced in 2005, the PLAGE is a methodology 
working on a cyclic basis (i.e. every 5 years). During a first phase (year 1), the coordinator of 
the programme within the organization establishes an energy inventory for each building, selects 
priorities and establishes an action plan. This may contain diverse measures such as regulations 
and small or heavy renovations to achieve the minimum target set in the Brussels’ legislation. 
These actions are meant to be implemented during the second phase of the cycle (2014-2010); 
between  the  first  two  phases  and  after  the  second  one,  an  auditor  controls  both  the  action 
programme and the project implementation report. If necessary, penalties are applied to non-
compliant organisations. 

Deep  renovations,  technical  systems  and  building  envelope  renovations  are  among  the 
alternative  measures  that  are  more  interesting  for  the  construction  sector.  They  have  been 
adopted in France, Denmark, in the Flemish and Walloon Region as well as in Italy. In particular, 
the Italian Government established a national energy fund of €380 mln in order to support such 
renovations.250  In  the  same  vein,  as  confirmed  by  several  national  stakeholders,  renewable 
generation  promotion  schemes  for  public  bodies  (e.g.  the  Italian  “Conto  Termico”) 251  are 
expected to positively impact the construction  sector through the benefits accruing to  energy 
auditors and installers.  

To  be  sure,  the  specific  impact  of  Art.  5  EED,  in  countries  such  as  France  and  UK,  might  be 
difficult to disentangle from the effects of national provisions insofar as in those Member States 
compliance took place  with measures already  agreed upon and planned before the entry into 
force  of the Directive.252 Similarly, Germany’s  effort to increase  energy  efficiency  of buildings 
converged  into  the  wider  2011’s  “Energy  refurbishment  roadmap  for  Federal  Government 
properties” (ESB) aimed at reaching the Federal Government’s energy objectives to develop a 
climate-neutral building stock. 

To conclude, it is worth highlighting that, under the ‘alternative’ approach, no guidance on timing 
is provided. In fact, even though the Directive clearly specifies that Member States opting for 
the alternative approach must notify their measures to the Commission by 31 December 2013, 
the same gives no indication on how the related savings should be temporally spread after this 
date. More specifically, savings should ideally follow a linear increase; however, the lack of detail 
in the current Guidance Document253 allows Member State to achieve them only at the beginning 
or at the end of the 2014-2020 period and this may be reflected in “stops-and-goes” policies as 
well as discontinuous benefits for the construction sector. Furthermore, out of the 17 countries 
that  opted  for  the  ‘alternative’  approach  only  five  provided  a  clear  estimate  of  savings  per 
individual action (only Ireland and Poland among MS covered in-depth) and only five calculated 
the equivalence with the default approach (only France and Italy among MS covered in-depth).254 

7.2.3 Purchase of high efficiency goods and services (including construction) by public bodies 

Article  6  of  the  EED  requires  Member  States  to  ensure  that  central  governments  purchase  or 
rent buildings with high energy-efficiency performance and compliant with the (non-exhaustive) 
list  of  standards  contained  in  Annex  III  and  in  particular  the  MEPR  set  under  Article  4  of  the 
EPBD.  The  resulting  procurement  rules  must  be  consistent  with  the  principles  of  cost-
effectiveness,  economic  feasibility,  wider  sustainability,  technical  suitability,  and  sufficient 

250  However  the  National  Energy  Efficiency  Fund  could  be  used  also  for  financing  behavioural  changes 
policies. 
251 The “Conto Termico” provided incentives equal to €23.8 mln over the period 2013-2014 of which €3.6 
mln to public administrations. 
252 Namely the “Grenelle de l’Environnement” and the “Greening Government Commitments” respectively. 
253 See Commission Staff Working Document - Guidance note on Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency, 
amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EC, and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC. 
254 The Coalition for Energy Savings (2015) - Implementing the EU Energy Efficiency Directive: Analysis of 
Member 
at: 
implement 
http://energycoalition.eu/sites/default/files/20150520%20Coalition%20for%20Energy% 
20Savings%20%20Article%205%20analysis%20Report.pdf  (last accessed in April, 2016) 

Available 

States 

Article 

plans 

to 

5. 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

competition.  By  its  very  nature,  Art.  6  EED  is  strictly  connected  to  the  Public  Procurement 
Directives  (Directive  2014/24/EU  and  Directive  2014/25/EU  which  replaced  Directive 
2004/17/EC  and  Directive  2004/18/EC)  as  well  as  to  the  2008  Sustainable  Consumption  and 
Production  and  Sustainable  Industrial  Policy  Action  Plan.255  This  legislation,  while  not  setting 
mandatory  requirements  and/or  targets,  clarify  how  awarding  authorities  can  embed 
environmental  considerations  in  their  call  for  tenders;  accordingly,  the  European  Commission 
has developed EU common Green Public Procurement (GPP) criteria inviting authorities to include 
them into their tendering procedures. These criteria are not binding. Moreover, the Commission 
encouraged the adoption of National Action Plans (NAP) containing an assessment of the existing 
situation, ambitious targets for the following three years and a specification of what GPP criteria 
will be adopted. NAP are not legally-binding, but they are supposed to  create awareness and 
help the process of implementing greener public procurement. 

Implementation of GPP criteria in the construction industry 

Interim results collected by the Commission show that energy efficiency requirements in public 
procurement are not fully understood by all agents and that the transposition of Art. 6 EED is 
not yet finalised in some countries.256  Exhibit 7.4 illustrates the different approaches followed 
by the sample countries in tendering procedures for construction and/or renovation works. It is 
worth stressing that, even without transposing Art. 6 EED, certain Member States might still be 
considered compliant with the rule insofar as they integrate GPP criteria (EU or national) in their 
public procurement procedures on a mandatory basis.257 

Exhibit 7.4.   Implementation of GPP criteria in the construction industry 

Status for the 
construction 
industry 

BE  
(Federal 
Government) 

BE 
(Brussels 
Region) 

BE 
(Flemish 
Region) 

BE 
(Walloo
n 
Region) 

Countries 

FR 

DK  DE  IT  ES  PL 

RO 

IE  UK 

Art. 6 EED 
transposed 
Art. 6 EED under 
transposition 
Mandatory EU GPP 
criteria 
Mandatory National 
GPP criteria 
Recommended EU 
GPP criteria 
Recommended 
National GPP criteria 
GPP criteria under 
development 

Notes 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

GPP criteria 
not adopted 
for 
constructions  

Option to 
conclude 
Energy 
Performance 
Contracts 

x 

x 

Draft law 
establishing 
GPP under 
consultation 

Source: Authors’ elaboration on NEEAP258 and national legislation.  

255 Communication from the Commission on the Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable 
Industrial Policy 
Action Plan. 16.7.2008, COM(2008)397. 
256 See Communication from the Commission, Assessment of the progress made by Member States towards 
the national energy efficiency targets for 2020 and towards the implementation of the Energy Efficiency 
Directive  2012/27/EU  as  required  by  Article  24  (3)  of  Energy  Efficiency  Directive  2012/27/EU,  COM 
(2015)574, at pp. 8-9.  
257  A  complete overview  of  criteria  adopted  by  each  Member  State  is  available  at:  http://ec.europa.eu/ 
environment/gpp/pdf/ national_gpp_strategies_en.pdf (last accessed on March, 2016). 
258 See note 246. 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

The UK transposed Art. 6 EED through a Procurement Policy Note, published on 3 June 2014, 259 
for which “[o]nly buildings that comply with the minimum standards that are set out in Annex 2 
of  [the]  PPN  may  be  purchased  or  rented”.260  For  existing  buildings,  the  exact  EPC  rating 
requirement, broken down by building type, is indicated; conversely “new buildings […] will […] 
automatically comply with the minimum energy performance requirements under Article 5(1) of 
the Energy Efficiency Directive”.261 In the same vein, the Belgian Federal Government approved 
a Royal Decree which obliges central government offices to buy, rent, or establish real rights262 
only  buildings conforming to the applicable MEPR.263   

Other sampled countries only either mention Art. 6 EED in their NEEAPs or rely on GPP criteria 
in their public procurement procedures; however, in the latter case it has to be noticed that such 
criteria are rarely binding. For instance, the Romanian NEEAP states that public procurement of 
products,  buildings  and  services  will  be  carried  out  so  as  to  ensure  high  energy  efficiency  by 
meeting the standards listed in Annex III of the EED and “by taking into account the return on 
investments and ensuring a loyal competition”;264 however, no GPP criteria has been developed 
yet, neither a NAP or equivalent document has been issued so far. Similarly, Spain is carrying 
out the necessary legislative process to be compliant with Art. 6 EED; however no binding rule 
has been approved during the time span covered by the Assignment.265 In Ireland EU GPP for 
construction  are  in  the  form  of  recommendations  and  this  is  also  the  case  in  Poland  and 
Denmark.266 Italy envisages the implementation of Environmental Minimum Requirements which 
should  extensively  cover  all  the  aspects  of  public  procurement  within  the  country.267 
Nevertheless, only with the enactment of Law 221/2015, EMR have  become mandatory for all 
procurement  of  goods,  services,  and  works  with  end-use  energy  efficiency  requirements.268 
Moreover, this obligation is set just for central purchasing bodies at a national and regional level 
(e.g.  CONSIP).  More  importantly,  Environmental  Minimum  Requirements  on  construction, 
renovation, and maintenance of buildings have been developed after 2014.269 In a nutshell, as 
confirmed by Italian stakeholders, the uptake of green public procurement criteria in tendering 
procedures for renovation and/or construction works is still limited if not negligible so far, and 
the impacts of the 2015 legislative reform cannot yet be measured.      

Finally, countries like Germany already complied with Art. 6 EED through existing legislation. In 
fact,  the  German  Public  Procurement  Regulation  already  obliged  all  public  contracting 
authorities, in Europe-wide calls for tender, to demand the highest level of energy efficiency and, 
where available, the highest energy-efficiency class when procuring goods that have a bearing 
on energy consumption. Energy efficiency must also be used as one of the evaluation criteria 

259 Cabinet Office (2014), PPN 07/14 on implementing Article 6 of the Energy Efficiency Directive - Action 
Note 07/14 3 rd June 2014, at p.4. 
260 Exceptions are buildings purchased for deep renovation, demolition, or for resale without being used for 
an In Scope Organisation’s purposes, or to preserve listed buildings 
261 It has to be noticed that, even though being extremely consistent with the energy efficiency principles, 
the  Procurement  Policy  Note  does  not  make  any  explicit  reference  to  cost-effectiveness,  economic 
feasibility, wider sustainability, technical suitability and sufficient competition, neither how these principles 
should  be  reconciled  with  energy  efficiency  considerations.  UK  envisages  also  the  use  of  National  GPP 
criteria which are mandatory only for centralised contracts. 
262 Thus expanding the scope of Art. 6 EED. 
263 See Art. 8 of Arrêté royal relatif aux exigences d’efficacité énergétique dans le cadre de certains marchés 
publics portant sur l’acquisition de produits, de services et de bâtiments - 13 July 2014. 
264 MDRAP (2015), Annex to Government Resolution No. 122/2015 for the approval of the National Energy 
Efficiency Action Plan, at p. 75 - Official Journal of Romania, Year 183 (XXVII) – No. 169 bis. 
265 See Ministerio De Industria, Energia y Turismo (2014), - 2014–2020 National Energy Efficiency Action 
Plan, at p.108. 
266 In Denmark a National Strategy on GPP is in force and an indicative political target of 50% of GPP exists; 
however the default rule is the recommendation (not the obligation) of EU GPP criteria where non-national 
criteria 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ 
gpp/pdf/national_gpp_strategies_en.pdf at p.8 
267 See Ministry of Economic Development (2014), Italian Energy Efficiency Energy Action Plan, § 3.3.4. 
268 At least in technical specifications and contract performance clauses. This obligation covers the overall 
tender value. 
269 Just Environmental Minimum Requirements regarding energy services for buildings already existed. 

For  more 

information 

developed. 

see 

is 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

when  determining  the  most  economical  bid.270  Additionally  to  these  obligations,  the  Unfair 
Competition  Act  (Gesetz  gegen  Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen)  called  specifically  for  energy-
efficient procurement in Part A for Construction and in Part A for Services.271  

To conclude, the adoption of MEPR in public procurement rules regarding buildings is fragmented 
and still lagging behind in several countries included in the sample. Even in countries where full 
transposition of art. 6 EED has taken place, the actual impact on the time frame covered by this 
Study might have been limited. In this regard, it is worth remarking that potential benefits most 
probably will accrue in coming years, especially when considering that the Directive applies to 
call for tenders issued after 5 June 2014 and that public tenders usually require several months 
to be awarded and years to be completed. In addition, the analysis above shows that Art. 6 EED 
overlaps with others EU Directives and this makes it more difficult to disentangle the benefits of 
the EED from those stemming from other EU rules or generated by national legislation. 

7.2.4 Obligations for energy distributors to achieve energy savings 

Article 7 of the EED requires MS to set up an energy efficiency obligation scheme, ensuring that 
energy distributors and retail companies (cd. ‘obligated parties’) reduce the sale of energy, by 
volume, at least by 1.5% per year. Broadly speaking, the savings are to be obtained by reducing 
the  energy  consumption  of  final  users,  including  both  households  and  industrial  customers. 
However,  MS  can  opt  out  from  this  provision  and  choose  from  a  list  of  alternative  policies, 
demonstrating that they obtain the same energy savings as the 1.5% reduction. Alternatively, 
under Art 7(9) Member States can adopt other policy measures to achieve an equivalent amount 
of  energy  savings,  or  can  use  both  an  obligation  scheme  and  alternative  measures.  This 
provision, as the entire EED, is to be transposed by June, 2014. A provision with a similar scope 
and aim was included in article 6 of the Directive on end-use of energy. However, it included 
voluntary agreements as opposed as to mandatory targets.  

Among the 10 MS in the scope of the analysis, only two countries have completely opted out 
from  setting  up  an  energy  efficiency  obligation  scheme  for  distributors  and  retail  companies, 
namely Germany and Romania; in Spain, the government expressed the intention to establish 
such  a  scheme  but  still  has  not  done  so.  In  all  other  MS,  schemes  were  set  up  (including  by 
regional governments in Belgium), to at least partly achieve the article 7 targets. Usually, these 
schemes are then complemented by other alternative policies, which contribute to achieving the 
mandatory  savings.272  In  six  MS  (Denmark,  France,  Ireland,  Italy,  Poland,  and  UK),  these 
schemes have switched from voluntary to mandatory measures over the recent years, and in 
particular following the adoption of the EED.273 Obligated parties have to either contribute to the 
funding of these schemes, or implement energy saving measure themselves. In several cases, 
the duty to implement energy-efficient measures is coupled with a market for so-called ‘white 
certificates’, i.e. tradable certificates corresponding to a certain amount of energy saved.274 The 
redemption of these certificates, based on the projects undertaken, allows obligated parties to 
comply  with  their  obligation;  in  case  the  energy  saved  is  lower  than  the  mandatory  target, 
certificates  can  be  bought  on  the  market  (or  a  penalty  is  imposed  –  the  two  options  being 
financially equivalent for the company). All in all, article 7 obligation schemes are estimated to 
generate about one third of the whole EU energy savings, as identified in the NEEAP.275 

Where schemes require energy distributors and retailers to undertake energy savings actions, 
great attention is paid to small refurbishments in existing buildings, and in particular to heating 
systems,  especially  boilers,  other  building  systems,  such  as  ventilation  and  air-conditioning, 
windows,  and  insulation  are  among  the  most  common  measures.  These  interventions  are 

270 See section 4(4) to (6) of the Vergabeverordnung – VgV.  
271 See 3rd National Energy Efficiency Action Plan (NEEAP) 2014 for the Federal Republic of Germany, at 
pp.25-26. 
272 Cf. Art. 7 National Reports.  
273 CA EBPD (2016), Implementing the EPBD featuring country reports, at p. 100. 
274 E.g. in France, Italy, and the UK. 
275 Ibid., at p. 101. 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

explicitly mentioned in the article 7 reports of e.g. Belgium, Ireland, and Denmark. Indeed, such 
interventions in existing buildings are deemed to be cost-effective, and energy distributors and 
retailers are already in contact with end users for marketing and billing reasons, and hence have 
the means and capacity to propose small-scale improvements. Furthermore, these interventions 
can  be  standardised  and  the  expected  energy  saving  easily  estimated.  Other  areas  of 
intervention not relevant for the building sector include lighting and projects for the efficiency of 
industrial processes. 

Where energy obligations of this kind were imposed on energy companies, this resulted in new 
business opportunities for the construction sector, in particular for installers of building systems 
(especially heating) and windows, and to a lesser extent for construction operators, in case of 
insulation  works  or  other  larger  interventions.  Information  on  the  market  effect  of  article  7 
schemes could be retrieved for three countries, i.e. France, Italy, and the UK. The information 
refers to 2014, which is the year when the EED entered into force. 

1.  In France, 88% of article 7 energy savings were obtained via the ‘Certificats d’économies 
d’énergie’,  i.e.  the  obligation  schemes  for  energy  distributors  and  traders.  Those 
certificates foresee a penalty equal to €0.02 for kWh of missed saving. This price can be 
considered  as  the  maximum  value  of  those  certificates  (i.e.  an  obligated  party  will 
undertake savings that cost less than €0.02/kWh, or rather pay the fine). In 2014, 11.2 
TWh of savings were certified, amounting to €224 mln. 90.1%, that is about € 202 mln, 
were invested in interventions on existing buildings, especially interventions on heating 
systems  and  building  envelopes.276  Based  on  these  schemes,  large  French  energy 
companies  set  up  networks  of  operators:  the  energy  operator  sells  energy-efficiency 
interventions to its customers, who can pay in instalments via the energy bills, and has 
its partner craftsmen carrying out the intervention on its behalf. For example, EDF set up 
the  Blue  Ciel  platform,277  in  which  more  than  4,000  French  artisans,  mainly  installers, 
take part. While these networks create business opportunities for small craftsmen, EDF 
obviously  enjoys  a  higher  bargaining  power,  and  is  thus  able  to  demand  access 
requirements, fees, and other service requirements. French artisans are reportedly gladly 
participating in these networks, because of the business opportunities and because they 
can reach to EDF network of customers. 

2.  In Italy, energy distributors and traders participate in the ‘Certificati Bianchi’ scheme. In 
2014, more than 7.5 mln white certificates were issued, with a value of about €830 mln. 
Small-scale  interventions,  in  particular  in  heating  and  hot  water  systems,  and 
interventions on the building envelope accounted for about 16% of this value, i.e. about 
€130  mln.  The  most  common  standard  interventions  include  wall  insulations,  the 
substitution of boilers, and other improvements of the heating and cooling systems. Also 
in Italy, large energy companies try to leverage on their commercial and financial capacity 
and customers’ knowledge to sell energy-efficiency interventions in building. Previously, 
the  Italian  legislation  had  prevented  energy  distributors  from  carrying  out  installation 
activities to avoid  unfair competition and economic dependency. However, the provision 
was found in breach of the EU treaties. Since then, large companies, e.g. Enelenergia, 
have been offering energy-efficiency interventions to their customers.278 

3.  In  the  UK,  several  company  obligation  schemes  required  energy  operators  to  achieve 
energy  savings  via  interventions  in  households’  and  other  buildings  (e.g.  the  Carbon 
Emission Reduction Target and the Community Energy Saving Program). In 2013, these 
programmes were replaced by two new initiatives, the Green Deal programme and the 

276  Cf.  Gouvernment  Français  (2015),  Rapport  annuel  2015,  dû  au  titre  de  l’article  24  de  la  Directive 
Efficacité Energétique (DEE); and cf. Art. 7 Report – France.  
277  http://travaux.edf.fr/construction-et-renovation/les-partenaires-bleu-ciel-d-edf  (last  accessed  on 
March,  2016).  Another  network  managed  by  EDF  is  Synerciel  (http://www.synerciel.fr/),  encompassing 
1,800 construction professionals, which participate to the capital of a joint stock company.  
278  https://www.enelenergia.it/mercato/libero/it-IT/casa/energia-intelligente  (last  accessed  on  March, 
2016). 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Energy  Company  Obligation.  In  2014,  under  the  various  programmes  the  following 
interventions  were  financed:  (i)  320,000  cavity  wall  insulations;  (ii)  60,000  solid  wall 
insulations; (iii) 220,000 loft insulations; and (iv) 1,510,000 interventions on boilers and 
heating systems.279 

In conclusion, energy efficiency obligations for energy traders and distributors may represent a 
source of business opportunities for construction companies, and especially installers, as energy 
companies  are  very  likely  to  suggest  small-scale  interventions  to  their  residential  customers, 
leveraging  on  their  financial  capacity  and  customer  relationship.  Even  in  MS  where  these 
programmes were not specifically targeted to the building sector, a significant or prevailing share 
eventually  involved  the  stock  of  existing  houses,  especially  with  regard  to  heating  systems, 
windows,  and  insulation.  These  benefits,  however,  can  only  partially  be  attributed  to  the  EU 
framework because of at least two reasons: 

1.  Some  of  these  requirements  for  energy  traders  and  distributors  existed    before  they 

became obligatory  under the EED; 

2.  They  are  strongly  dependent  on  the  implementation  modalities  chosen  by  the  MS, 

including the possible focus on small-scale interventions in buildings. 

7.3 Accreditation and certification of inspectors of building systems and RES installers 

7.3.1 Introduction 

The  present  sub-section  explores  two  cost  items  which  are  relevant  for  a  segment  of  the 
construction value chain, i.e. installers: 

1.  A  cost  item  generated  by  the  EPBD  (art.  17),  that  is  ‘substantive  compliance  costs  to 
become  a  qualified  or  accredited  expert  for  system  inspections  (initial  and  continuous 
training, software licence, audit by administrations)’; 

2.  A cost item generated by the RESD (art. 14(3)), that is ‘substantive costs for the installers 
of  renewable  energy  systems  to  meet  requirements  of  certification  or  equivalent 
qualification schemes’. 

The above-mentioned cost items are assessed based on: 

1.  Primary information obtained through interviews with installers; 
2.  Primary  information  obtained  through  interviews  with  trade  associations,  public 

authorities and other stakeholders; 

3.  Secondary sources, including the evaluation of the EPBD,280 the mid-term evaluation 
of  the  RESD,281  the  Concerted  Action  on  EPBD  (CA  EPBD)  and  its  publications,282  the 
Concerted Action on RESD (CA RESD) and its publications,283 and the Impact Assessment 
of the EPBD. 284 

In line with the scope of the Study, the evaluation of these items is carried out from the point of 
view of construction sector operators, in this case installers. As a result, the following aspects 
are not discussed below: (i) costs and benefits falling on other subjects, such as building owners, 
tenants,  or  public  authorities;285  (ii)  substantive issues  linked  to  the  EBPD  framework,  and  in 

279  Committee  on  Climate  Change  (2015),  Meeting  Carbon  Budgets  –  Progress  in  reducing  the  UK’s 
emissions  -  2015  Report  to  Parliament.  No  data  is  available  concerning  interventions  on  windows,  also 
eligible under the programmes. Cf also. Rosenow, J. and N. Eyre (2014), Re-energising the UK’s approach 
to domestic energy efficiency, ECEEE Summer Study Proceedings, pp. 281-289.  
280 Ecofys (2015), Ex-post evaluation of the application of Directive 2010/31/EU, Final report for DG ENER. 
Hereinafter, ‘EPBD Evaluation’. 
281 CE-Delft (2015), Mid-term evaluation of the Renewable Energy Directive, A study in the context of the 
REFIT programme, report for DG ENER. Hereinafter ‘RESD Evaluation’. 
282 Available at: http://www.epbd-ca.eu/ (last accessed on March, 2016). 
283 Available at: http://www.ca-res.eu/  (last accessed on March, 2016). 
284 Commission Staff Working Paper  – Impact Assessment, accompanying the Directive of the European 
Parliament and of the Council on energy efficiency and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 
2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC, SEC(2011)779. Hereinafter, ‘EPBD IA’. 
285 For further information on these aspects, cf. EPBD Evaluation. 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

particular the working of the inspection regime; and (iii) substantive issues linked to the RESD 
framework, and in particular the uptake of RES in buildings. 

The sub-section is structured as follows:  

  Section  7.3.2  focuses  on  the  costs  for  becoming  a  qualified  or  accredited  expert  for 

system inspections; 

  Section 7.3.3 deals with the costs incurred by RES installers to obtain a certification or 

an equivalent qualification; 

7.3.2 Accreditation and certification of inspectors of building systems 

Articles 14 and 15 of the EPBD 2010 state that both heating and air-conditioning systems with 
an effective  rated output over a certain threshold286 shall be subject to regular inspections of 
their accessible parts. Similar provisions were already included in the EPBD 2002 in articles 8 
and 9,287 and were to be implemented as of January 2009.288 MS can opt out from the provisions 
on inspections and introduce other measures with an equivalent impact.289 As a consequence, 
13  MS  introduced  alternative  approaches  for  heating  systems,  and  7  for  air-conditioning 
systems.290  Among  the  MS  covered  by  this  Study,  Ireland  opted  for  alternative  measures  for 
both cooling and heating inspections, while France, Denmark,291 Germany, and the UK opted for 
alternative measures for heating inspections. 

Article 17 of the EPBD 2010 requires that these inspections are carried out ‘by qualified 
and/or  accredited  experts,  whether  operating  in  a  self-employed  capacity  or  employed  by 
public  bodies  or  private  enterprises’.  The  same  requirement  was  provided  for  by  the  EPBD 
2002.292  The  EPBD  2010  adds  the  obligation  for  MS  to  make  available  public  information  on 
training and accreditation, and to publish and update lists of accredited companies/experts.  

The  requirements concerning the qualification  or accreditation of  inspectors of both 
heating  and  air-conditioning  systems  are  very  different  across  MS.293  In  particular, 
accreditation  or  qualification  may  be  based  on  training,  exams,  professional  experience  or 
attestation of competence.  In addition to that, qualification may be ‘automatically’ granted to 
installers  already  operating  in  these  market  segments.  Furthermore,  in  certain  MS,  these 
requirements are set and/or managed at regional level, e.g. in Italy, Spain, and Belgium.  

In  most  countries,  a  prior  level  of  educational  qualification  is  mandatory,  and  a  secondary 
education diploma is usually necessary for installers. Professional experience is another common 
requirement to access the market.294 Qualifying examinations, where mandatory, are different 
in  coverage  and  depth.  Here  below,  secondary  evidence  available  for  the  MS  covered  by  this 
Study295 is provided:296 

286 I.e. for heating systems, those with boilers whose effective rated output is higher than 20 kW; for air-
conditioning systems, those with an effective rated output higher than 12 kW.  
287 Though there was no provision for alternative measures to inspections of air-conditioning systems. 
288 23 MS opted for such extended transposition deadline, as provided by art. 15 EPBD 2002. Cf. EPBD IA, 
at p. 21. 
289  Alternatives  are  spelled  out  in  art.  13(4)  and  14(4)  and  include:  (i)  provision  of  advice  to  users 
concerning the replacement of boilers/air conditioning systems; (ii) other modifications to the heating/air-
conditioning systems; and (iii) and alternative solutions to assess the efficiency and appropriate size of the 
boilers/air-conditioning systems. 
290 EPBD Evaluation, at p. 48. 
291 In Denmark, the scheme of inspection of air-conditioning systems was discontinued as of 1st of January 
2016 (cf. infra). 
292 At art. 10. 
293 Cf. EPBD IA, at p .48. 
294 CA EPBD (2011), Implementing the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive featuring country reports, 
at p. II-76. 
295 Ireland has opted for alternatives measures for inspections of both heating and air-conditioning systems. 
296 Cf. CA EPBD and interviews with stakeholder associations, governments and installers. 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

1.  In Belgium, no mandatory external certification for installers and inspectors is required; 
very few operators opted for a voluntary certification, with SME having a limited interest. 
In  general,  the  procedures  for  market  access  are  considered  easy  to  comply  with  and 
non-burdensome.  More  specifically,  in  the  Brussels  region,  the  legislation  provides  for 
five types of qualified experts for heating systems, depending on the type of inspections 
and boilers. All types of experts have to be accredited by ‘Bruxelles Environment – IBGE’, 
and the accreditation system foresees a training programme and a test of competences. 
The accreditation is valid for 5 years and can be renewed for 5 more years. In Flanders, 
inspectors of air conditioning systems have to: (i) possess a degree in electromechanics; 
(ii) be specialist in climate control or cooling technology; (iii) be a certified climate control 
expert;  or  (iv)  be  an  air  conditioning  or  cooling  technician  recognised  by  the  Flemish 
government. In addition to that, experts from other EU MS may demand access to the 
profession, as well as craftsmen with at least three years of experience with cooling and 
air-conditioning systems with power >12 kW. 

2.  In Denmark, the inspection of heating and air-conditioning systems has to be carried 
out by qualified or accredited experts, in compliance with the EPBD.297 Four categories of 
experts are foreseen, depending on whether they can only inspect the boiler or the whole 
heating system, and on the fuel used. All categories must attend a training period and sit 
a qualification exam. Installers, technicians and chimney sweepers (the latter not for gas-
fired boilers and systems) may demand access to the profession.  

3.  France  is  the  only  MS  among  those  covered  in-depth  in  which  an  ISO  certification  is 
required for inspectors of air-conditioning systems, who have to be certified according to 
the ISO standard 17024, by a body accredited by the French committee of accreditation 
(COFRAC).  Two  certifications  exist,  for  smaller  or  larger  systems.  The  certification  is 
granted  for  five  years  upon  passing  a  theoretical  and  practical  exam.  The  certified 
inspector  is  then  subject  to  audits,  both  on  the  reports  issued  and  during inspections. 
France opted out from inspections of heating systems. 

4.  In Germany, no accreditation for inspectors of heating and air-conditioning systems is 
required.  The  requirements  for  inspectors  are  spelled  out  in  the  law  on  Energy 
Efficiency.298 Germany opted out from inspections of heating systems. 

5.  In Italy, the operators qualified for the installation and maintenance of heating and air-
conditioning  systems  can  also  perform  inspections  without  additional  requirements,  at 
least  for  systems  with  a  nominal  power  lower  than  350  kW  (for  systems  over  this 
threshold, companies must have an ISO 9001 certification).299  

6.  In  Spain,  accreditation  is  not  required  for  qualified  industrial  engineers,  including 
companies  having  an  industrial  engineer  as  employee.  Otherwise,  accreditation  is 
necessary  according  to  the  Reglamento  de  Instalaciones  Térmicas  en  los  Edificios  and 
foresees (i) training; (ii) professional experiences; and (iii) an exam. The administration 
of the accreditation system is competence of regions and communities. 

7.  In  Poland,  the  inspection  of  boilers,  heating,  and  air-conditioning  systems  can  be 
performed by engineers or technicians competent for supervising installation works. No 
evidence could be found concerning mandatory accreditation for inspectors. 

297  A  mandatory  inspection  scheme  for  cooling  systems,  called  ‘Eftersynsordning  for  ventilasions-  og 
klimanlaeg’ came into force in 2008 and was abolished as of  of January, 1st 2016. 
298 Energieeinsparverordnung – EnEV. 
299  Cf.  the  applicable  regulation,  which  consists  of  (i)  Decreto  del  Presidente  Della  Repubblica  16  aprile 
2013, n. 74; and (ii) Decreto del Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico del 22 gennaio 2008, n. 37. 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

8.  In  Romania,  only  technical  experts  certified  in  heating  and  ventilation  systems  can 
perform inspections. The list of accredited experts is published by the Ministry for regional 
development and public administration.300 

9.  In  the  UK,  air-conditioning  systems  over  12  kW  must  be  inspected  by  accredited 
assessors.  The  accreditation  requires  (i)  demonstration  of  competences,  though  a 
recognised qualification or professional experience; (ii) proof of professional insurance; 
(iii)  continuous  training;  (iv)  quality  assurance  systems;  and  (v)  compliance  with  the 
accreditation  scheme  guidance.  Twelve  accreditation  schemes  were  approved  by  the 
government.301  

Information on costs was retrieved via interviews with installers and stakeholder associations. 
However, given the diversity of schemes across MS, the number of data points are not sufficient 
to perform a quantification. In any case, the attribution of these costs to the EU framework 
would  considerably  fall  below  100%;  indeed,  while  the  EPBD  mandates  accreditation  or 
certification, the choice between the two alternatives and the modalities for implementation, and 
thus the costs generated, depend on the national, and sometimes regional, governments. This 
clearly  results  from  available  evidences,  as  some  MS  extended  previous  accreditations  for 
heating  and  air-conditioning  installers,  at  no  or  limited  costs  for  the  operators,  while  other 
implemented  ex  novo  accreditation  schemes  requiring  training  and  the  passing  of  exams, 
including  France  which  mandated  external  ISO  certification  for  air-conditioning  system 
inspectors. Information retrieved can be summarised as follows: 

1.  In Italy, no relevant costs are incurred concerning the inspection of heating systems, as 
any operator qualified for installing and maintaining such systems is entitled to carry out 
inspections. For cooling systems, the FGas certification – concerning the use of fluorinated 
gases  and  thus  out  of  the  scope  of  the  EPBD  –  is  a  market  standard  and  de  facto 
mandatory. The FGas certification is valid for one year and costs about €2,000. The yearly 
renewal  costs  significantly  less.  This  certification  system  is  currently  under  review, 
precisely because of operators complaining about its cost. 

2.  In  Spain,  obtaining  the  RITE  certifications  for  subjects  not  meeting  the  educational 

requirements (e.g. a degree in engineering) is very demanding and costly. 

3.  In Poland, though no mandatory training was identified, attendance of public and private 
training was reported by the interviewees. Though training is usually paid for by private 
parties  (e.g.  boiler  producers)  or  public  money  (e.g.  via  EU  funds),  the  interviewees 
reported a loss of 1-2 days of work, and out-of-pocket expenses concerning travel and 
sometimes accommodation. Training is usually attended on a yearly basis. 

7.3.3 Accreditation and certification of RES installers 

The  installation  of  small-scale  biomass  generators  is  largely  carried  out  by  installers  and 
providers of specialised construction services included in the NACE Group 43, though specialised 
firms  also  exist,  installing  RES  generation  capacity  without  carrying  out  other  construction 
services.  Indeed,  the  installation  and  maintenance  of  RES  plants  in  buildings  are  closely 
integrated with the installation and maintenance of building systems, and in particular heating, 
cooling, and electricity systems.  

The accreditation and certification of RES installers is regulated by the RESD, which is not an act 
specifically designed for buildings or the building sector. The regulation of this aspect is quite 
loose, as article 14(3) RESD ‘only’ provides for MS to ensure that certification or equivalent 
qualification schemes are or become available by 2012 for installers of small-scale RES 
generation  capacity,  including  biomass  boilers  and  stoves,  solar  photovoltaic  and  thermals 
systems, shallow geothermal systems, and heat pumps. These schemes shall take into account 

300  Cf.  http://www.mdrap.ro/constructii/atestari-tehnico-profesionale/experti-tehnici  (last  accessed  on 
March, 2016). 
301  Building  Engineering  Services  Competence  Assessment,  Building  Research  Establishment,  Chartered 
Institute of Building Services Engineers, ECMK Ltd, Heating and Ventilation Certificated Associates, National 
Energy Services, Northgate, Quidos. Sterling Accreditation, and Stroma. 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

existing ones, where available, and shall be based on the criteria laid down in Annex IV to the 
Directive.  Annex  IV  gives  MS  great  flexibility  in  the  organization  of  the  certification  and 
qualification process, provided that it includes training and a final exam. With regard to training, 
the Annex details the conditions and the content. Finally, article 14(3) require MS to recognize 
certifications awarded in other MS which comply with these criteria.  

The lack of certification or equivalent qualification schemes, and the insufficient availability of 
trainings,  was  considered  as  a  barrier  to  the  deployment  of  RES  small-scale  generation 
capacity.302 Furthermore, certification or equivalent qualification is expected to deliver benefits 
to  the  installers,  including  a  signalling  function  of  higher  expertise  in  RES  deployment  and 
additional trust by consumers.303 As the measure is not binding, in this case no regulatory 
costs can be attributed to EU legislation. 

The  uptake  of  this  provision  is  still  limited.  According  to  CA  RES  data,  13  MS  introduced  a 
certification scheme for experts, and 3 MS a qualification. These schemes vary to a large extent 
among MS, in particular concerning: (i) content/competencies; (ii) the subjects (companies or 
individuals);  (iii)  the  responsible  body;  (iv)  the  length  of  training;  (v)  the  demonstration  of 
competences; (vi) the administration of the scheme; and (vii) the duration of the qualification 
and the requirement for continuous professional development. Furthermore, schemes may be 
mandatory or voluntary. Voluntary schemes may still be linked to the subsidy/incentive schemes 
established  at  national  level,  providing  much  stronger  incentives  to  obtain  the  qualification  / 
accreditation.304 Information on the 8 MS covered in-depth by the Study where a certification or 
qualification scheme exists is provided here below:305 

1.  In  Belgium,  a  voluntary  certification  scheme  exists  as  from  January  2014,  for  both 
individual and companies. The development and implementation of the schemes are left 
to regional governments. The scheme foresees 35-40 hours of training and a theoretical 
and  practical  examination.  Stakeholder  associations  considered  the  scheme  easy  to 
comply with, and reported that there is no demand from SME to have it mandatory in the 
future. 

2.  In  Denmark,  a  voluntary  scheme  is  in  place  for  companies,306  including  32  hours  of 
training,  an  exam,  and  the  approval  of  the  company’s  quality  management  by  audit 
companies.  Pre-existing  competence  can  be  taken  into  account  to  reduce  training 
requirements.  The  participants  to  the  training  must  have  a  background  in  the  field  of 
electricity, heating, or ventilation systems.  

3.  In  France,  a  certification  scheme,  the  so-called  RGE,307  was  set  up;  though  not 
mandatory,  resorting  to  an  RGE-certified  company  is  a  prerequisite  for  customers  to 
access public financial support for building renovation and RES deployment. RGE is not a 
certification  per  se,  but  a  certification  of  existing  accreditation  or  equivalent  schemes 
(e.g. Quali’Sol for thermal solar, Quali’Pac for heat pumps, and Quali’PV for photovoltaic). 
Companies possessing these first-level qualifications can be RGE-certified.  

4.  In  Germany,  the  installation  of  RES  can  be  carried  out  by  specialised  craftsmen  or 

engineers. No accreditation system exists. 

302 In 2010, most of MS lacked certification schemes for one or more of the RES small-scale technologies, 
and a majority of MS did not provide sufficient training schemes, either within existing education curricula, 
or through lifelong education for technicians and professionals. Cf. Ecorys (2010), Assessment of non-cost 
barriers to renewable energy growth in EU Member States – Report for DG TREN. 
303 Cf. RESD Evaluation, at p. 129 and ff. 
304 CA RES (2015), Core Theme Interim Report, Core Theme 3: RES Heat..  
305 Cf. CA RES and interviews with stakeholder associations, governments and installers. 
306 ‘Frivillig godkendelsesordning for virksomheder, der monterer små vedvarende energianlæg’. 
307  Reconnu Garant de l’Environment.  The RGE  scheme  concerns not  only RES installers, but  also other 
construction operators, such  as professionals, companies providing energy-efficient renovation services, 
installers of insulation materials, and of heating systems.  

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

5.  In  Italy,  the  accreditation  is  not  yet  operational.308  As  of  August  2013,  new 
professionals/companies  intending  to  work  in  the  RES  market  and,  in  certain  cases, 
companies  already  operating,  have  to  comply  with  the  following  requirements:  (i)  the 
person  responsible  for  RES  installation  within  a  company  (or  as  an  independent 
professional) needs to attend a 80 hour-training course; and (ii) all RES certifiers within 
a company need to attend a 16-hour-lifelong training course. However, since professional 
training  is  a  shared  competence  between  the  central  and  regional  governments,  a 
regional legal framework is required for the provision to be operational. So far, training 
has  not  yet  started  in  any  region,  and  only  few  regions  have  already  adopted  the 
necessary legislative acts (Lombardy, Piedmont, and Veneto).  

6.  In Poland, a voluntary scheme is in place, based on the competence criteria provided for 
in  national  legislation.  The  certification  requires  (i)  either  vocational  education  or 
professional experience; (ii) training; and (iii) passing an exam. The training varies across 
the training centres, which have to be accredited by the Office of Technical Inspection. 
Once obtained, the certificate is valid for 5 years.  

7.  In Spain, no certification or accreditation is required for companies or individuals with a 
sufficient educational background (e.g. building engineers). Those who do not meet the 
minimum educational requirements must be accredited according to the Reglamento de 
Instalaciones  Térmicas  en  los  Edificios,  requiring  (i)  training;  (ii)  professional 
experiences;  and  (iii)  an  exam.  The  Administration  of  the  accreditation  system  is 
competence of regions and communities. 

8.  In the UK, a voluntary scheme is in place for companies designing, supplying, installing 
and  commissioning  microgeneration  RES  systems.  The  framework  is  managed  by 
accredited  bodies  and  based  on  competence  criteria  set  in  national  standards.  The 
accreditation  includes  both  training  (between  30  and  120  hours)  and  knowledge 
assessment. Electrician, plumbers, and heating engineers may accede to the scheme. 

As  the  EU  legislation  mandates  the  existence  of  these  schemes,  but  not  their  mandatory 
application, this prevents the assessment of regulatory costs and benefits. Arguably, a scheme 
linked to incentives is still voluntary, but may create  de facto market standards, and hence a 
barrier to market access. For this reason, companies, and especially SME, may be sensitive to 
the costs generated by the scheme. This is the case in France. Though the RGE is a second-level 
certification, hence relying on existing certifications rather than setting up a new scheme, and 
simplifications  were  introduced  (e.g.  in  terms  of  single  audits  for  multiple  technologies  and 
systems), costs may still be significant for smaller operators, amounting to approximately €1,000 
for obtaining the qualification. 

Information on costs was retrieved via interviews with installers and stakeholder associations. 
However, as in the case of the accreditation/certification of heating and cooling inspectors, given 
the  diversity  of  schemes  across  MS,  the  number  of  data  points  are  not  sufficient  to  quantify 
costs. Information retrieved is as follows: 

1.  In Denmark, the voluntary certification costs about 10,000 DKK (~ € 1,350); 
2.  In  Italy,  the  costs  of  training  is  not  always  borne  by  participants.  In  certain  cases, 
European funds for professional development are used; most importantly, in a majority 
of cases, the costs of training will be sponsored, fully or partly, by the manufacturers of 
RES materials; 

3.  In the UK, one installer reported the following costs for certification: (i) € 2,500 for fees; 
(ii)  €  2,500  for  training  costs;  and  (iii)  €1,500  for  the  purchase  of  documentation, 
instruments, and software; 

308 Access to the RES installation market is currently allowed for companies meeting the requirements to 
work as installers of building systems, i.e. to individuals (or companies employing individuals) with (i) a 
scientific  university  degree;  (ii)  a  secondary  degree  and  working  experience;  (iii)  specific  training  and 
professional experience; (iv) professional experience as specialised operator. 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

4.  In Poland, one installer is planning to undertake a training for RES installation to broaden 

his scope of activity; training costs are estimated at €400. 

7.4 The Impact of Energy Efficiency Legislation on Construction Product Manufacturers 

The present sub-section deals with the impacts of Energy Efficiency (EE) legislation on the upper 
part of the value chain, i.e. on construction product manufacturers. Manufacturing companies 
were surveyed and asked about their assessment of and the impacts originating from both EE 
requirements  for  construction  products,  systems  and  buildings,  and  EE  support  measures 
undertaken at national level. These impacts were not included in the analysis of the effects of 
the EPBD on construction companies, which is dealt with in Section 5 above. 

As already mentioned in Section 2 above, EE measures are not relevant or equally relevant for 
all  manufacturers.  While  in  principle  they  all  benefit  from  support  measures  targeted  at 
supporting  EE  renovation,  at  this  indirectly  increases  their  market  demand,  only  a  subset  of 
them is concerned with EE requirements, depending on the product scope. Ten out of 17 of the 
interviewed companies reported to be affected by EE requirements. Furthermore, questions on 
the impact of EE legislation were also included in the survey targeted at construction product 
associations and other stakeholders, with 16 respondents reporting an impact on their market 
segments. Here below, survey and interview data are presented.  

Exhibit 7.5 below shows the assessment of the product associations and other stakeholders on 
the impact of EE requirements on their sector.309 About a quarter of respondents signalled a high 
impact, and more than one third signalled some impacts; to the contrary, slightly less than 40% 
of those respondents considered that EE requirements have no or limited impact on their activity. 
When  asked  about  the  MS  where  the  impacts  of  EE  requirements  are  larger,  Germany  is  the 
most mentioned, followed by Austria, France, the Netherlands, and the UK. Both stakeholders 
and  companies  were  also  surveyed  on  the  additionality  of  these  requirements  compared  to 
business-as-usual  market  demand.310  All  companies  considered  the  requirements  in  line  or 
additional compared to market demand; in particular, a majority of them considered them as 
stricter. As for other stakeholders, about one fifth of the respondents considered that customers’ 
demand for EE performance would actually be higher than mandatory level, but the prevailing 
majority considered them in line or stricter, and a majority considered them stricter. Based on 
these findings, EE requirements present a significant degree of additionality, and thus a low BAU 
factor,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  construction  product  sector.  One  interviewed  company 
qualified the situation by stating that ‘regulation, including support measures, is the main driver 
of EE in buildings’.  

309 As companies were specifically targeted to cover sectors affected by EE legislation, data from interviews 
show a prevailing majority of companies affected to a high extent and are thus not significant.  
310 Namely, in both the questionnaire and the survey respondents were asked whether in their opinion, EE 
mandatory requirements are stricter, more lenient, or in line with customers’ typical demand. 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 7.5   Impact of EE requirements and additionality311 

EE requirements (survey data) 

Additionality (survey data)  Additionality (interviews) 

27%

27%

Not at all

19%

9%

36%

To a limited
extent

To some
extent

To a high
extent

25%

56%

40%

Stricter

In line

More
lenient

60%

Source: Stakeholder survey (left, centre) and company interviews (right) 

Stakeholders were also asked about the effect of the EE requirements on turnover and margins. 
Several  cases  could  apply, in  theory:  EE  requirements  can  increase  manufacturers’  profits  by 
increasing demand for EE-performant construction products, increase the demand for substitute 
products, and thus negatively affect the turnover of a company or sector, or increase the costs 
of  new  buildings  and  renovation,  and  thus  indirectly  lower  the  demand  for  the  whole  sector. 
Exhibit  7.6  (left)  shows  the  empirical  findings  with  respect  to  this  aspect.  On  average, 
stakeholders  are  split  almost  equally  over  positive,  neutral  and  negative  answers,  and  in 
particular the positive and the negative camps have the same weight in the sample. The view of 
the companies interviewed – keeping in mind that only those working in a sector affected by EE 
requirement are among the respondents – are much more upbeat, signalling a positive effect on 
turnover. In the right side of Exhibit 7.6 below, the results of the survey with stakeholders on 
whether EE support measures targeted at the construction sector trickled-up the value chain are 
shown. There, 58% of the sample consider the effect as none or limited, showing that support 
measures apparently matter less than EE requirements (see Exhibit 7.5 above).  

Exhibit 7.6   Impact  of  EE  requirements  on  turnover  (left);  impact  of  EE  support 

measures on product manufacturers (right) 

36%

36%

Positive

Neutral

Negative

32%

29%

Source: Stakeholder survey 

11%

21%

Not at all

To a limited
extent

To some
extent

To a high
Extent

37%

311 Number of respondents: (i) EE requirements (survey data): 22 respondents; (ii) additionality (survey 
data): 16 respondents; (iii) additionality (interviews): 10 respondents 

136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Interviewed  companies  also  cautioned  against  making  a  direct  link  between  EE  requirements 
and support measures and the turnover of product manufactures. The market for construction 
product is affected by many factors, including the general economic situation, and the relative 
bargaining  power  of  customers,  construction  companies,  and  manufacturers.  In  particular, 
whether EE requirements translate not only into higher turnover, but also into higher margins 
for companies is unclear, as this depends on the competition on each market segment and the 
demand  being  sufficient  to  generate  economies  of  scale  over  a  long  period.  For  this  reason, 
respondents pointed out that the stability of the legal framework is an enabler of competitiveness 
for the construction product industry. Obviously, companies welcomed subsidies and funding for 
EE  renovation  provided  at  MS level,  and  underlined  again  that the  best  working  schemes  are 
those stable and long-term.  

137 

 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

8. COST SAVINGS OF THE LATE PAYMENTS DIRECTIVE 

8.1 Introduction 

Directive  2011/7/EU  on  combating  late  payment  in  commercial  transactions  (hereafter  ‘LPD’) 
aims at reducing payment delays as well as mitigating the negative effects of payments 
taking place later than agreed in contracts or laid down in the general commercial conditions. 
Late  payments  have  a  negative  impact  on  liquidity  and  financial  management  of  economic 
operators  and  constitute  a  substantial  obstacle  to  the  competitiveness  and  profitability  of  EU 
companies, especially when creditors are obliged to resort to external financial sources in order 
to cope with issues of accounting liquidity.312 The scope of the LPD is limited to payments made 
as remuneration for commercial transactions, i.e. both business-to-business (B2B) and business-
to-public  authorities  (PA2B)  transactions,313  leading  to  the  delivery  of  goods  or  provision  of 
services in exchange for remuneration.314  

The LPD, in its current formulation, affects only the very last part of the time period covered by 
this  Assignment,  as  it  is  a  recast  for  reasons  of  clarity  and  rationalisation  of  the  Directive 
2000/35/EC315 (hereafter ‘LPD 2000’) and its transposition was due by 16 March 2013. Whereas 
no  regulatory  costs  for  the  construction  sector  are  expected  to  result  from  this  piece  of 
legislation,316    article  3,  4,  6  and  7  of  the  LPD  are  likely  to  generate  benefits  for  companies 
operating in the construction value chain. In particular, according to the effects identified and 
validated in the previous phases of the Assignment, two benefit items can be identified in the 
LPD (both the old and recast version): 

1.  Financial savings (efficiency gains) linked to the setting of maximum and default payment 
terms  in  transactions  with  public  entities  and  guidelines  for  transactions  with  private 
clients (articles 4, 5, and 7); 

2.  Substantive  cost  savings  in  the  form  of  reduced  litigation  costs  linked  to  automatic 

entitlement to late payment interest (articles 3 and 4).317 

In  what  follows,  these  two  benefit  items  are  further  investigated.  First,  the  nature  of  the 
expected benefits is discussed by analysing the most relevant provisions of the Directive. Then, 
secondary data are used to provide an overview of the implementation of the LPD in selected 
MS as well as of trends in payment practices at national level. In particular, the analysis focuses 
on  the  impacts  registered  in  the  construction  sector.  These  results  are  complemented  by 
information collected via interviews with stakeholder associations and firms. More specifically, 
40  companies  (23  main  contractors,  one  sub-contractor,  seven  companies  operating  at  both 
tiers of the value chain and 9 professionals) across eight MS (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, 
Spain, Poland, Romania, UK) have provided feedback on the application of the LPD in the country 
where  they  are  based.  In  addition,  14  industry  associations  (11  national  associations  and  3 
operating at the EU level) representing construction companies and professionals have shared 
their views on the main impacts of this Directive. Finally, concluding remarks are presented at 
the end of the Chapter. 

312 Recital 3, Directive 2011/7/EU. 
313 For the sake of consistency with other Commission documents on the same topic, the abbreviation PA2B 
is used in this Chapter of the report with regard to transactions between businesses and public authorities. 
This abbreviation takes into account the payment flow (from the public authority to the company) rather 
than the transaction itself, which goes from the business to the public authority. 
314 Article 1 and 2, Directive 2011/7/EU. 
315 Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late 
payment in commercial transactions. 
316 This conclusion has been confirmed by VVA et al. (2015), Ex-post evaluation of Late Payment Directive, 
European Commission, hereinafter ‘VVA study’. 
317 Cf. Revised First Progress Report, 15 January 2016, at p. 11. 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

8.2 Expected benefits and main differences compared to the LPD 2000 

In light of the categorisation of regulatory benefits laid down in the Inception Report, the LPD is 
expected to deliver benefits to all the segments of the construction value chain in the form of 
‘efficiency  gains’.  In  particular,  the  LPD  is  expected  to  lead  to  a  more  efficient  use  of 
financial resources in the construction sector by: i) reducing payment periods and/or late 
payments; ii) providing compensation for financial costs incurred by creditors as a result of late 
payments,  including  recovery  costs;  and  iii)  limiting  abuse  of  freedom  of  contract  to  the 
disadvantage  of  creditors.  In  addition,  insofar  as  the  Directive  increases  legal  certainty,  cost 
savings may also result from a more limited recourse to litigation.  

Compared to the LPD 2000, the new LPD introduced a higher interest rate for late payment (at 
least eight percentage points above the ‘reference rate’)318 and set out a minimum compensation 
for  recovery  costs  (lump  sum  of  €40),  regardless  of  higher  claims  for  any  additional  costs 
exceeding such minimum amount.319 These provisions aim at ensuring better compensation to 
creditors and further discouraging payment delays. Furthermore, the Directive holds as  per se 
‘grossly unfair’ to the  creditor (and hence to be considered  void or as giving rise to  claim for 
damages) those terms or practices that exclude interest for late payment or compensation for 
recovery costs. The LPD also prohibits provisions which grossly deviate from good commercial 
practices or are inconsistent with the nature of the product or service.320  

The most impactful novelty introduced by the new LPD, however, is the setting of maximum 
time  limits  for  the  period  of  payment  fixed  in  contracts  with  both  private  (unless 
explicitly provided otherwise and provided it is not grossly unfair) and public clients. 
According  to  Article  3  of  the  LPD,  the  payment  term  (see  Exhibit  8.1)  fixed  in  B2B  contracts 
should  not  exceed  60  days,  unless  expressly  agreed  otherwise  and  provided  that  a  longer 
payment term is not grossly unfair to the creditor. Article 4 establishes a 30-day payment term 
for  PA2B  commercial  transactions  with  few  exceptions  (e.g.  contracts  with  public  authorities 
carrying  out  economic  activities  of  an  industrial  or  commercial  nature,  or  public  authorities 
providing  healthcare),  unless  expressly  agreed  otherwise  and  provided  that  it  is  objectively 
justified in the light of the particular nature or features of the contract. At any rate, the PA2B 
payment term cannot exceed 60 calendar days and, in order to avoid any ‘lawful’ delay, the date 
of receipt of the invoice cannot be subject to contractual agreements between the parties. 

Exhibit 8.1   A definition of payment duration, payment term and payment delay 

In this chapter, the following terminology is adopted:321  
- Payment term is the time period set out in the contract and agreed by the two parties to pay 
a certain invoice; - Payment delay is the period that goes from the expiration of the payment 
term to the moment in which the payment is received;  
- Payment duration is the sum of payment term and payment delay. 

Payment duration = payment term + payment delay 

Payment term (e.g. contractual) 

Payment delay 

Timeline in days 

318 Article 2, Directive 2011/7/EU. 
319 Article 6, Directive 2011/7/EU. 
320 Article 7, Directive 2011/7/EU. 
321 See VVA Study.  

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

8.3 Implementation in selected MS 

The  LPD  has  been  transposed  in  all  the  selected  MS  within  2013,  with  the  sole  exception  of 
Germany  where  the  act  has  been  transposed  in  2014.  All  the  surveyed  countries  chose  a 
statutory interest for late payment equal to or higher than eight percentage points above the 
‘reference  rate’  and  introduced  a  40€  lump  sum  as  a  minimum  compensation  for  recovery 
costs.322  In  no  case  the  LPD  applies  retroactively,  therefore,  in  principle,  all  the  contracts 
concluded before the date in which the LPD was implemented in each country have to abide by 
the rules laid down by the LPD 2000 (see Exhibit 8.2).  

The maximum payment term fixed in PA2B contracts is equal to 30 days in all the sampled MS, 
although  several  countries  envisaged  exceptions  for  public  entities  operating  in  the  health 
sector.323 Ireland has adopted a prompt payment policy, to reduce the payment term by Public 
Bodies  to  their  suppliers  from  30  to  15  days.  In  July  2011,  the  governmental  non-statutory 
requirement applicable to Central Government Departments was extended to all public bodies 
for combating the late payment culture. In the same vein, in 2010 UK government departments 
introduced prompt payment policies to pay 80% of supplier invoices within five days.324  

322 In the UK the lump sum ranges between 40£ and 100£ based on the size of the due payment. 
323 According to the Italian National Builders Association (ANCE), in Italy the payment term for PA2B 
contracts in the construction sector is equal to 60 days. This is probably due to the required 
procedures of acceptance or verification that add 30 days on top of the 30-day standard payment 
term.  

324 For further details, see National Audit Office (2015), Paying government suppliers on time. 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 8.2   LPD: Overview of the implementation in selected MS 

Belgium 

Denmark 

France 

Germany 

Ireland 

Transposition  

Entry into force  

2013 

2013 

2012 

2013 

2012/2013 

2013 

2014 

2014 

2012 

2012 

Open 
infringement 
proceedings  

Statutory interest 
rate  

Retroactive 
application 

Minimum 
compensation for 
recovery costs 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

8.50% 

8.05% 

8.05% 

8.17% 

8.05% 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

40 € 

310 DKK 

40 € 

40 € 

40 € 

Maximum 
payment 
period in 
days fixed 
in the 
contract 

PA2B
325 

30 

30 (but up to 
60 by 
executive 
order) 

30  
(50 health 
sector) 

30 (but up to 
60 based on 
contractual 
arrangements) 

30 (but up to 
60 based on 
contractual 
arrangements) 

B2B
326 

30 (but up to 
60 or longer 
terms based on 
contractual 
arrangements) 

30 (or longer 
period based 
on contractual 
arrangements) 

30 (but 
negotiable up 
to 60; or 45 
after the end 
of the month) 

60 (or longer 
period based 
on contractual 
arrangements) 

30 (but up to 
60 or longer 
period based 
on contractual 
arrangements) 

Transposition  

Entry into force  

Open 
infringement 
proceedings  

Statutory interest 
rate  

Retroactive 
application 

Minimum 
compensation for 
recovery costs 

Italy 

2012 

2012 

Poland 

Romania 

Spain 

2013 

2013 

2013 

2013 

2013 

2013 

UK 

2013 

2013 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

8.05% 

8.00% 

9.75% 

8.05% 

8.50% 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

40 € 

40 € 

40 € 

40 € 

40£ to 100£ 

Maximum 
payment 
period in 
days fixed 
in the 
contract 

PA2B
14 

30 (60 health 
sector) 

30 (60 health 
sector) 

30 (60 health 
sector) 

30 

30 

B2B1
5 

30 (but up to 
60 or longer 
period based 
on contractual 
arrangements) 

60 (or longer 
period based 
on contractual 
arrangements) 

30 (or longer 
period based 
on contractual 
arrangements
)  

30 (but up to 
60 based on 
contractual 
arrangements) 

30 (but up to 
60 or longer 
period based 
on contractual 
arrangements) 

325 In Germany and Ireland a payment term up to 60 days can be negotiated only if expressly agreed by 
the parties in the contract and provided that it is not grossly unfair to the creditor.  
326A payment terms exceeding 60 days can be negotiated in Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Poland 
only if expressly agreed by the parties in the contract and provided it is not grossly unfair to the creditor. 
In Denmark and Romania any payment term exceeding 30 days is subject to the previous conditions. In 
UK, express approval apart, payment terms exceeding 60 days must be fair to both businesses. 

141 

 
 
 
 
  
  
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Source: European Parliament;327 Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen;328 European Commission; and VVA329. 

For B2B commercial transactions, payment terms should not exceed 30 days in all the MS under 
investigation with the exception of Germany and Poland where the maximum payment term is 
set  by  default  at  60  days.  Nonetheless,  all  the  sampled  countries  leave  room  to  extend  such 
terms  based  on  contractual  arrangements.  Interestingly,  France  explicitly  allows  paying  B2B 
invoices 45 days after the end of the month in which they are received and this could entail a 
maximum overall payment term up to 75 days, provided it is expressly agreed by the creditor 
and not grossly unfair to the creditor. 

Notwithstanding the formal transposition of the LPD, infringement proceedings against Italy and 
Spain for bad application are still open. As shown below, these two MS are lagging behind in 
terms  of  overall  payment  duration  and,  despite  efforts  and  improvements  made  in  the  past 
years, have not managed yet in effectively combating late payment up to the standards required 
by the Directive.  

8.4 Data analysis 

While  payment  terms  are  directly  impacted  by  the  provisions  laid  down  in  the  LPD, 
payment delays and the overall payment duration are affected to a greater extent by 
the  general  commercial  practices  adopted  in  specific  sectors  and  within  a  given 
country.  National  commercial  practices  play  a  more  central  role  in  those  sectors,  such  as 
constructions, that are  less open to international competition and where suppliers and clients 
are usually local.330 In addition, the overall duration of payments largely depends on the relative 
bargaining power of the interested party vis-à-vis its clients and suppliers.331 In this context, the 
impacts of the LPD on the construction sector cannot be assessed only via a set of interviews 
with  industry  players  and  an  in-depth  analysis  of  the  available  secondary  data  is  a  good 
complement to identify general trends registered at national level. In what follows, an overview 
of payment practices in the surveyed countries is provided. Where possible, those practices that 
are prevalent in the construction sector are presented. 

Late payment in selected MS 

This  section  presents  a  brief  overview  payment  terms,  delays  and  durations  in  the  ten  MS 
covered  by  this  Study.  Relevant  data  have  been  gathered  from  yearly  reports  published  by 
Intrum Justitia332 and refer to the entire economy. A focus on the construction sector is provided 
in next section. 

In 2014, the average payment term fixed in B2B contracts was shorter than 60 days in all the 
sampled MS but Italy, where on average private parties agreed on a 65-day term. Interestingly, 
between  2012  and  2013  Spain  managed  in  reducing  payment  terms  from  70  to  60  days  in 
compliance with the LPD. In Denmark, where the maximum payment term has been officially 
set at 30 calendar days, B2B contracts usually include payment terms of only 25 days. All the 
countries experienced an improvement in contractual terms between 2009 and 2014 with the 
exception of Denmark (where the 25-day term was the standard also in 2009).333  

The overall picture for payment terms in PA2B contracts is less encouraging. In 2014, in four 
countries (Belgium, France, Italy and Spain) payment terms contractually agreed upon were still 

327 European Parliament (2015), State of play on the transposition of Directive 2011/7/EU on late payments 
in commercial transactions, Briefing - Implementation in action. 
328 Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen (2014), Late payment in western Europe: Comparative study.  
329 VVA study. 
330 For further details, see Euler Hermes (2012), Payment periods in Europe: wide gaps. 
331 See Fabbri D. & Klapper F.L. (2013), Bargaining Power and Trade Credit, working paper available at: 
http://www.cass.city.ac.uk/_media/internals/easy-edit-suite/wym?a=179726  
332 Intrum Justitia (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014), European Payment Index.  
333 As regards Romania, data before 2012 are not available. 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

longer  than  30  calendar  days  and  such  countries  registered  only  marginal  improvements  in 
payment  terms  after  transposing  the  LPD.  In  particular,  in  2014,  in  Spain,  public  authorities 
stipulated average payment terms of 75 days; in Italy, instead the average term of payment in 
PA2B contracts was equal to 80 days. 

Over  the  period  2009-2014,  payment  delays  in  B2B  commercial  transactions  went  from  an 
average of 11 days in Denmark and 12 in Germany to more than 25 days in Spain, Ireland and 
Italy. In some MS larger delays were experienced in 2014 when compared to 2009 (+12% in 
Belgium,  +32%  in  Ireland,  +38%  in  Italy  and  +  14%  in  Romania  on  a  shorter  time  span). 
Conversely, in Denmark, France, Germany, Spain and the UK the transposition of the LPD was 
followed by a reduction in payment delays.  

Whereas in Denmark, Germany and Poland delays in payments made by public authorities are 
on average comparable to those registered in commercial transactions between private parties, 
and  whereas  in  Ireland  PA2B  contracts  are  paid  substantially  faster  than  B2B  ones,  public 
authorities are the ‘slowest payers’ in the remaining countries. In particular, in Italy and Spain 
PA2B contracts are paid even 80 days after the contractually agreed terms and payment delays 
deteriorated over the period 2009-2014 (+63% in Italy and +55% in Spain). 

From a business perspective what does really matter in terms of financial management is the 
overall payment duration rather than payment terms and delays.334 This is particularly true for 
companies that do not exercise their right to claim compensation or interest in the event of late 
payment, which is the case for the vast majority of companies based in the EU.335 In 2014, in 
the  majority  of  surveyed  MS,  the  duration  of  payments  in  B2B  commercial  transactions  was 
lower  than  60  days  and  decreasing  trends  have  been  registered  over  the  period  under 
investigation. Again, Italy and Spain represent an exception. In Spain, where the LPD seems to 
have led to some improvements, in 2014 the average payment duration was equal to 83 days. 
In Italy, private parties pay their bills on average in more than 3 months and the situation has 
deteriorated over time (+7% between 2009 and 2014). 

Again, when it comes to PA2B contracts,  Italy and Spain confirm their negative performance, 
with 165 days in Italy and 154 days in Spain in 2014 respectively. In both cases, the payment 
duration increased between 2009 and 2014; nonetheless, a decreasing trend has been registered 
after the transposition of the LPD. To be sure, the targets set by this Directive for PA2B payments 
are far to be achieved in the majority of surveyed countries. In fact, according to 2014 figures, 
in no country public authorities pay within 30 days, more than 40 days are required in the UK, 
Ireland and Romania, 59 days in France and almost 70 days in Belgium.  

Late payment in the construction sector in selected MS 

A  picture  of  the  average  duration  of  payments  made  by  clients  of  construction 
companies is presented in Exhibit 8.3.  

First, it is apparent that, in the sampled countries, payments in the construction sector take 
usually longer than the average B2B and PA2B commercial transaction. This evidence is 
confirmed by all the relevant literature on the topic.336 From a methodological standpoint, it is 
worth remarking that while national data for the construction sector provided by Euler Hermes 337 
(see part A of Exhibit 8.3) do not allow a distinction between B2B and PA2B transactions, cross-
sectoral data gathered by Intrum Justitia338 (and discussed above) always separate payments 

334 Please note that the ‘payment duration’ is defined as the sum of the (contractual) ‘payment term’ and 
the ‘payment delay’. 
335 See VVA Study.  
336  See  inter  alia  Cribis  D&B  (2014),  Payment  Study  2014;  Euler  Hermes  (2012),  Payment  periods  in 
Europe: wide gaps; and Intrum Justitia (2014), European Payment Index 2014 - Industry White Paper. 
337 See Euler Hermes (2012), Payment periods in Europe: wide gaps and Euler Hermes (2015), Payment 
behaviour: Who's paying the piper? 
338 Intrum Justitia (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014), European Payment Index.  

143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

made by private clients from those made by public authorities.  Hence, to allow a comparison 
between  constructions  and  other  sectors,  it  is  necessary  to  rely  upon  a  weighted  average  of 
Intrum  Justitia  figures.  More  specifically,  this  weighted  average  (see  part  B  of  Exhibit  8.3) 
provides  an  estimate  of  the  potential  payment  duration  in  the  construction  sector  under  the 
assumption that the same payment practices adopted in other sectors would apply also to all 
the commercial transactions involving construction companies.  

Second, the transposition of the LPD seems to have generated a general reduction in 
payment duration in the construction sector between 2010 and 2014. Such a reduction 
has been more marked than in other sectors of the economy. In this respect, Germany and UK 
represent exceptions as the calendar days required to obtain a payment grew. This result is 
in line with comments made by some stakeholders. Reportedly, some 'good payers' in countries 
where  rules  for  the  construction  sector  were  stricter  than  those  introduced  by  the  LPD  have 
extended  their  payment  terms  in  contracts  involving  construction  companies  toward  the 
maximum time limit allowed by the Directive. For instance, even though the UK Construction Act 
set a default 17-day payment term, parties tend to negotiate a time limit closer to that envisaged 
by the LPD. 

144 

 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 8.3   Average  payment  duration  (in  days)  in  the  construction  sector  and 

difference with the whole economy 

A. Construction (B2B & 
PA2B) 

B. National payment 
practices (B2B & PA2B 
weighted average*) 

Construction - 
Whole economy 
(A-B) 

2010 

2014 

Belgium 
Denmark 
France 
Germany 
Ireland 
Italy 
Poland 
Romania 
Spain 
United 
Kingdom 

82 
57 
87 
41 
n.a. 
127 
n.a. 
n.a. 
174 

33 

65 
n.a. 
66 
45 
n.a. 
102 
75 
n.a. 
87 

55 

Var.  
2010-
2014 
-17 
n.a. 
-21 
+4 
n.a. 
-25 
n.a. 
n.a. 
-87 

+22 

2010 

2014 

58 
37 
61 
35 
60 
103 
35 
n.a. 
103 

50 

54 
34 
56 
34 
55 
100 
38 
36 
89 

42 

Var.  
2010-
2014 
-4 
-3 
-5 
-1 
-5 
-3 
+3 
n.a. 
-14 

-8 

2010 

2014 

24 
20 
26 
6 
n.a. 
24 
n.a. 
n.a. 
71 

-17 

11 
n.a. 
10 
11 
n.a. 
2 
37 
n.a. 
-2 

13 

Note: *Weighted average based on the estimate share of construction of public buildings over total 
construction of buildings.339 
Source: Euler Hermes (various years) for the construction sector and Intrum Justitia (various years) for 
overall national practices. 

The  decreasing  trend  in  payment  duration  is  confirmed  by  the  2014  Industry  White  Paper340 
published  by  Intrum  Justitia.  In  fact,  in  2014,  51%  of  the  payments  were  received  by 
construction companies within 30 days (see Exhibit 8.4). This constitutes the best performance 
over the period 2009-2014.  

Exhibit 8.4   Average payment duration (in days) in the construction sector 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

% up to 30d 
57 

Payments received 
% 31-90d 
30 

% >90d 
13 

48 

47 

46 

50 

49 

51 

34 

41 

40 

38 

31 

32 

18 

12 

14 

12 

20 

17 

Note: Sampled countries include all EU countries (with the exception of Luxembourg and Malta) and 6 
third countries (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Norway, Russia, Serbia, Switzerland and Turkey). 
Source: Intrum Justitia Industry White Paper (2014). 

Notwithstanding  improvement  in  payment  duration,  payment  delays  in  the  construction 
sector  have  increased  between  2008  and  2014  both  in  B2B  and  PA2B  commercial 
transactions (+53% and +106%, see Exhibit 8.5). This is consistent with feedback from several 
stakeholders stating that while the LPD had some impact on reducing payment terms (with few 
exceptions mentioned above), payment delays are still an issue. More specifically, reductions 
in payment terms have been partially offset by longer delays. As a result of late payment, 

339 Elaboration on Eurostat Structural Business Statistics and FIEC (2014), Construction activity in Europe.  
340 Intrum Justitia (2014), European Payment Index 2014 - Industry White Paper. Please note that Intrum 
Justitia data for Europe cover 26 EU MS and 6 additional third countries. 

145 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

construction  operators  surveyed  by  Intrum  Justitia  have  reported:  liquidity  problems  (65%); 
lower growth rate (64%); fewer hiring (49%); and dismissal of employees (39%). 

Exhibit 8.5   Average payment delays (in days) in the construction sector in Europe* 

40
40
35
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0

B2B
B2B
PA2B
B2PA

2008
2008
17
17
17
17

2009
2009
18
18
22
22

2010
2010
26
26
26
26

2011
2011
28
28
28
28

2012
2012
25
25
30
30

2013
2013
25
25
33
33

2014
2014
26
26
35
35

Note: Sampled countries include all EU countries (with the exception of Luxembourg and Malta) and 6 
third countries (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Norway, Russia, Serbia, Switzerland and Turkey). 
Source: Intrum Justitia Industry White Paper (2014). 

Interestingly, the share of debts written off by construction companies went from 3.8% in 2008 
to 4% in 2014 (Exhibit 8.6) and is considerably higher than in other sectors (only education and 
professional services score worse than constructions). In this respect, construction is a rather 
problematic sector when it comes to payment practices due to the weak financial position 
of some players and this can explain part of the difficulties encountered by policy makers 
in achieving effective solutions to late payments. 

Exhibit 8.6   Bad debt loss in the construction sector 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

%  
3.8 

3.8 

3.4 

3.6 

3.7 

3.9 

4 

Note: Sampled countries include all EU countries (with the exception of Luxembourg and Malta) and 6 
third countries (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Norway, Russia, Serbia, Switzerland and Turkey). 
Source: Intrum Justitia Industry White Paper (2014). 

In  what  follows,  to  complement  the  main  findings  presented  above,  an  analysis  of  national 
statistical  sources  on  payment  terms  and  delays  in  the  construction  sector  is  performed. 
Unfortunately,  such  data  are  scant  and  available  only  for  a  sub-sample  of  MS.  For  instance, 
Banque de France estimates on a yearly basis the  so-called ‘days sales outstanding’,341 which 
are  a proxy (based on  companies’  financials) for the actual duration of payments, for several 
economic  sectors.  According  to  these  data,  in  France  the  average  time  taken  by 
construction companies to collect their revenues experienced a slight reduction over 
the  period  2000-2013  (-9%)  moving  from  70  days  to  64  days  (see  Exhibit  8.7); 
nonetheless, between 2012 and 2013 such time period increased by one day. This is consistent 
with  figures  provided  above  for  the  construction  sector.  The  same  indicator  is  computed  for 
Romania where ‘days sales outstanding’ went from 110 days in 2008 to 168 in 2014 (+53%), 

341 In accounting terms, ‘days sale outstanding’ are usually defined as the ratio of accounts receivable and 
sales (including taxes) multiplied by 360. 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

with  a  peak  of  175  days  in  2011.  Interestingly,  in  Romania  payment  duration  is 
substantially longer than average duration for the entire economy that in 2014 was equal 
to 46 days in PA2B transactions and 36 in B2B.342 In Spain, the average duration of payments 
to construction SME (which represent a sub-set of the overall payments) decreased by 26% from 
2008  to  2014.  The  transposition  of  the  LPD  seems  not  to  have  led  to  major 
improvements for Spanish SME, although a 3-day reduction in the overall payment duration 
has been registered between 2013 and 2014. This result is different from the one provided in 
Exhibit 8.3 and can be explained if one considers that SMEs usually do not apply interest for late 
payment,  as  they  fear  of  endangering  future  commercial  relations,  especially  vis-à-vis  large 
clients. Interestingly, according to a 2012 survey, the construction industry is the sector in Spain 
that  showed  the  highest  percentage  of  firms  paying  within  a  period  of  over  120  days.343 
Conversely, the LPD has been more impactful in Italy where the payment duration in 
PA2B transactions have experienced a substantial reduction between 2012 and 2014 
(-23 days) after growing by 15 days from 2010 to 2012. This trend is generally in line with the 
one registered for PA2B transaction in the entire economy.344 The main driver for improvements 
seems to be the reduction of payment terms from 75 days to 60 days (including procedures for 
accreditation and verification). At any rate, in 2014 more than 80% of the Italian construction 
companies reported problems in getting paid by public authorities, which confirmed to be the 
‘slowest  payer’  also  in  the  construction  sector.  As  a  result  of  late  payment,  55%  of  Italian 
construction companies are obliged to delay payments to their suppliers, more than 40% have 
to reduce investments and some 30% dismiss employees.345 

Exhibit 8.7   Average payment duration (in days) in the construction sector in selected 

MS 

250

200

150

100

50

0

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

France - Day sales oustanding

Italy -  B2PA transactions

Romania - Day sales oustanding

Spain - Payment to SME

Source: Banque de France (2014), Dossier statistique: les délais de paiement des entreprises de 2000 à 
2013; CEPYME (2014, 2015), Boletin de morosidad y financiacion empresarial; Conface (2016), Analiza 
sectorului de lucrari de constructie a cladirilor rezidentiale si nerezidentiale, Sector Report; and ANCE 
(various years) Osservatorio congiunturale sull’industria delle costruzioni. 

Interestingly, according to some stakeholders, statistics on average payment duration 
may even provide a too optimistic picture. For instance, in Belgium the reduction in payment 
duration seems to be entirely offset by acceptance or verification procedures that may  add 30 
days  on  top  of  payment  terms  set  by  the  LPD.346  Similarly,  in  Italy,  payments  in  PA2B 

342 Intrum Justitia (2014), European Payment Index.  
343 See VVA Study, 
344 Intrum Justitia (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014), European Payment Index. 
345 See ANCE (2014 and 2015) Osservatorio congiunturale sull’industria delle costruzioni. 
346 See Confederation Construction (2014), La construction et l’Europe, Rapport Annuel. 

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

transactions  are  often  delayed  by  possibly  unfair  requests  made  by  clients  to  postpone  the 
issuance of invoice or the so-called ‘stato di avanzamento dei lavori’, an official document that 
trigger payments by public authorities.347 In UK, a considerable share of payments is withheld 
in retentions beyond the agreed contractual terms and is overdue for release.348 In addition, on 
a  more  general  note,  companies  interviewed  for  this  Study  argued  that  the  LPD  had  a  very 
limited impact on payment practices. In fact, when it comes to PA2B transactions, the majority 
of  respondents  have  perceived  no  change  (30%)  or  even  a  deterioration  (25%)  in  payment 
duration since the introduction of the LPD; only 10% have noticed an improvement.349 It is worth 
stressing  that  in  Germany  and  UK,  where  payment  terms  in  the  construction  sector  were 
extended  after  the  enactment  of  the  LPD,  no  interviewee  has  indicated  an  improvement  in 
payment duration. As regards B2B transactions, general trends in payment practices seem to be 
slightly better. In this respect, the percentage of interviewees noticing an improvement doubles 
(20%); nevertheless, still the majority of respondents perceived either no change (58 %) or a 
deterioration (17 %) of the situation after the introduction of the LPD.350 

Estimated benefits generated by the LPD in the construction sector  

Late  payments  generate  financial  costs  to  companies  insofar  as  they  need  to  find 
alternative sources of liquidity to pay their bills while waiting for payments from their clients. 
To cope with accounting liquidity issues, companies can: i) resort to internal cash reserves (i.e. 
the amount of money they are able to keep on hand in their bank account); ii) delay payments 
to their suppliers (especially if they have a relatively stronger bargaining power); and iii) seek 
access to finance, usually in the form of overdrafts (i.e. loan arrangements under which banks 
provide short term credit up to a maximum amount).  

While internal cash reserves are generally a very limited source of liquidity for companies, all 
the  available  evidence  shows  that  construction  companies  are  on  average  in  a  very  weak 
bargaining position vis-à-vis their suppliers.351 In a nutshell, this implies that they have to pay 
their suppliers before they are able to get paid by their clients and that bank credit is their main 
source of emergency liquidity. Therefore, any marginal reduction in payment delays is reflected 
in lower interest to be paid on short-term loans. In the same vein, any increase in payment 
delays comes at a financial cost. 

Against this background, Exhibit 8.8 provides an estimate of the financial cost savings generated 
by  the  reduction  in  payment  duration  in  the  construction  sector  between  2010  and  2014 
registered in selected MS representing the lion’s share of the EU construction sector turnover.352 
The following conservative assumptions are adopted: i) only payments received after 90 days 
are  funded  via  bank  credit,  i.e.  17%  of  the  overall  payment  in  2014  (see  Exhibit  8.6);  ii) 
construction  companies  have  access  to  finance  at  the  average  2014  national interest  rate  for 
revolving loans and overdrafts to non-financial companies;353 iii) any reduction/increase in the 
duration of payments leads to financial savings/costs. As a result, the experienced decrease 
in the duration of payments led to financial costs savings of €160 million. Interestingly, 
in  spite  of  the  very  low  interest  rate  applied  in  2014  to  short-term  bank  credit,  a  one-day 

347 See ANCE (2015) Osservatorio congiunturale sull’industria delle costruzioni. 
348 See NSCC and FMB (2014), Credit Where Credit Isn’t Due - The Results of the NSCC & FMB Payment 
Survey 2014. 
349  Please  note  that  35%  of respondents  could  not  provide  an  answer  as  they  did  not  work  with  public 
clients. 
350  Please  note  that  5%  of  respondents  could  not  provide  an  answer  as  they  did  not  work  with  private 
clients. 
351 For further details, see Euler Hermes (2012), Payment periods in Europe: wide gaps and Observatoire 
des délais de paiement (various years), Rapport annuel de l’observatoire des délais de paiement, Banque 
de France. 
352  In  2014  the  overall  construction  turnover  in  Belgium,  France,  Germany,  Italy,  Spain  and  the  UK 
represented more than 70% of the total EU turnover in the sector (Eurostat Structural Business Statistics). 
353 For Belgium and UK the national average 2014 interest rate for revolving loans and overdrafts to non-
financial companies is not available. Savings are calculated using the national average 2014 interest rate 
for revolving loans and overdrafts, convenience and extended credit card debt to non-financial companies. 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

reduction in payment duration corresponded to savings for some €17 million for the 
sector.354 In Belgium, France, Italy and Spain faster payments to construction companies led to 
substantial  benefits  (i.e.  lower  financial  costs).  It  is  no  surprise  that  in  Germany  and  UK  the 
deterioration of payment practices, which several stakeholders have attributed to the fact that 
payment terms spelled out by the LPD were less stringent than those already applied at national 
level, generated additional costs to construction companies. 

Exhibit 8.8   Estimated financial cost savings for the construction sector  

Variation in 
payment 
duration in the 
construction 
sector (2010-
2014, days) 
-17 
-21 
4 
-25 
-87 
22 

Payment 
received later 
than 90 days* 
(2014, €mln) 

Financial cost 
savings**  
(2014, €mln) 

8,962.2 
40,935.9 
35,170.7 
23,967.5 
14,301.2 
37,299.4 

Total 

-24 
-45  
18  
-83  
-104  
78  
-160 

Belgium 
France 
Germany 
Italy 
Spain 
United Kingdom 

Note: *17% of the total turnover as per Exhibit 8.6; ** For France, Germany, Italy and Spain: simple 
interest at a rate equal to the annual interest rate for revolving loans and overdrafts denominated in Euro 
to non-financial companies; for Belgium and UK: simple interest at a rate equal to the annual interest 
rate for revolving loans and overdrafts, convenience and extended credit card debt denominated in Euro 
to non-financial companies.355 
Source: Euler Hermes (various years) and Eurostat Structural Business Statistics. 

The  assessment  of  attribution  of  these  benefits  to  the  LPD,  and  thus  to  the  EU  framework, 
requires a blurred response. In fact, it is very difficult to isolate the impact of this Directive on 
changes in payment behaviour from external factors such as the financial crisis and the prevalent 
business  culture.  In  some  cases,  the  improvement  in  payment  terms  resulted  from  national 
efforts which preceded the implementation, and even approval, of the LPD. In some other cases, 
concerted national efforts have been brought about by the need to comply with the Directive. 
All these factors are likely interlinked and isolating them with certainty is not possible.  

As  regards  countries  in  which late  payments  were  and  are  a  major  issue  in  Spain  decreasing 
trends started even before 2011: for instance between 2008 and 2011, payment duration for 
SME in the construction sector went from 130 to 103 days, that is -21% (see Exhibit 8.7 above). 
As  mentioned,  the  revision  of  the  LPD,  the  presentation  of  the  Commission  proposal  and  the 
following discussion may have had an expressive (symbolic) function, yet this is an insufficient 
ground to attribute a significant share of benefits registered in Spain to the EU legislation. At the 
other  side  of  the  spectrum,  in  Italy  a  decrease  in  payment  terms  has  only  started  after  the 
implementation of the LPD, in 2013. In the Italian case, not only the LPD itself, but also other 
European Commission actions, such as the subsequent opening of infringement procedures, 356 
the  flexibility  granted  in  how  to  compute  payment  of  the  stock  of  late  debts  in  public  deficit 
statistics,357 and follow-up close monitoring of both payment duration and payment practices by 

354 Based on an EU average interest rate for revolving loans and overdrafts to non-financial companies of 
3.83%. 
355 See European Central Bank Statistical Data Warehouse. 
356  Cf.  Late  payments:  Commission  seeks  clarifications  from  Italy  and  Slovakia,  Brussels,  18.062014, 
available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-689_en.htm (last accessed on March, 2016). 
357  Cf.  Euractive,  Direttiva  pagamenti:  Ue  apre  a  Italia  per  saldo  debiti  pregressi,  available  at:  
http://www.euractiv.it/it/news/norme/6830-direttiva-pagamenti-ue-apre-a-italia-per-saldo-debiti-
pregressi-.html (last accessed on March, 2016). 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

public authorities,358 are considered as crucial determinants of the benefits for the construction 
sector.  For  Belgium,  clear  evidences  are  not  available  to  verify  whether  the  reduction  in  the 
payment duration for the construction sector between 2010 and 2014 took place before or after 
the implementation of the LPD. However, information specific to the construction industry on the 
timeliness of payments and on the share of payments delayed by 30, 60 or more days show no 
significant  variation  from  2013  onwards,  pointing  out  to  a  less  than  full  role  played  by  EU 
legislation.359 A mixed case is that of France, whereas Euler Hermes data suggest a reduction on 
payment duration for the construction sector, which brought it closely in line with the LPD limits, 
while national data, though not fully comparable, suggest a stable trend and largely in line with 
the LPD requirements over the whole period. As in the case of Belgium, the role of the LPD is 
thus  estimated  to  be  limited.  In  Germany  and  the  UK,  to  the  contrary,  payment  times  have 
increased, though remaining within the limits set by the LPD. The LPD does not prevent national 
legislation and private parties to agree on shorter payment duration, and as such would seem 
not to have triggered increase in payment duration. However, stakeholders confirmed that the 
worsening  of  the  situation  is  partly  attributable  to  the  changes  in  legislation  followed  the 
implementation of the LPD: even though they did not compel parties to lengthen payment terms, 
they acted as a focal point, thus contributing to the increase. As in the case of Spain, the LPD 
have  played  an  expressive  role,  hence  the  role  is  quite  limited  compared  to  other  situations. 
Attribution of costs and benefits to the EU framework is shown below in Exhibit 8.9. 

Exhibit 8.9   Estimated regulatory costs and benefits attributed to the EU framework 

Belgium 
France 
Germany 
Italy 
Spain 
United Kingdom 

Total cost 
savings  
(2014, €mln) 
-24 
-45  
18 
-83  
-104  
78  

Share of 
attribution 

EU cost savings 
(2014, €mln) 

50% 
50% 
15% 
100% 
15% 
15% 

Total 

-12 
-22.5 
2.7 
-83 
-15.6 
11.7 
-118.7 

Litigation costs. As mentioned, the LPD is expected to increase legal certainty, thus reducing 
the recourse to litigation. Nonetheless, while still possible in principle, such hypothesis cannot 
be  confirmed  through  available  secondary  data  neither  for  the  general  economy  nor  for  the 
construction  sector.  In  this  respect,  data  collected  via  interviews  to  construction  companies 
provides an interesting picture.  

While the majority of the interviewees (57%) is aware that creditors are automatically entitled 
to interest for late payment, companies with a larger yearly turnover (above €1 million) are on 
average more informed than smaller companies about the rights enshrined in the LPD. At any 
rate, 80% of the respondents have never taken clients to court in order to receive interest on 
late payment. In particular, only eight construction companies (five main contractors and three 
companies operating at both tiers of the value chain) have declared to resort to litigation in case 
of late payment in specific circumstances and estimated the average cost of a legal proceeding 
in the area of €3,000 to €15,000.  

More  generally,  several  respondents  stressed  that  the  limited  recourse  to  litigation  is  not  a 
consequence of the LPD, rather it is a general business practice motivated by the need to keep 
good  relationships  with  clients.  In  addition,  some  companies  prefer  to  hedge  their  credits  via 
insurance  contracts  or  ‘escrow’  accounts,  especially  when  it  comes  to  private  clients.  This 
approach is considered the most efficient as, besides being costly, lawsuits usually take several 
years before being adjudicated. This conclusion is confirmed by the Irish case.  In fact, Ireland 

358 As reported by stakeholders.  
359 Graydon (2015), Comportement de paiement, Q3 2015. 

150 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

introduced  in  2013  a  voluntary  adjudication  procedure  for  late  payment  disputes  regarding 
construction contracts with a value in excess of €10,000. This eventually takes place prior to the 
standard judicial procedure and it is intended to facilitate the enforcement of the late payment 
legislation by reducing the time and costs of debt recovery.360 Given these empirical findings, no 
cost savings concerning reduction of litigation costs can be attributed to the LPD. 

8.5 Concluding remarks 

Available evidence suggests a general reduction in payment duration in the construction sector 
between 2010 and 2014 that can be only partially attributed to the LPD. In this respect, Germany 
and UK represent a major exception as an extension of payment terms was registered. However, 
payment  duration  in  the  construction  sector  is  still  longer  than  in  other  sectors.  In  addition, 
payment  delays  have  increased  between  2008  and  2014  in  both  B2B  and  PA2B  commercial 
transactions and longer delays partially offset improvements in payment terms.  Interestingly, 
stakeholders'  view  is less  optimistic.  Reportedly,  the  impact  of  the  LPD  on  payment  practices 
has been quite limited and several issues still need to be tackled to combat late payment. 

Late payments are proven particularly detrimental for SME due to their limited bargaining power 
coupled with the typical difficulties they experience when seeking access to finance to cope with 
issues of accounting liquidity. In this respect, some of the stakeholders interviewed for this study 
explained that SME operating in the construction sector are rarely compensated for costs borne 
as a result of payment delays. In particular, SME usually do not apply interest to the debtor in 
fear of endangering future commercial relations. Interestingly, the interest rate that should be 
applied  to  late  payment  (at  least  eight  percentage  points  above  the  ‘reference  rate’)  is 
substantially  higher  than  average  short-term  interest  rate  currently  applied  across  the  EU); 
hence, an automatic application of the relevant LPD provisions would certainly discourage late 
payment.  Other  stakeholders  have  also  stressed  that  those  companies  that  operate  as  sub-
contractors (generally SME) are in the worst position within the construction value chain insofar 
as they are paid with substantial delays by main contractors (usually large companies) whereas 
they  need  to  pay  their  suppliers  in  compliance  with  payment  terms  set  by  the  LPD.361  These 
conclusions  have  been  confirmed  by  several  interviewees  operating  at  different  level  of  the 
construction value chain.362 

At any rate, many questions are still open and it is too early to assess the full potential of the 
LPD for two main reasons. First, as in all MS this Directive applies only to contracts signed after 
16  March  2013,  a  large  part  of  the  impacts  is  still  not  registered  in  official  statistics.  This  is 
particularly true for the construction sector where buildings are ‘delivered’ several months after 
signing a contract. Second, the general economic situation is proven to be a key driver for late 
payments in both B2B and PA2B transactions and, somehow, more impactful than any legislative 
instrument whether national or European.363 In this respect, the unparalleled economic downturn 
over the past years and the insolvency of many key players have worsened the issue of late or 
non-payment, especially in the construction sector where large investment are required. 

See 

Contracts 

Construction 

360 
Act 
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/34/enacted/en/pdf. 
361 See NSCC and FMB (2014), Credit Where Credit Isn’t Due - The Results of the NSCC & FMB Payment 
Survey 2014; and FFB (2015), Évolution des délais de paiement dans le bâtiment. 
362 For instance, several large companies operating as main contractors have explained that they are able 
to deal with late payments by delaying, in turn, payments to their sub-contractors. On the contrary, some 
small construction companies have reported that they tend to pay their suppliers in cash in order to get 
discounts on construction products and materials. 
363 See VVA Study. 

available 

2013, 

at: 

151 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Annex IV  
Legal analysis 

152 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The list of legal instruments identified for the purpose of this fitness check can be divided into 
three main groups, of which the first group (i.e. section 2) comprehends three instruments which 
establish requirements for construction products, either as product requirements or as labelling 
requirements, namely the Construction Product Regulation (EU) 305/2011 (CPR), the Eco-Design 
Directive 2009/125/EC (EDD) and the Energy Labelling Directive 2010/30/EU (ELD). The other 
instruments covered by the coherence analysis have been similarly grouped together and section 
3  assesses  the  coherence  between  the  energy  efficiency  legislation  that  is  applicable  to  the 
construction sector, in particular the Energy Efficiency Directive 2012/27/EU (EED), the Energy 
Performance  in  Buildings  Directive  2010/31/EU  (EPBD)  and  the  Renewable  Energy  Sources 
Directive 2009/28/EC (RESD). Section 4 analyses the coherence of legislation applicable to the 
provision of services in the construction sector, in particular Directive 2006/123/EC on services 
in  the  internal  market  (SD),  Directive  2005/36/EC  on  the  mutual  recognition  of  professional 
qualifications  (PQD)  and  Directive  2011/7/EU  on  combating  late  payment  in  commercial 
transactions (LPD). Finally, section 5 concentrates on any potential coherence issues between 
EU legal instruments that were grouped into different blocks. In particular, the EPBD, EED, EDD 
and ELD are taken together for the coherence analysis, as are the EPBD and CPR, and also the 
EED, EPBD, RESD and PQD.  

For  each  group  of  acts,  the  analysis  assesses  the  extent  to  which  the  selected  EU  acts  are 
mutually  supportive,  or  whether,  conversely,  any  legal  shortcomings  (i.e.  inconsistencies, 
overlaps, gaps) could be identified. The analysis of coherence focuses on three main aspects, 
namely: (i) the consistency among the objectives pursued by the various pieces of legislation; 
(ii)  the  coherence  of  the  scope  and  definitions;  and  (iii)  the  coherence  of  substantive 
requirements imposed upon construction sector operators. While the analysis obviously focuses 
on EU legislation, whenever relevant the interaction with national legislation was also considered. 
Finally, a conclusion is reached on whether or not (and to which extent) any of the shortcomings 
have an impact on the performance of the construction sector. 

The main sources for the coherence analysis include the implementation reports prepared by the 
European Commission, the preparatory studies of the respective Directives and the evaluations 
and impact assessments of the individual instruments. Further, interviews with stakeholders at 
the  EU  level  and  in  the  Member  States,  conducted  in  the  context  of  this  fitness  check,  have 
provided some (albeit not abundant) detail on the coherence of the legal framework applicable 
to  the  construction  sector.364  A  survey  of  manufacturers  and  their  trade  association,  also 
conducted in the context of this study, provided additional information. Finally, our research was 
further enriched by policy documents, position papers, the results from open public consultations 
and other (legal) literature.    

Finally, it must be noted that, even though inconsistencies, gaps or overlaps may exist, this does 
not necessarily mean that they also lead to practical consequences for the construction sector. 
The impact of the coherence issues on the performance of the construction sector is dealt with 
in section 5 of the Main Report. 

364 The number of interviewed firms that have reported some information on coherence in Part F of the 
questionnaire  (or  part  2.2.  for  manufacturers),  is  as  follows:  12  out  of  17  manufacturers;  4  out  of  16 
professionals; 23 out of 36 construction  companies; and 6  out of 8 installers. The provided information 
was, however, mostly not detailed enough to draw any meaningful conclusions.  

153 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

2.  CONSTRUCTION-RELATED  EU  LEGAL  INSTRUMENTS  ESTABLISHING 
PRODUCT  OR  LABELLING  REQUIREMENTS:  Construction  Product  Regulation, 
Ecodesign Directive, and Energy Labelling Directive  

The short list of legal instruments identified for the purpose of this fitness check comprehend 
three  instruments  which  establish  requirements  for  construction  products,  either  as  product 
requirements  or  as  labelling  requirements,  namely  the  Construction  Product  Regulation  (EU) 
305/2011 (CPR), Eco-Design Directive 2009/125/EC (EDD) and the Energy Labelling Directive 
2010/30/EU (ELD). These three instruments, to the extent to which they apply to products used 
in the construction sector, will therefore be analysed together for the purpose of the coherence 
analysis.  

2.1  Objectives  of  the  Construction  Product  Regulation,  Ecodesign  Directive,  and 
Energy Labelling Directive 

The Construction Product Regulation (CPR) lays down the conditions for the placing or making 
available on the market of construction products, by establishing harmonised rules on how to 
express  the  performance  of  construction  products  in  relation  to  their  essential  characteristics 
and  on  the  affixing  of  the  CE  marking.365  In  this  manner,  it  aims  at  ensuring  that  reliable 
information on the performance of a product from different manufacturers in different countries 
is available to consumers, public authorities and professionals.366 This should contribute to the 
removal  of  barriers  in  the  internal  market  by  creating  a  level-playing  field  for  construction 
products  entering  the  market.  The  2011  CPR  enhances  the  framework  established  by  its 
predecessor, the Construction Products  Directive (CPD). The new  CPR  ensures that a product 
bearing the CE marking must be allowed on the EU market and no national public authority is 
allowed to ask for additional markings, information or testing of the product. Through the  CE 
marking, a manufacturer indicates that the product he/she is placing on the market has been 
tested  based  on  the  basis  of  the  applicable  harmonised  technical  specifications  (harmonised 
European  standards  (hENs)  or  European  Assessment  Document  (EADs))  and  is in  compliance 
with applicable EU law.  

The EDD establishes a framework for the setting of mandatory requirements for both energy-
using and energy-related products (i.e. products that do not use energy but have an impact on 
energy consumption). The objective of the EDD is dual.   While, similarly to the CPR aiming to 
eliminate  barriers  in  the  EU  internal  market  because  of  differing  national  eco-design 
requirements, the EDD also aims at reducing the overall negative impact of products placed on 
the  EU  market  in  the  perspective  of  sustainable  development.  Many  energy-related  products 
have a significant potential for being improved in order to reduce environmental impacts and to 
achieve  energy  savings  through  better  design.  The  EDD  is  a  framework  directive,  and  the 
ecodesign requirements are set through Commission regulations for specific product categories. 
The EDD aims at ensuring that such improvements are introduced in a coherent manner across 
the EU market.  

The  ELD  complements  the  EDD  by  setting  a  framework  for  the  labelling  and  the  provision  of 
information regarding energy consumption. Initially targeted at household appliances, the ELD 
is now applicable to a wide range of energy-related products. It aims particularly at informing 
end-users with a view to enable them to choose more energy efficient products. As noted in the 
Commission Evaluation of the ELD and the EDD: “the ELD and EDD were adopted to address the 
basic problem that products can have a negative impact on the environment depending on how 
they  are  made,  used  and  disposed  of.  The  Eco-design  Directive  addresses  this  problem  by 
'pushing' the market towards optimised environmental performing (in particular, more energy 
efficient  products  by  banning  the  worst  performing  ones.  The  Energy  Labelling  Directive 
addresses  this  problem  by  'pulling'  the  market  towards  more  energy  efficient  products  by 

365 Article 1 CPR 
366 
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/construction/product-regulation/index_en.htm  

Construction 

Commission 

European 

website. 

Products 

Regulation, 

154 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

informing consumers about the energy efficiency and other resources use of products through 
an  energy  label,  thereby  encouraging  them  to  buy  more  energy  efficient  ones.  The  specific 
requirements for each product group are, after a preparatory study and extensive stakeholder 
consultation,  set  out  in  product  specific  regulations  (delegated  acts  for  energy  labelling; 
implementing acts for ecodesign).” 367 

No apparent contradictions between the objectives of these three instruments were identified in 
the literature and implementation reports reviewed for this assessment. The EDD and ELD are 
considered  instruments  with  complementary,  but  distinct  objectives.  They  were  both  adopted 
within the framework and in response to the 2007 EU commitment to become a highly energy-
efficient, low  carbon  economy through the  establishment of the so-called “20-20-20” targets. 
The 2010 impact assessment of the ELD review considered but rejected the option of integrating 
the ELD and the EDD due to the different nature of the legal instruments: the Ecodesign Directive 
bans the less performing products  regarding their global environmental performance  focusing 
on  all  environmental  aspects  throughout  the  lifecycle  of  the  product.368  The  ELD  provides  an 
energy label showing to consumers the energy efficiency performance of the product during the 
use phase (and relevant use of other resources (like water) where relevant).369 Manufacturers 
respond  to  the  energy  label  by  developing  and  placing  on  the  market  ever  more  efficient 
products, and in parallel, by discontinuing the production and withdrawing from the market the 
less efficient products, thanks to the stimulus provided by the relevant ecodesign legislation.370 
Moreover,  the  report  notes  that  the  EDD  and  ELD  are  considered  implemented  in  a  coherent 
way.371  

While the CPR establishes certain basic requirements for construction works, such as in relation 
to  their  reuse  and  recyclability,  or  the  use  of  environmentally  compatible  raw  and  secondary 
materials, or health and environmental impacts of construction works and products, eco-design 
requirements  are  considered  helpful  to  address  minimum  energy  and  environment-related 
requirements.372  These  are  particularly  relevant  for  achieving  the  goals  of  sustainable 
development, as raised as a particular objective of the EDD in its Article 1. 

In spite of this apparent coherence of the objectives of each of the instruments, some concerns 
are  raised.  The  2015  study  of  the  CPR  implementation,  the  evaluation  of  the  EDD  and  the 
interviews held as part of this fitness check showed there are concerns by several stakeholders 
about  the  coherence  of  the  procedures  established  under  the  CPR,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
EDD  and  ELD  on  the  other  hand.373  The  procedural  overlaps  identified  by  stakeholders  are 
covered below under ´substantive requirements´.   

367  Commission Staff  Working Document  Accompanying  document to the Proposal for a Directive of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on the indication by labelling and standard product information of 
the  consumption  of  energy  and  other  resources  by  energy-related  products,  Impact  Assessment, 
COM(2008)778 final. 
368  Commission Staff  Working Document  Accompanying  document to the Proposal for a Directive of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on the indication by labelling and standard product information of 
the  consumption  of  energy  and  other  resources  by  energy-related  products,  Impact  Assessment, 
COM(2008)778 final.  
369 Ibid. 
370 Draft Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting a 
framework  for  energy  efficiency  labelling  and  repealing  Directive  2010/30/EU  (COM(2015)0341  –  C8-
0189/2015 – 2015/0149(COD)) 
371 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting a framework for energy 
efficiency  labelling  and  repealing  Directive  2010/30/EU,  COM(2015)  341  final  and  Commission  Staff 
Working  Document,  Evaluation  of  the  Energy  Labelling  and  Ecodesign  Directives  accompanying  the 
document  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  review  of 
Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication of 
labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-
related products, COM(2015) 143 final 
372 Ecodesign Directive evaluation, p. 167 
373 Analysis of the implementation of the Construction Products Regulation, RPA Ltd, for DG GROW, 2015, 
p. 178;  EDD evaluation, p. 25 and following.  

155 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

During the analysis of the implementation of the CPR, stakeholders were asked whether they 
considered the CPR to be consistent with the objectives of other EU policies and strategies in the 
area of competitiveness, innovation and sustainability. It is remarkable that, while more than 
half of public authorities and organisations involved in conformity assessment indicated that the 
CPR is indeed consistent in these policy areas, a significantly smaller proportion of companies 
(28%) thought this to be the case, with the majority of company respondents (54%) unsure. 374 
In particular in relation to sustainability, a majority of stakeholders were of the view that the 
CPR has not yet translated into a concrete framework in terms of sustainability issues. Although 
the CPR mentions sustainability and puts in place a framework for future action in this area in 
its Annex 1, it does not, for the time being, put in place specific requirements on sustainability. 
Moreover,  in  this  context,  there  is  no  reference  to  energy  efficiency  of  construction  products 
specifically.  

In conclusion, the objectives of the CPR, ELD and EDD are clearly distinct and they are mostly 
considered complementary and coherent. However, particular concerns about overlaps between 
the  procedures  that  have  been  established  under  the  several  legal  instruments  are  raised  in 
several  evaluation  exercises  of  the  individual  instruments.  These  will  be  presented,  where 
relevant, below. Moreover, in particular in relation to sustainability, a majority of stakeholders 
are  of  the  view  that  the  CPR  has  not  yet  translated  to  an  actual  improvement  in  terms  of 
sustainability.  

The  evaluation  of  the  EDD  notes  that  coherence  should  always  be  promoted  in  the  interface 
between the EDD and other policy tools, such as WEEE, RoHS and CPR. The evaluation study of 
the  EDD  recommends  that  practical  guidance  be  developed  to  clarify  such  interface  and,  in 
particular, set out in clear terms which policy tools have priority in addressing which aspects.  

The proposal for a new Energy Labelling Regulation aims to address some of the concerns raised 
above, in particular in relation to the EDD. The Commission proposal establishes more  explicit 
links and cross-references to the EDD, for instance, by requiring that the ELD label should clearly 
mention the situations where, because of eco-design measures under the EDD, products can no 
longer fall into one of the lower classes. It also foresees in the potential combination of the new 
Consultation Forum under the ELD with the Consultation Forum referred to in Article 18 of the 
EDD.375  

2.2 Scope and definitions in the Construction Product Regulation, Ecodesign Directive, 
and Energy Labelling Directive 

The CPR specifically applies to the placing or making available on the EU market of construction 
products. In contrast, the EDD establishes requirements for energy-related products. The ELD 
establishes requirements for energy-related products as well. The products covered by each of 
the legal instruments are defined as follows:  

374 Analysis of the implementation of the Construction Products Regulation, RPA Ltd, for DG GROW, 2015, 
124. 
375 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting a framework for energy 
efficiency labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU, 15 July 2015, COM(2015)341 final. 

156 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 2.1   Definitions of products covered by the CPR, EDD and ELD  

CPR 

EDD 

ELD 

Art. 2(1) - ‘construction 
product’ means any product 
or kit which is produced and 
placed on the market for 
incorporation in a 
permanent manner in 
construction works or parts 
thereof and the 
performance of which has 
an effect on the 
performance of the 
construction works with 
respect to the basic 
requirements for 
construction works; 

Art. 2(1) - ‘Energy-related 
product’, (a ‘product’), 
means any good that has an 
impact on energy 
consumption during use 
which is placed on the 
market and/or put into 
service, and includes parts 
intended to be incorporated 
into energy-related products 
covered by this Directive 
which are placed on the 
market and/or put into 
service as individual parts for 
end-users and of which the 
environmental performance 
can be assessed 
independently; 

Art. 2(a) -‘energy-related 
product’ or ‘product’ means 
any good having an impact 
on energy consumption 
during use, which is placed 
on the market and/or put 
into service in the Union, 
including parts intended to 
be incorporated into energy-
related products covered by 
this Directive which are 
placed on the market and/or 
put into service as individual 
parts for end-users and of 
which the environmental 
performance can be assessed 
independently; 

The  CPR  applies  to  all  types  of  construction  products  as  defined  above.  Several  construction 
elements  and  materials  can  be  classified  as  energy-using  or  energy-related  products  and 
therefore  the  EDD  and  ELD  may  potentially  affect  a  number  of  construction  materials 
manufacturers. The EDD is often described as a framework Directive. Article 15 EDD notes that, 
where  a  product  category  meets  the  volume  and  potential  environmental  improvement 
requirements set out in the article, it shall be covered by an implementing measures or a self-
regulation  measure.  The  implementing  measures  are  established  by  means  of  Commission 
Regulations,  following  an  impact  assessment.  The  Commission  adopted  a  2012  Eco-design 
Working Plan for the period 2012-2014, setting out an indicative list of energy-related products 
which would be considered in priority for the adoption of implementing measures. The working 
plan  included  several  construction  products,  such  as  windows  and  thermal  insulation  for 
buildings.  The  European  Commission  has  published  lists  of  Eco-design  and  Energy-Labelling 
products for which implementing and delegated acts have been adopted. The only construction 
products currently included on this list are solid fuel boilers, (solid fuel) local space heaters and 
space/water heaters.376 On the other hand, the preparatory study for an implementing measure 
on  windows,  for  example,  concluded  it  was  not  recommended  to  established  eco-design 
requirements for windows. 377  

Existing overlaps between the EDD and CPR for specific product categories thus currently relate 
to  five  product  categories,  namely  solid  fuel  boilers,  (solid  fuel)  local  space  heaters  and 
space/water  heaters,  as  regulated  by  recently  adopted  Commission  Regulations  (EU) 
2015/1185, (EU) 2015/1188, (EU) 2015/1189, (EU) No 813/2013 and (EU) No 814/2013.  

The  impact  assessment  accompanying  Regulations  (EU)  2015/1189,  813/2013  and  814/2013 
does not refer to the CPR. The impact assessment (IA) carried out in preparation of EU Regulation 
(EU) 2015/1188 on local space heaters, on the other hand, does explicitly consider the coverage 
of  local  space  heaters  by  the  CPR.  The  IA  concludes  that  the  CPR  covers  local  space  heaters 
insofar these are considered part of the building installations (portable types are excluded), but 

376  List  of  eco-design  legislation,  as  published  on  the  European  Commission  website,  2.9.212015, 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/list_of_ecodesign_measures.pdf  
List of eco-design legislation, as published on the European Commission website, 15.3.2016, 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/list_of_enegy_labelling_measures.pdf  
377  Final  Report,  LOT  32  /  Ecodesign  of  Window  Products,  June  2015,  http://www.ecodesign-
windows.eu/downloads/TASK7_Lot32_WINDOWS_CONSOLIDATED.pdf 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

that  no  minimum  requirements  or  mandatory  information  requirements  regarding  energy 
efficiency or emissions have thus far been issued. The IA considers that this product category 
may be considered both a construction product and an energy-related product when the local 
space heater is used as part of building installations.  

The  IA  notes  that  a  certain  “minimum  level”  of  improvements  for  local  space  heaters  is  not 
guaranteed  by  the  existing  regulations  at  EU  level.  For  this  reason,  several  Member  States 
started  introducing  maximum  levels  of  certain  pollutant  emissions  and  minimum  energy 
efficiency requirements for these products. However, these are regulated by Member States in 
different ways. Ultimately, this lack of harmonised specific regulation in Europe was considered 
to induce a risk that individual energy  efficiency and  requirements and emission limits set by 
Member States could hamper the functioning of the EU internal market. The objectives of the 
implementing  regulation  were  thus  considered  complementary  with  other  existing  regulation, 
including the CPR, and necessary to achieve the specific objectives of the EDD.  

Also  Regulation  (EU)  2015/1185  explicitly  refers  to  the  CPR,  in  its  recital  18.  The  CPR  is  not 
explicitly referred to in the impact assessment. Recital 18 of this Regulation notes that solid fuel 
local space heaters are covered by harmonised standards to be used pursuant Article 7 of the 
CPR. The recital continues that: “for the sake of legal certainty and simplification, it is appropriate 
for  the  corresponding  harmonised  standards  to  be  revised  in  order  to  reflect  the  ecodesign 
requirements established by this Regulation.” 

The economic operators subject to the requirements of the CPR, ELD and EDD 
The CPR, EDD and ELD, as instruments establishing product or labelling requirements for specific 
categories  of  products,  impose  obligations  on  the  operators  who  place  the  products  or  make 
them  available  on  the  EU  internal  market.  The  CPR  defines  as  ‘economic  operator’  the 
manufacturer,  importer,  distributor  or  authorised  representative.  As  a  consequence,  different 
obligations are imposed on the manufacturer, his authorised representative, or the importer of 
the product in the EU. The CPR moreover establishes legal obligations for the distributors of such 
products in the EU. These economic operators are required to follow the procedures established 
by these legal instruments, such as the preparation of the necessary documentation and affixing 
of CE markings or labels, prior to the introduction of the product on the EU market.  

The three instruments define the economic operators to this end as follows. 

158 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 2.2   Definitions of operators subject to regulation under the CPR, ELD and EDD 

CPR 

EDD 

Art 2(19) - ‘manufacturer’ means any 
natural or legal person who 
manufactures a construction product or 
who has such a product designed or 
manufactured, and markets that product 
under his name or trademark; 

Art 2(22) - ‘authorised representative’ 
means any natural or legal person 
established within the Union who has 
received a written mandate from a 
manufacturer to act on his behalf in 
relation to specified tasks; 

Art 2(6) - ‘Manufacturer’ means the natural or 
legal person who manufactures products 
covered by this Directive and is responsible for 
their conformity with this Directive in view of 
their being placed on the market and/or put 
into service under the manufacturer’s own 
name or trademark or for the manufacturer’s 
own use. In the absence of a manufacturer as 
defined in the first sentence of this point or of 
an importer as defined in point 8, any natural or 
legal person who places on the market and/or 
puts into service products covered by this 
Directive shall be considered a manufacturer; 
Art 2(7) - ‘Authorised representative’ means 
any natural or legal person established in the 
Community who has received a written 
mandate from the manufacturer to perform on 
his behalf all or part of the obligations and 
formalities connected with this Directive; 

Art 2(21) - ‘importer’ means any natural 
or legal person established within the 
Union, who places a construction product 
from a third country on the Union 
market; 

Art 2(8) - ‘Importer’ means any natural or legal 
person established in the Community who 
places a product from a third country on the 
Community market in the course of his 
business; 

Art 2(20) - ‘distributor’ means any 
natural or legal person in the supply 
chain, other than the manufacturer or 
the importer, who makes a construction 
product available on the market; 

/ 

ELD 
Art 2(h) - ‘supplier’ means the manufacturer or 
its authorised representative in the Union or 
the importer who places or puts into service the 
product on the Union market. In their absence, 
any natural or legal person who places on the 
market or puts into service products covered by 
this Directive shall be considered a supplier; 

Art 2(h) - ‘supplier’ means the manufacturer or 
its authorised representative in the Union or 
the importer who places or puts into service the 
product on the Union market. In their absence, 
any natural or legal person who places on the 
market or puts into service products covered by 
this Directive shall be considered a supplier; 
Art 2(h) - ‘supplier’ means the manufacturer or 
its authorised representative in the Union or 
the importer who places or puts into service the 
product on the Union market. In their absence, 
any natural or legal person who places on the 
market or puts into service products covered by 
this Directive shall be considered a supplier; 
/ 

159 

 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

It is remarkable to note that the different legal instruments do not use identical definitions of 
the  economic  operators  covered  by  the  obligations,  in  particular  given  the  fact  that  the 
obligations established by each of the instruments might apply to the same operators, as is the 
case in the new implementing regulation on solid fuel local space heaters. While the definitions 
in this case do not directly lead to substantial differences and inconsistencies, it is recommended 
in view of legal clarity to aim at using same definitions where possible, especially in the situation 
in  which  the  requirements  under  the  different  instruments  will  apply  to  a  same  operator  for 
making one same product available on the market.  

Specific consideration of SMEs 
Following the requirement in the Terms of Reference for this study to pay particular attention to 
“the SME related aspects and to the impacts of this legislation on them”, this section assesses 
whether SMEs are effectively taken up in the scope of application of the CPR, EED and ELD.  

Up  to  95%  of  construction,  architecture,  and  civil  engineering  firms  are  micro-enterprises 
or small and medium-sized enterprise (SME).378 As a consequence, the specific consideration of 
SMEs in relation to the legislation that applies to this sector is particularly important. The CPR, 
as  an  instrument  specifically  developed  for  the  sector,  refers  to  the  particular  importance  of 
SMEs. In its recital 27, the legislator notes that it is necessary to provide for simplified procedures 
for the drawing up of declarations of performance in order to alleviate the financial burden of 
enterprises,  in  particular  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs).  Chapter  VI  of  the  CPR 
establishes such simplified procedures particularly aimed at reducing the administrative burden 
for SMEs. Stakeholders confirm in interviews that the CPR has been instrumental for SMEs as it 
creates a more level playing field across Member States and ensures access to the markets of 
the Member States in a harmonised manner. Also the EDD makes specific reference to SMEs and 
contains  a  safeguard  in  its  Article  15  aimed  at  ensuring  that  the  implementing  measures  will 
take specific account of the competitiveness of SMEs. A similar provision is contained in the ELD 
in relation to energy labelling requirements. In addition, Article 13 of the EDD contains specific 
provisions on SMEs, requiring the EC to consider SMEs in the context of programmes from which 
they can benefit or through guidelines covering specificities of SMEs active in the product sector. 
Finally,  the  ELD  requires  Member  States  when  implementing  the  provisions  of  the  ELD,  to 
endeavour to refrain from adopting measures that could impose unnecessarily bureaucratic and 
unwieldy obligations on the market participants concerned, in particular small and medium-sized 
enterprises. 

Overall, it can be concluded that the three instruments take particular account of the specific 
situation  of  SMEs  in  the  construction  sector.  Stakeholders  do  not  raise  any  imbalance  or 
incoherence in the approach taken towards SMEs under the specific instruments.   

Definitions of placing or making available on the market 
The  requirements  under  the  EDD,  ELD  and  CPR  are  applicable  to  products  entering  the  EU 
market. Remarkably, while the CPR covers the ´placing and making available on the market´, 
the  EDD  and  ELD  apply  to  the  situations  under  which  products  are  placed  on  the  market´  or 
´put into service´. The definitions of ´placing on the market´ used in the CPR does not include 
the  specification  that  this  shall  be  ´with  a  view  to  distribution  or  use  within  the  Community, 
whether for reward or free of charge and irrespective of the selling technique´, as mentioned 
under the  EDD and ELD. This is, in the CPR, included in a separate definition under the term 
´making available on the market´.  

378 http://ec.europa.eu//growth/sectors/construction/  

160 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 2.3   Making available on the market in the CPR, EDD and ELD 

CPR 

EDD 

ELD 

Art.2(17) - ‘placing on the 
market’ means the first 
making available of a 
construction product on the 
Union market; 

Art 2(17)  - ‘making 
available on the market’ 
means any supply of a 
construction product for 
distribution or use on the 
Union market in the course 
of a commercial activity, 
whether in return for 
payment or free of charge; 
/ 

Art 2(4) - ‘Placing on the 
market’ means making a 
product available for the 
first time on the 
Community market with a 
view to its distribution or 
use within the Community, 
whether for reward or free 
of charge and irrespective of 
the selling technique; 
/ 

Art 2(i) - ‘placing on the 
market’ means making a 
product available for the 
first time on the Union 
market with a view to its 
distribution or use within 
the Union, whether for 
reward or free of charge and 
irrespective of the selling 
technique; 
/ 

Art 2(5) -  ‘Putting into 
service’ means the first use 
of a product for its intended 
purpose by an end-user in 
the Community; 

Art 2(j) - ‘putting into 
service’ means the first use 
of a product for its intended 
purpose in the Union; 

While the need to differentiate the types of obligations incumbent upon economic operators may 
justify the use of different terms and definitions, the inconsistent use of terms to same operators 
for making one same product available on the EU market does not contribute to legal clarity and 
may lead to confusion on the part of the operators. It should be noted though that no specific 
concerns were raised by stakeholders, in the context of this fitness check, about this difference 
in definitions. The adverse impact of the inconsistency or any confusion on the part of operators 
has not been raised as a problem in practice.    

2.3  Substantive  requirements  established  by  the  Construction  Product  Regulation, 
Ecodesign Directive, and Energy Labelling Directive 

Under  the  CPR,  manufacturers  are  obliged  to  draw  up  a  declaration  of  performance  for 
construction  products  that  are  either  covered  by  harmonised  standards  or  that  conform  to  a 
European  Technical  Assessment  (ETA),  when  the  product  is  placed  on  the  market.379  The 
essential characteristics of a  construction product are laid down in such harmonised technical 
specifications  in  relation  to  the  basic  requirements  for  construction  works.  These  basic 
requirements are set out in Annex I to the CPR. Manufacturers are moreover obliged to affix the 
CE  marking  on  the  product.  Under  the  CPR,  importers  are  obliged  to  make  sure  that  the 
manufacturer  has  fulfilled  such  obligations  before  bringing  construction  products  into  the  EU 
market.380 The EDD is a framework directive and equally an internal market instrument. Similarly 
to  the  CPR,  the  manufacturer  is  responsible  under  the  EDD  for  ensuring  compliance  of  the 
energy-related products with the EDD requirements and for issuing a declaration of conformity. 
The EDD establishes generic or specific eco-design requirements for products through specific 
implementing  regulations  or  self-regulation  for  a  product  category.  These  can,  for  example, 
consist of limit values for energy consumption or for recyclability or generic requirements. The 
EDD also requires the affixing of a CE marking on the product.  

379 Articles 4 and 6 CPR 
380 Article 13 CPR 

161 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

EDD requirements only apply for a specific product category when eco-design requirements have 
been  established  for  this  product  category  either  through  a  Commission  Regulation  or  self-
regulation by the sector. As mentioned above, eco-design requirements have been established 
for a range of product categories, some of which are also construction products, depending on 
whether these are used in a construction.381 The EDD ensures that, if a voluntary agreement by 
industry  fulfils  certain  conditions,  it  is  considered  as  a  priority  alternative  to  mandatory 
requirements.382  The  voluntary  agreement  must  achieve  the  same  objectives  as  binding 
legislation in a more rapid and cost-effective manner.383 Specific conditions are established in 
Annex VIII of the EDD. Finally, the ELD establishes obligations for suppliers of products covered 
by a delegated act to supply a label and a fiche in accordance with the ELD and the delegated 
act.384  Moreover,  the  supplier  is  obliged  to  produce  technical  documentation  which  shall  be 
sufficient to enable the accuracy of the information contained in the label, following the detailed 
instructions of the ELD.385 This information shall be made available to the national authorities 
and the  EC.  The ELD also  establishes obligations for product dealers in relation to the proper 
display of the labels. Similarly to the CPR and the EDD, the ELD is also a free movement directive, 
ensuring that products that meet the requirements of the Directive shall move freely within the 
EU market.  

Declarations  of  performance  and  conformity  of  products  and  the  affixing  of  a  CE 
marking under the CPR and EDD 

The  CPR  requires  manufacturers  to  draw  up  a  declaration  of  performance  for  a  construction 
product covered by a harmonised standard or conform to an ETA, when the product is placed on 
the  market.  By  drawing  up  the  declaration  of  performance,  the  manufacturer  assumes 
responsibility for the conformity of the construction product with the declared performance. For 
the  construction  products  for  which  a  manufacturer  has  drawn  up  such  a  declaration  of 
performance, Article 8 of the CPR requires them to affix a CE marking to the product. The affixing 
of the CE marking indicates that the manufacturer is taking the responsibility for the conformity 
of the product with the declared performance and with the CPR requirements.  

Also the EDD requires a declaration, called declaration of conformity, to be issued whereby the 
manufacturer ensures and declares that the product complies with the relevant provisions of the 
applicable implementing measure, before a product is placed on the EU market and/or put into 
service.386  The conformity assessment procedure to be followed is specified in the implementing 
measure  for  the  product.387  As  mentioned  above,  the  terminology  used  for  both  procedures 
slightly  differs.  The  EDD  refers  to  a  ´declaration  of  conformity´,  similar  to  the  former 
Construction  Products  Directive.  This  term  has  been  modified  in  the  CPR  to  ´declaration  of 
performance´.  Moreover,  the  EDD  also  covers  a  CE  marking  obligation  for  energy-related 
products covered by any implementing measures adopted under the EDD. Thus, before a product 
covered by an EDD implementing measure is placed on the market, a CE marking shall be affixed 
to the product, together with the issuance of an EC declaration of conformity. 

Finally, the ELD requires a supplier of a product covered by the  Directive to produce technical 
documentation to demonstrate the accuracy of the information contained in the energy label and 
provide it to the competent authorities. While there is a labelling requirement, indicating specific 
information on energy efficiency for consumers under the ELD, there is no obligation under the 
ELD to affix a CE mark as the Directive does not regulate the product requirements for entering 

381 In 2013 and 2015, the European Commission adopted EC Regulations under the EDD for energy-related 
products which can, depending on their use, at the same time be a construction product.  
382  Article  17  and  Annex  VIII  EDD,  Ecodesign  brochure,  European  Commission  website, 
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/sustainability/ecodesign/index_en.htm 
383 Ibid. 
384 Article 5 ELD 
385 Article 5 ELD 
386 Article 5 EDD 
387 Article 8 EDD 

162 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

the EU internal market per se, but a labelling requirement for specific categories of products.  

Article  5  CPR  establishes  derogations  from  the  obligation  to  draw  up  a  declaration  of 
performance,  namely  for  products  that  are  individually  manufactured  or  custom-made  and 
installed in a single identified construction work under specific circumstances, where the product 
is  manufactured  on  the  construction  site  and  incorporated  in  the  works  or  where  it  is 
manufactured  in  a  traditional  manner,  appropriate  for  heritage  conservation  or  in  a  non-
industrial  process  for  protected  construction  works.  Similar  exclusions  do  not  exist  for  the 
energy-related  products  under  the  EDD  and  ELD.  However,  the  adoption  of  implementing 
measures for a product type under the EDD does rely on a set of minimum criteria, including 
trade  volumes,  the  environmental impact  of  the  product  and  its  potential  for  improvement  in 
terms of energy efficiency. Product types not meeting these minimum thresholds will therefore 
not be subject to eco-design requirements under the EDD and hence effectively covered by a 
derogation from the Directive´s obligations.  

In relation to the CE marking, Article 8 CPR specifies that the rules for affixing the CE marking 
provided  for  in  other  applicable  legislation  shall  apply  without  prejudice  to  the  CE  marking 
requirements  under  the  CPR.  The  CPR  moreover  clarifies  that  for  any  construction  product 
covered by a harmonised standard or for which an ETA has been issued, the CE marking shall 
be the only marking that attests conformity of the product with the declared performance. There 
are thus two individual obligations to affix a CE marking, one on construction products and one 
on energy-related products, with each CE marking attesting the conformity of the product with 
the requirements under the respective legislation. Article 8(2) of the CPR notes that the affixing 
of  a  CE  marking  on  a  product  ensures  that  the  manufacturer  takes  responsibility  for  the 
conformity  of  the  construction  product,  not  only  with  the  declared  performance  and  the 
requirements  of  the  CPR,  but  also  with  applicable  requirements  in  other  relevant  Union 
harmonisation legislation providing for its affixing. The article notes that the rules for affixing 
the CE marking under such legislation shall apply without prejudice to the requirements set out 
in the CPR. This ensures that the requirements for CE marking under the CPR and EDD apply in 
parallel to those construction products that are at the same time considered as energy-related 
product under the EDD.  

The CPR explicitly states that MS may not introduce any references to national measures. Once 
the CE marking is affixed to a product, all MS shall allow the product to access its market. The 
EDD  contains  a  similar  obligation  for  energy-related  products  covered  by  any  implementing 
measures adopted under the EDD.  

While  potential  overlaps  thus  clearly  exist  between  the  several  instruments,  these  might  not 
necessarily  create  a  problem  of  legal  coherence  in  the  overall  regulatory  framework.  The 
European Parliament (EP) Draft Report on the proposal for a new energy labelling Regulation, 
which  intends  to  repeal  Directive  2010/30/EU,  confirms  that  “the  ELD  has  developed  its 
operational life within a system of interrelated directives and regulations. Its closest relationship 
is with the EDD, both of them addressing issues at on opposite ends of the market for energy-
related products, in a coordinated, complementary way.”388  

In relation to the declarations of conformity under the EDD and technical documentation under 
the  ELD,  the  opinion  of  the  EP  is  in  line  with  most  sources  of  information  considered  in  this 
analysis, such as the preparatory and evaluation studies for reviewing the respective pieces of 
legislation and stakeholder views collected through interviews and a survey with manufacturers. 
The declaration of conformity under the EDD  and the technical documentation under the ELD 
are considered coherent instruments, each serving specific and complementary objectives.  

Different views, however, exist in relation to these procedures under the CPR and EDD. The Draft 
Report of the European Parliament, for example, notes that the EDD also maintains significant 

388 European Parliament, Draft Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of 
the  Council  setting  a  framework  for  energy  efficiency  labelling  and  repealing  Directive  2010/30/EU 
(COM(2015)0341 – C8-0189/2015 – 2015/0149(COD)) 

163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

conceptual and operational interaction with other regulations which should be clarified and that 
consideration should be given to the interaction of the EDD with the multi-act system governing 
conformity assessment and CE marking.389  

Several  stakeholders  note  that  the  EC  is  developing  different  initiatives  that  have  common 
objectives and making use  of different tools with methodologies  of  which the scopes  overlap. 
The stakeholders refer in this context explicitly to the CPR and EDD and raise the problem of 
establishing two parallel paths to CE marking. On the other hand, Article 8(2) of the CPR explicitly 
ensures  that  one  CE  marking  can  be  used  for  expressing  the  performance  of  a  construction 
product under the CPR as well as conformity with other requirements under EU law, such as the 
EDD.   

The stakeholders interviewed for this study state that the CPR covers environmental information 
and data related to construction products, similarly to the information covered by the EDD. As 
one stakeholder mentions, there might in some cases be a harmonised standard under the CPR 
as well as an implementing regulation under the EDD covering the same product. At the moment 
of the preparation of this study, implementing regulations under the EDD have been adopted for 
five product types which could at the same time be considered construction products if they are 
incorporated  in  construction  works.  Three  of  these  implementing  regulations  do  not  explicitly 
consider  a  potential  overlap  between  the  implementing  regulations  under  the  EDD  and  the 
regulation under the CPR. 

The  IA  for  the  implementing  regulation  for  local  space  heaters,  Commission  Regulation  (EU) 
2015/1188 considers a potential overlap with the CPR. The IA however notes that no minimum 
requirements or mandatory information requirements regarding energy efficiency or emissions 
have  thus  far  been  issued  under  the  CPR.  The  IA  positively  assesses  the  need  for  such 
requirements on the basis of the  EDD.  It is worth noting that such requirements could in the 
future be adopted under the CPR, on the basis of basic requirements 3, 6 and 7 as set out in 
Annex to the CPR.   

Also  Regulation  (EU)  2015/1185  explicitly  refers  to  the  CPR,  in  its  recital  18.  The  CPR  is  not 
explicitly referred to in the impact assessment. Recital 18 of this Regulation notes that solid fuel 
local space heaters are covered by harmonised standards to be used pursuant Article 7 of the 
CPR. The recital continues that: “for the sake of legal certainty and simplification, it is appropriate 
for  the  corresponding  harmonised  standards  to  be  revised  in  order  to  reflect  the  ecodesign 
requirements established by this Regulation.”  

In the case of solid fuel local space heaters there is thus a clear simultaneous application of the 
requirements under the CPR and the EDD. However, as discussed previously, it is important to 
analyse whether such overlaps result in a lack of coherence between both instruments.  

First, it is important to note in this context that both the CPR and EDD apply to a wide range of 
products. Five categories of products have thus far been considered both construction products 
and  energy-related  products.  As  mentioned  above,  the  objectives  of  both  instruments  are 
moreover considered distinct but complementary.  Still, some practical issues have been raised 
at several instances by stakeholders. 

Stakeholders note, for example, that the implementing regulation under the EDD might go into 
much more detail about the characteristics of the product or while the standard under the CPR 
foresees  one  test  for  each  essential  requirement,  the  EDD  may  provide  for  more.  Another 
stakeholder  refers  in  this  context  specifically  to  the  fact  that  the  Declaration  of  conformity  is 
usually quite different from the declaration of performance and concludes this creates confusion 
among producers, in particular among SMEs. Only one product category is currently subject to 
a harmonised standard under the CPR and an implementing regulation under the EDD, namely 

389 European Parliament, Draft Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of 
the  Council  setting  a  framework  for  energy  efficiency  labelling  and  repealing  Directive  2010/30/EU 
(COM(2015)0341 – C8-0189/2015 – 2015/0149(COD)) 

164 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

solid  fuel  local  space  heaters.  Nevertheless,  the  adoption  of  new  harmonised  standards  or 
implementing regulations for additional product categories could expand the practical scope of 
this issue.   

Some stakeholders note that there are currently two avenues for CE marking for those products 
which are at the same  time a construction product and an energy-related product. Moreover, 
one same CE marking applicable to a product type might have a different meaning, depending 
on its use.390  

The 2015 evaluation study of the ELD and EDD did not identify specific overlaps between these 
instruments and the CPR. The study refers to overlaps between product requirements in other 
pieces of legislation, but these do not refer to the CPR.391 The 2015 study on the analysis of the 
implementation  of  the  CPR,  however,  noted  similar  issues  as  those  raised  by  stakeholders 
above.392  The  report  notes  that:  “several  stakeholders  participating  in  the  consultation  noted 
that there is potentially an overlap between the CPR and the EDD and that such an overlap may 
be  unnecessary,  create  a  cumulative  burden  and  contravene  the  principle  of  ´better 
regulation´.”393 One public authority quoted in the study noted that it should be the case that 
when  you  comply  with  requirements  of  legislation,  you  do  not  need  to  repeat  tests  under 
different  legislation.  Stakeholders  also  noted  that  there  should  be  no  doubling  of  procedures, 
requirements, standards and obligations for economic operators in horizontal legislation, like the 
EDD.  Stakeholders  also  note  that  there  should  be  explicit  links  between  the  CPR,  on  the  one 
hand, and the EDD and ELD, on the other hand.  

In this context, it is important to note that the affixing of a CE marking on a product type subject 
to the CPR and other legislation ensures, on the basis of Article 8(2) CPR, compliance with the 
requirements  of  the  CPR  as  well  as  with  the  requirements  of  any  such  other  sectoral 
harmonisation legislation. As such, while there might not be one integrated procedure for the 
affixing  of  the  CE  marking,  the  manufacturer,  when  affixing  the  CE  marking,  assumes 
responsibility for all applicable requirements to the product category, both under the CPR and 
other EU legislation, such as the EDD.  

Secondly,  the  integration  of  eco-design  requirements  established  under  the  EDD  into  a 
simultaneously  applicable  harmonised  standard  under  the  CPR,  as  suggested  in  Recital  18  of 
Regulation  (EU)  2015/1185,  aims  at  reducing  the  administrative  burden  for  operators  and 
enhancing coherence between the procedures under both legal instruments, while ensuring that 
compliance can be guaranteed with the requirements under and specific objectives of each of 
the  separate  legal  instruments.  This  integration  process  would  aim  to  meet  the  concerns  of 
manufacturers related to similar parallel requirements under a harmonised standard and eco-
design requirements.  

The adoption or modification of harmonised standards is however a lengthy process and is not 
a sole competence  of the European Commission. Close collaboration will be required between 
the European Commission and the European Standardisation Organisations. Finally, eco-design 
requirements will have to be integrated with an applicable standard, when adopted, for every 
product category.  

390 For example, the CE marking for local space heaters may involve responsibility for compliance with the 
CPR, though only when the product is incorporated in construction works. This would most likely not be the 
case for portable local space heaters, which would however be subject to the requirements of the EDD.  
391  Commission Staff  Working Document  Accompanying  document to the Proposal for a Directive of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on the indication by labelling and standard product information of 
the  consumption  of  energy  and  other  resources  by  energy-related  products,  Impact  Assessment, 
COM(2008)778 final. 
392 Analysis of the implementation of the Construction Products Regulation, RPA Ltd, for DG GROW, 2015, 
p. 178. 
393 Analysis of the implementation of the Construction Products Regulation, RPA Ltd, for DG GROW, 2015, 
p. 178. 

165 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Finally, stakeholders point to the lack of explicit cross-references to the energy-related product 
legislation in the CPR. Similar concerns were previously expressed about the EDD and ELD. These 
were addressed in the proposal for a new Energy Labelling Regulation, which has been identified 
as an important improvement by the EP. A similar introduction of explicit cross-references to the 
EDD  and  ELD  in  the  CPR  for  construction  products  may  prove  necessary  to  enhance  the 
understanding of obligations applicable to economic operators in the construction sector. 

Overall, it can be concluded that several types of stakeholders under previous studies and the 
current fitness check point to a potential overlap between the procedures established under the 
CPR and EDD for construction products and possibly parallel routes for CE marking. Stakeholders 
point in particular to the possibility to adopt energy efficiency requirements and sustainability 
requirements more generally on the basis of basic requirements 3 and 7 set out in Annex to the 
CPR.  They  request  that,  when  such  requirements  are  adopted,  priority  for  the  regulation  of 
construction products be given to the CPR route. The construction sector stakeholders add that, 
in  the  situation  where  the  EDD  route  is  required  to  improve  the  sustainability  of  the  built 
environment, legislative processes must be consistent and coordinated.  

Currently  only  one  implementing  measure  under  the  EDD  specifically  refers  to    the  parallel 
application of the CPR for the same product category. With a view to enhance the integration 
the  procedures  under  the  CPR  and  EDD,      Recital  18  of  this  Regulation  refers  to  the  possible 
integration of eco-design requirements in the harmonised standard applicable to this product. 
The  integration  of  such  requirements  is  currently  under  discussion  with  the  European 
Standardisation  Organisations.  It  is  worth  noting  that  Article  8(2)  of  the  CPR  requires  the 
manufacturer of a product, when affixing a CE marking, to assume responsibility for compliance 
with  the  requirements  under  the  CPR  and  under  any  other  applicable  sector-specific  EU 
legislation. As such, while procedures may not be fully integrated at this point in time, the CE 
marking stands for compliance with all applicable CE marking requirements under EU legislation.     

Framework  for  establishing  product  requirements:  European  harmonised  standards, 
implementing and delegating measures  

The  CPR  lays  down  conditions  for  the  placing  or  making  available  on  the  EU  market  of 
construction products by establishing harmonised rules on how to express the performance of 
such products. To this end, the CPR relies on harmonised technical specifications, which can take 
the form of existing harmonised standards or a new ETA which sets out the test methods to be 
used  for  the  products  covered  by  them.  The  scheme  aims  to  ensure  that  products  tested  as 
established in the technical specifications can enter the EU market without additional national 
obstacles. European harmonised standards are prepared jointly by the competent authorities of 
the  Member  States  and  provide  for  methods  and  criteria  for  assessing  the  performance  of 
construction products, provide for less onerous testing methods and establish control mechanism 
for verifying constancy of performance.394 There are currently over 400 hENs covering a broad 
range  of  construction  products.395  Where  no  European  standard  exists  or  can  be  used  for  a 
construction  product,  a  manufacturer  may  request  an  ETA,  based  on  a  European  Assessment 
Document to be adopted for the product by a technical assessment body. The procedure for the 
adoption of a European Assessment Document and its content are set out in the CPR. Ecodesign 
requirements under the EDD are established through implementing measures or self-regulation 
measures for a specific product category. The EDD requires such implementing measures or self-
regulation measures to be adopted when a product fulfils the criteria related to volume of trade 
of the product, environmental impact and potential for improving its energy consumption set out 
in the EDD. Since the EDD was adopted in 2009, 24 implementing measures have been adopted 
by means of Commission Regulations for specific product groups.396 Implementing measures are 

394 Article 17 CPR.  
395 Analysis of the implementation of the Construction Products Regulation, RPA Ltd, for DG GROW, 2015.  
396 Evaluation of the Energy Labelling and Ecodesign Directives accompanying the document Report from 
the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the review of Directive 2010/30/EU of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication of labelling and standard product 

166 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

adopted following an impact assessment and detailed study, including sector consultations. They 
shall moreover take consideration of EC environmental priorities and existing EC legislation and 
self-regulation  for  the  product.  Voluntary  agreements  or  self-regulation  measures  may  be 
adopted for specific product categories on the condition they meet the requirements set out in 
Annex VIII of the EDD, including, for example, that the measure is sector-wide, adopted in an 
open manner  with the involvement  of  civil society and  cost-effective.  Annex VII  EDD ensures 
that these measures shall refer to existing EU harmonised standards which shall be used for the 
assessments.    Similarly  to  the  EDD,  the  ELD  requires  delegated  acts  to  be  adopted  when  a 
product fulfils a set of criteria which include the energy saving potential of the product, the wide 
disparity  of  performance  levels  of  products  on  the  market  or  the  existence  of  existing  EU 
legislation  and  self-regulation  mechanisms.  The  delegated  acts  set  out  issues  such  as  the 
measurement standards and methods, information to be included in the technical documentation 
or the design and content of the label for the specific product category.  

The  CPR,  EDD  and  ELD  thus  use  different  types  of  instruments  for  establishing  the  technical 
specifications which a product category must meet to enter the EU market. However, as there 
is  a  system  to  ensure  that  the  different  rules  are  taken  into  account,  no  specific  issues  of 
coherence were raised particularly in this respect by stakeholders. It is noted though that the 
timeframes for preparing technical specifications can be lengthy.  

Finally,  the  CPR  clarifies  the  margin  of  discretion  left  to  Member  States  to  establish  national 
requirements on product performance in the construction sector. The European Court of Justice 
clarified,  in  a  recent  judgement  against  Germany  that  MS  have  the  right  to  set  performance 
requirements for construction products, provided that the free movement of products with the 
CE marking is not impeded, which is ensured by hENs.397  

Room for self-regulation (Article 17 EDD) 

Only the EDD contains the explicit possibility for product eco-design requirements to take the 
form of self-regulation. In its Article 17, the EDD allows for voluntary agreements or other self-
regulation measures to be presented as alternatives for implementing measures. Annex VIII to 
the EDD establishes the very specific conditions under which such a self-regulation measure may 
be such an alternative.  

The Commission assesses each self-regulatory initiative on a case by case basis after consulting 
the  members  of  the  Consultation  Forum  and  taking  into  account  the  findings  of  the 
technical/economic  preparatory  study  if  available.  In  July  2015,  two  voluntary  eco-design 
agreements had been accepted by the Commission.398 These do not cover construction products. 
As  stated  in  the  2015  evaluation  of  the  EDD  and  ELD:  “Experience  to  date  with  voluntary 
agreements has shown  that they can work  effectively when "inclusion" of a broad part of the 
market sector is possible, whilst "non-inclusion" of certain industry actors or groups has been 
the  cause  of  opposition  by  stakeholders  because  of  market  distortion,  unfair  competition  or 
missing out on the full savings potential. In addition, openness and transparency is crucial.” The 
Commission is in the process of developing guidelines for voluntary agreements.  

The  EDD  and  ELD  also  note  that  the  existence  of  a  voluntary  agreement  or  a  self-regulation 
measure shall be considered when adopting implementing measures or delegated acts.  

information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products, COM(2015) 143 
final. 
397 Analysis of the implementation of the Construction Products Regulation, RPA Ltd, for DG GROW, 2015, 
p.112 and CJEU, Judgement of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 October 2014, European Commission v 
Federal Republic of Germany Case C-100/13 
398 Evaluation of the Energy Labelling and Ecodesign Directives accompanying the document Report from 
the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the review of Directive 2010/30/EU of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication of labelling and standard product 
information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products, COM(2015) 143 
final. 

167 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

The CPR does not foresee the possibility of self-regulation. In fact, one of the main objectives of 
the CPR was to enhance the free circulation of construction products in the EU internal market 
and to create a level playing field for all manufacturers of construction products. To this end, the 
still voluntary approach used under the CPD for Member States  opting out of the CE marking 
obligation  was  changed  to  a  mandatory  approach  for  all  Member  States  under  the  CPR.  The 
approach followed under the EDD, ELD and CPR is thus apparently contradictory. This is however 
not necessarily considered to raise problems of coherence in itself. The flexibility introduced by 
voluntary agreements tailored to the specific sector and the minimum requirements established 
in  Annex  VIII  EDD  for  such  initiatives  of  self-regulation  are  mostly  considered  a  positive 
aspect.399 

Surveillance of products on the market  

Rigorous enforcement of the product  requirements is essential for ensuring a fair competition 
and  a  level-playing  field  in  the  EU  market.  The  three  instruments  covered  by  this  analysis 
implement compliance mechanisms aimed at monitoring the products that enter the EU market.  

Article  28  CPR  first  implements  a  system  of  assessment  and  verification  of  constancy  of 
performance of construction products. Manufacturers are bound, based on the requirements in 
Annex V to the CPR, for example, to ensure factory production controls and testing. In addition, 
Chapter VIII of the CPR establishes market surveillance and safeguard procedures. Under this 
chapter, the market surveillance authorities of the Member State shall carry out evaluations of 
products they have sufficient reason to believe do not meet the applicable (product-related or 
CPR)  requirements.  They  can  then  require  the  economic  operator  to  take  all  appropriate 
corrective measures to bring the product into compliance or to withdraw the product from the 
market. Similar measures may also be adopted for a product which is in compliance with the 
CPR but which still presents a risk to health and safety. The CPR also foresees the possibility for 
the  Commission  to  take  action  against  national  measures  from  a  Member  State  which  is 
considered to be contrary to the EU legislation. Also the EDD contains similar measures, on the 
basis of which a Member State may oblige a manufacturer to make the product comply with the 
requirements of the implementing measure for the product. Also here, the Member State has 
the authority to prohibit the placing on the market of the product until compliance is established. 
In  addition,  and  in  line  with  the  legal  form  of  the  EDD  as  a  Directive,  Article  20  of  the  EDD 
requires  Member  States  to  lay  down  penalties  in  their  legislation  for  the  infringement  of 
provisions  of  the  EDD.  Similar  requirements  have  been  set  out  in  the  ELD  in  relation  to  the 
provisions on energy labelling.  

Interviews with stakeholders and the literature review have not identified specific problems of 
coherence with the enforcement provisions of the three instruments.  

2.4 Conclusions 

The  objectives  of  the  CPR,  ELD  and  EDD  are  clearly  distinct  and  are  mostly  considered 
complementary and coherent. While, similarly to the CPR aiming to eliminate barriers in the EU 
internal market, the EDD also aims at reducing the overall negative impact of products placed 
on the EU market in the perspective of sustainable development. The ELD complements the EDD 
by  setting  a  framework  for  the  labelling  and  the  provision  of  information  regarding  energy 
consumption.  

There  are  currently  five  product  categories,  for  which  implementing  regulations  have  been 
adopted  under  the  EDD  which  can  be  considered  construction  products  if  incorporated  in 
construction works, namely solid fuel boilers, (solid fuel) local space heaters and space/water 
heaters. . For one of these product categories, local space heaters as regulated in EC Regulation 
2015/1188, the IA specifically refers to the CPR and concludes that no minimum requirements 
in relation to energy efficiency have been adopted for this product category under the CPR.   

399 Ibid. 

168 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Also Regulation (EU) 2015/1185 explicitly refers to the CPR. Recital 18 of this Regulation notes 
that  solid  fuel local  space  heaters  are  covered  by  harmonised  standards  to  be  used  pursuant 
Article 7 of the CPR. As such, this is the only product category currently covered by a harmonised 
standard under the CPR and ecodesign requirements under the EDD.  

The different legal instruments do not use identical definitions of economic operators covered by 
the obligations nor of the term ´placing on the market´. This could be problematic given the 
fact  that  the  obligations  established  by  each  of  the  instruments  might  apply  to  the  same 
operators, as is the case in the new implementing regulation on solid fuel space heaters. While 
the definitions in this case do not directly lead to substantial differences and inconsistencies, it 
is  recommended  in  view  of  legal  clarity  to  aim  at  using  same  definitions  where  possible, 
especially in the situation in which the requirements under the different instruments will apply 
to a same operator for making one same product available on the market. 

The  substantial  requirements  under  the  EDD  and  ELD  are  mostly  considered  coherent  and 
complementary.  Several  stakeholders,  however,  point  to  a  potential  overlap  between  the 
procedures established under the CPR and EDD for construction products. Stakeholders explicitly 
raise the problem of establishing parallel routes for CE marking in this case. Currently only one 
implementing measure under the EDD relates to construction products covered by a harmonised 
standard under the CPR. It should be noted though that this issue could expand to other product 
categories when additional harmonised standards are adopted on the basis of basic requirements 
3, 6 or 7 of the CPR or new implementing regulations are adopted under the EDD. The Regulation 
for solid fuel local space heaters recognises the potential for better integration by noting that, 
“for  the  sake  of  legal  certainty  and  simplification,  it  is  appropriate  for  the  corresponding 
harmonised standards to be revised in order to reflect the ecodesign requirements established 
by this Regulation.” The revision or adoption of harmonised standards is often a lengthy process 
and would have to be tailored to each specific product category subject to parallel requirements. 
At  this  point  in  time,  no  such  integration  of  ecodesign  requirements  in  standards  has  been 
finalised  though  discussions  to  this  end  are  ongoing.  Finally,  it  is  important  to  note  that  the 
parallel  routes  toward  CE  marking  do  not  result  in  several  CE  markings.  The  CE  marking  is 
harmonised  across  the  EU  market  and  Article  8(2)  CPR  ensures  that  the  affixing  of  the  CE 
marking  entails  the  assumption  of  responsibility  by  the  manufacturer  of  compliance  with  CE 
marking requirements under not only the CPR, but also under other EU legislation.  

The three instruments take particular account of the specific situation of SMEs in the construction 
sector. Stakeholders do not raise any imbalance or incoherence in the approach taken towards 
SMEs under the specific instruments.  

The  CPR,  EDD  and  ELD  use  different  types  of  instruments  for  establishing  the  technical 
specifications which a product category must meet to enter the EU market (European harmonised 
standards, ETAs, implementing and delegated acts). However, as there is a system to ensure 
that  the  different  rules  are  taken  into  account,  no  specific  issues  of  coherence  were  raised 
particularly  in  this  respect  by  stakeholders.  Finally,  the  potential  integration  of  eco-design 
requirements  in  such  standards  could  specifically  enhance  coherence  for  those  product 
categories which are at the same time subject to requirements under both instruments. 

Interviews with stakeholders and the literature review have not identified specific problems of 
coherence with the enforcement provisions of the three instruments. 

169 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

3. CONSTRUCTION-RELATED EU LEGAL INSTRUMENTS ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY:  
Energy Efficiency Directive, Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, and Renewable 
Energy Sources Directive 

The list of EU legal instruments identified for the purpose of this fitness check comprehend three 
main pieces of energy efficiency legislation that impact the construction sector, namely Directive 
2012/27/EU (EED), Directive 2010/31/EU (EPBD) and Directive 2009/28/EC (RESD). These three 
instruments,  to  the  extent  to  which  they  relate  to  the  construction  sector,  will  be  analysed 
together for the purpose of this coherence sub-section.  

3.1  Objectives  of  the  Energy  Efficiency  Directive,  Energy  Performance  of  Buildings 
Directive, and Renewable Energy Sources Directive  

In March 2007, the EU leaders committed Europe to become a highly energy-efficient, low carbon 
economy  through  the  establishment  of  the  so-called  “20-20-20”  targets.  These  targets  – 
confirmed in the Europe 2020 Strategy – set three key objectives for 2020: 
  A 20% reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels; 
  Raising the share of EU energy consumption produced from renewable sources to 20%; 
  A 20% improvement in the EU’s energy efficiency. 

The EED, EPBD and RESD were all enacted in this context. The objectives of the three legislative 
acts  are  therefore  closely  aligned  in  order  to  achieve  the  20-20-20  targets.  As  the  greatest 
energy savings potential lies in buildings, according to the Energy Efficiency Plan 2001400, the 
three Directives aim – to a higher or lesser degree – at tapping the considerable potential for 
higher  energy  savings  in  buildings.  Therefore,  the  energy  efficiency  objectives  in  these  three 
Directives are compatible. 

The EED creates “a common framework to promote energy efficiency within the Union and lay[s] 
down  specific  actions  to  […]  achieve  the  significant  unrealised  energy  saving  potentials  it 
identifies.”401  More  particularly,  the  purpose  of  the  EED,  as  provided  in  its  Article  1(1),  is  to 
establish a “common framework of measures for the promotion of energy efficiency within the 
Union in order to ensure the achievement of the Union’s 2020 20 % headline target on energy 
efficiency and to pave the way for further energy efficiency improvements beyond that date”.  

The EPBD provides more concrete actions with a view to “achieving the great unrealised potential 
for  energy  savings  and  reducing  the  large  differences”  between  programmes  in  the  field  of 
energy efficiency in the buildings sector.402 In particular, the 2010 EPBD aims to promote the 
energy  performance  of  buildings  and  building  units,  taking  into  account  outdoor  climatic  and 
local  conditions,  as  well  as  indoor  climate  requirements  and  cost-effectiveness.  Its  provisions 
cover energy needs for the heating of premises, the production of hot water, cooling, ventilation 
and lighting for new and existing buildings, whether they are residential or not. Recitals 3, 5 and 
6 refer to the 20% energy efficiency and renewable sources targets.  

The objective of the RESD, according to its Article 1, is to establish a “common framework for 
the  promotion  of  energy  from  renewable  sources”.  The  RES  Directive  deals  with  renewable 
energy in the sectors of electricity and transport and – for the first time – introduces EU-wide 
legislation dealing with renewable energy in the heating and cooling sector. Recitals 8, 9, 13 and 
17 refer to the 20% renewable sources target. 

400 COM (2011) 109 final – Energy Efficiency Plan 2011. 
401 Recital 10 of the EED. 
402 See recital 7 of the 2002 EPBD. 

170 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 3.1   General Objectives of EED, EPBD and RESD 

EED 

EPBD 

RESD 

Art. 1(1) – This Directive 
promotes the improvement 
of the energy performance of 
buildings within the Union, 
taking into account outdoor 
climatic and local conditions, 
as well as indoor climate 
requirements and cost-
effectiveness. 

Art. 1 – This Directive 
establishes a common 
framework for the promotion 
of energy from renewable 
sources. It sets mandatory 
national targets for the 
overall share of energy from 
renewable sources in gross 
final consumption of energy 
and for the share of energy 
from renewable sources in 
transport. […]  

Art. 1(1) – This Directive 
establishes a common 
framework of measures for 
the promotion of energy 
efficiency within the Union in 
order to ensure the 
achievement of the Union’s 
2020 20 % headline target 
on energy efficiency and to 
pave the way for further 
energy efficiency 
improvements beyond that 
date. 
It lays down rules designed 
to remove barriers in the 
energy market and overcome 
market failures that impede 
efficiency in the supply and 
use of energy, and provides 
for the establishment of 
indicative national energy 
efficiency targets for 2020. 

The  EPBD,  EED  and  RESD  all  have  the  common  goal  to  reduce  energy  consumption  and  CO2 
emissions – the EED and the RESD targeting the economy in general and the EPBD focusing on 
buildings -   and to achieve the 20-20-20 targets by promoting energy efficiency and use of RES. 
From  a  legal  perspective,  the  texts  are  therefore  considered  coherent  with  regards  to  their 
general objectives and can certainly complement each other to achieve their respective goals. 
This was corroborated in the recent 2015 public consultation on the EPBD, where the majority 
of respondents stated that RES and energy efficiency measures “face similar barriers and can 
generate synergies in […] implementation”.403 Many respondents to the 2015 public consultation 
on  the  EED  have  also  stressed  that,  in  general,  the  pieces  of  legislation  on  energy  efficiency 
seem to work well with each other. For example, it has been said that “[t]he EED has worked to 
complement other legislation and works well as a framework directive creating synergies.”404 

Further to synergies, here is a potential compatibility issue between these three Directives due 
to the interactions between energy efficiency and renewables in buildings: “as buildings become 
more energy efficient, each additional energy efficiency measure will have diminishing (energy 
and carbon saving) returns, and renewable energy becomes relatively more cost effective”.405-
406 According to the Concerted Action, as long as there is dialogue between policymakers and 

4. 

WG 

RES 

See: 

CA-RES, 

403  See  the  answers  to  question  38  in  Ecofys,  Public  Consultation  on  the  Evaluation  of  the  EPBD,  Final 
Report, Nov. 2015. Hereinafter ‘EPBD Public Consultation Report’.  
404 See the reaction of EuroACE to question 1.2 of the 2015 EED Public Consultation. 
405 
heating 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/sites/iee-projects/files/projects/documents/ca-
res_working_group_publication_no_4_en.pdf.  
406 See, for instance, the example of Sweden. According to Göteborg Energi AB (in their answer to question 
1.2  of  the  2015  public  consultation  on  the  EED),  “there  is  a  conflict  between  RED  and  EED.  The  RED, 
supported  by  EPBD,  promotes  the  use  of  renewables  for  heating  buildings.  In  Swedish  district  heating 
systems, the main sources of heat are renewables and recovered heat from CHP, waste-to-energy (often 
co-generation) and industrial waste heat. We believe that priority should be given to recovered heat rather 
than renewables, since renewables can be put to use elsewhere, which is not the case with recovered heat. 
The Swedish implementation has put renewables higher than recovered heat, which in practice puts district 
heating to a disadvantage in comparison to individual heating based on electricity.” The same concern is 

available 

district 

and 

at: 

171 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

stakeholders at the EU and national level on the appropriate balance between building-related 
energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, this potential compatibility issues can be 
partially addressed. However, the fact that in almost half of Member States the decision makers 
and officials responsible for implementing the building regulation aspects of the RESD/EED and 
the  EPBD were  employed in different ministries will impede the  efficient contribution of these 
Member States to reach the 20-20-20 targets.407  

3.2  Scope  and  definitions  in  the  Energy  Efficiency  Directive,  Energy  Performance  of 
Buildings Directive, and Renewable Energy Sources Directive 

Scope of the legislation 

The EED is seen as providing the general framework for energy efficiency, consisting of several 
policy areas where other Directives go into more detail, such as on buildings and products. With 
regard to buildings, the main pieces of legislation are in particularly the EPBD and the RESD that 
work together with the EED.  The following exhibit illustrates this relationship. Hence, the Study 
does not show any inconsistency in the scope of the three instruments. 

Exhibit 3.2   Link between EED, EPBD and RESD408 

Exclusions from the scope of the legislation 

Pursuant  to  the  EED,  EPBD  and  RESD,  some  buildings  may  be  exempted  –  under  certain 
conditions – from some of the energy efficiency requirements laid down in these pieces of EU 
legislation. In the case of Article 5(2) of the EED and Article 4(2) of the EPBD, the exemptions 
are optional i.e. they apply only if the Member State decides to do so. 

heard  by  the  Finnish  Forest  Industries  Federation:  “EED  overlaps  the  RES  target  and  GHG  target.  One 
target which should be GHG target would be optimal solution because then companies and countries could 
choose  the  most  efficient  way  to  reduce  greenhouse  gases”.  Further,  the  Confederation  of  Swedish 
Enterprise has supported the one target-approach, and thinks that the climate target should be the superior 
target. Energy efficiency and renewable energy are means to get there. 
407 FEDARENE stated the following during the 2015 public consultation on the EED, with regard to question 
1.2: “An example of the kind of problems that can occur is where different government departments or 
other public bodies are made responsible for the implementation of different, but overlapping or synergistic 
legislation, and do not coordinate effectively at national or regional level. For this reason, it would be useful 
to ‘tidy up’ the legislation at EU level, and make the links and connections clearer, while at the same time 
checking for full coherence and for any potential contradictions or misinterpretations.” 
408  J.  Magyar,  CA  EED  –  Core  Theme  6,  CA  EPBD  meeting  in  Dubrovnik  –  outcomes  on  co-ordinated 
approaches to training and accreditation of experts (EPBD recast Article 17 and EED Article 16), Oct. 2014. 

172 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation  - 
Annexes 

Exhibit 3.3   Exemptions in the EED, EPBD and RESD 

EED 

Art. 5(2) on the exemplary role of public bodies’ 
buildings 
Member States may decide not to set or apply the 
requirements referred to in paragraph 1 to the 
following categories of buildings: 
(a) buildings officially protected as part of a 
designated environment, or because of their special 
architectural or historical merit, in so far as 
compliance with certain minimum energy 
performance requirements would unacceptably alter 
their character or appearance; 
(b) buildings owned by the armed forces or central 
government and serving national defence purposes, 
apart from single living quarters or office buildings 
for the armed forces and other staff employed by 
national defence authorities; 
(c) buildings used as places of worship and for 
religious activities. 

Art. 6(2) on the purchasing by public bodies 
The obligation referred to in paragraph 1 shall apply 
to the contracts of the armed forces only to the 
extent that its application does not cause any 
conflict with the nature and primary aim of the 
activities of the armed forces. The obligation shall 
not apply to contracts for the supply of military 
equipment as defined by Directive 2009/81/EC of 
the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 
July 2009 on the coordination of procedures for the 
award of certain works contracts, supply contracts 
and service contracts by contracting authorities or 
entities in the fields of defence and security. 

EPBD 
Art. 4(2) on the setting of minimum energy 
performance requirements 
Member States may decide not to set or 
apply the requirements referred to in 
paragraph 1 to the following categories of 
buildings: 
(a) buildings officially protected as part of a 
designated environment or because of their 
special architectural or historical merit, in 
so far as compliance with certain minimum 
energy performance requirements would 
unacceptably alter their character or 
appearance; 
(b) buildings used as places of worship and 
for religious activities; 
(c) temporary buildings with a time of use 
of two years or less, industrial sites, 
workshops and non-residential agricultural 
buildings with low energy demand and non-
residential agricultural buildings which are 
in use by a sector covered by a national 
sectoral agreement on energy performance; 
(d) residential buildings which are used or 
intended to be used for either less than four 
months of the year or, alternatively, for a 
limited annual time of use and with an 
expected energy consumption of less than 
25 % of what would be the result of all-
year use; 
(e) stand-alone buildings with a total useful 
floor area of less than 50 m 2. 

RESD 
Art. 13(4) on introducing 
renewable energy into 
building regulations and 
codes 
The requirements of the 
first subparagraph shall 
apply to the armed 
forces, only to the extent 
that its application does 
not cause any conflict 
with the nature and 
primary aim of the 
activities of the armed 
forces and with the 
exception of material 
used exclusively for 
military purposes. 

173 

 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Although the content of Arts.5-6 EED, Art.4 EPBD and Art.13(4) RESD is not really comparable, 
all four provisions aim at raising energy performance, energy efficiency or renewable energy in 
buildings. The number of potential exemptions to this goal is considerably higher in the EPBD in 
comparison with the RESD. EPBD exemptions relate to officially protected buildings, places of 
worship, temporary buildings with low energy demand, residential buildings with limited use and 
small stand-alone buildings. The EED has the first two  exemptions in common  with the EPBD 
and adds buildings owned by the armed forces to its exemptions list. This addition is, on its turn, 
the only exemption foreseen in the RESD and only when it could ”cause conflict with the nature 
and  primary  aim  of  the  activities  of  the  armed  forces”.  It  is  nowhere  stated  why  different 
exemptions are used for each piece of legislation, but there is no inconsistency in the wording 
used and there have been no known problems with the reported differences. 

Application to SMEs 

As  the  Terms  of  Reference  for  this  study  ask  to  pay  particular  attention  to  “the  SME  related 
aspects and to the impacts of this legislation on them”, it is helpful to see whether SMEs are 
indeed effectively taken up in the scope  of application of Directives 2012/27/EU, 2010/31/EU 
and 2009/28/EC. 

174 

 
 
 
 
 
  
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation  - 
Annexes 

Exhibit 3.4   SME provisions in EED, EPBD and RESD  

EPBD 
Recital 19 - Union financial instruments 
should be used to give practical effect to 
the objectives of this Directive, without 
however substituting national measures. 
[…] They could play an important role in 
the development of national, regional 
and local energy efficiency funds, 
instruments, or mechanisms, which 
deliver such financing possibilities to 
private property owners, to small and 
medium-sized enterprises and to energy 
efficiency service companies. 

RESD 

Recital 3 – Production of energy from 
renewable sources often depends on 
local or regional small and medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs). The 
opportunities for growth and 
employment that investment in regional 
and local production of energy from 
renewable sources bring about in the 
Member States and their regions are 
important. 

Recital 4 - When favouring the 
development of the market for 
renewable energy sources, it is 
necessary to take into account the 
positive impact on regional and local 
development opportunities, export 
prospects, social cohesion and 
employment opportunities, in particular 
as concerns SMEs and independent 
energy producers. 

EED 

Recital 24 – To tap the energy savings 
potential in certain market segments 
where energy audits are generally not 
offered commercially (such as small and 
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)), 
Member States should develop 
programmes to encourage SMEs to 
undergo energy audits.  

Recital 41 – Most Union businesses are 
SMEs. They represent an enormous 
energy saving potential for the Union. 
To help them adopt energy efficiency 
measures, Member States should 
establish a favourable framework aimed 
at providing SMEs with technical 
assistance and targeted information. 

Art. 8(2) – Member States shall develop 
programmes to encourage SMEs to 
undergo energy audits and the 
subsequent implementation of the 
recommendations from these audits. 
[…] 

Art. 18 – Member States shall promote 
the energy services market and access 
for SMEs to this market by: […] 

175 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Neither the recitals (apart from recital 19 of the EPBD, which refers to financial instruments) nor 
any  of  the  provisions  in  the  EPBD  refer  to  SMEs.  The  Impact  Assessment  carried  out  for  the 
EPBD neither includes a section on the impact of the EPBD on SMEs.409 This does not constitute 
a potential gap as this Directive is fully directed towards the European construction sector, which 
is for around 99% composed of SMEs.410 The EPBD therefore implicitly pays particular attention 
to SMEs.  

The RESD acknowledges, in its recitals 3 and 4, that the market for renewable energy sources 
will  specifically  impact  SMEs.  Also  Article  14  of  the  RESD,  which  deals  with  training  and 
certification  of  renewable  energy  equipment  installers,  is  particularly  important  for  SMEs: 
building owners will need the ‘professional guidance, technical advice and sales services of the 
large community of experienced and trained construction crafts and SMEs throughout Europe, 
which need to become “energy advisors”.’411 A particular mention of SMEs in this Article 14 is 
not provided. This is consistent with the Impact Assessment carried out prior to the adoption of 
the RESD, which does not mention SMEs at all.412 

The EED, finally, explicitly refers to the fact that “[m]ost Union businesses are SMEs” and that, 
therefore, special help is needed for SMEs to adopt energy efficiency measures (Article 8). The 
impact of the energy efficiency goals laid down in the EED on SMEs is largely dealt with within 
the  directive  itself.  Also  the  Impact  Assessment  carried  out  for  the  EED  regularly  refers  the 
specificities of SMEs.413  

All  in  all,  the  three  main  directives  impacting  the  construction  sector  with  regard  to  energy 
efficiency measures have taken SMEs into account in their scope of application. It can further be 
emphasised that the EED, which includes a definition of SMEs in its Article 2(26), makes a direct 
cross-reference  to  the  definition  laid  down  in  Title  I  of  the  Annex  to  Commission 
Recommendation  2003/361/EC  of  6  May  2003  concerning  the  definition  of  micro,  small  and 
medium-sized enterprises – hereby enhancing horizontal coherence on a large scale.  

Definitions 

Inconsistencies  have  emerged  regarding  the  definitions  used  in  the  EED,  EPBD  and  RESD, 
although their practical impact appears to be minimal. 

Energy. The EED specifically focuses on achieving the 20% energy efficiency target; the EPBD 
promotes the energy performance of buildings and the RESD applies to energy from renewable 
sources. All three directives therefore relate to the control of European energy consumption in 
order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  

409 Communication Staff Working Document, Accompanying document to the Proposal for a Recast of the 
Energy  Performance  of  Buildings  Directive  (2002/91/EC)  –  Impact  Assessment,  COM(2008)  780  final, 
SEC(2008) 2865. 
410 http://www.ueapme.com/spip.php?rubrique17  
411 UEAPME, Position of the UEAPME Construction Forum on “Directive on the promotion of the use of energy 
from renewable sources” (COM/2008/19/final), 1 September 2008. 
412 Communication Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment, Document accompanying the Package of 
Implementation  measures  for  the  EU's  objectives  on  climate  change  and  renewable  energy  for  2020, 
Proposals for Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC so 
as  to  improve  and  extend  the  EU  greenhouse  gas  emission  allowance  trading  system,  Decision  of  the 
European Parliament  and of the Council  on  the effort  of Member States to reduce  their greenhouse  gas 
emissions to meet the Community’s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020, Directive 
of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  promotion  of  use  of  renewable  energy  sources, 
SEC(2008) 85. 
413 Communication Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment, Accompanying the document Directive 
of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  energy  efficiency  and  amending  and  subsequently 
repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC, SEC(2011)779. 

176 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 3.5   ‘Energy’ definitions in EED, EPBD and RESD 

EED 

EPBD 

RESD 

Art. 2(1) – ‘energy’ 
means all forms of 
energy products, 
combustible fuels, heat, 
renewable energy, 
electricity, or any other 
form of energy, as 
defined in Article 2(d) of 
Regulation (EC) No 
1099/2008 of the 
European Parliament and 
of the Council of 22 
October 2008 on energy 
statistics; 

Art. 2(4) - ‘energy 
efficiency’ means the 
ratio of output of 
performance, service, 
goods or energy, to input 
of energy; 

Art. 2(4) - ‘energy performance of a 
building’ means the calculated or 
measured amount of energy needed to 
meet the energy demand associated 
with a typical use of the building, which 
includes, inter alia, energy used for 
heating, cooling, ventilation, hot water 
and lighting; 

Art. 2(5) - ‘primary energy’ means 
energy from renewable and non-
renewable sources which has not 
undergone any conversion or 
transformation process; 

Art. 2(a) - ‘energy 
from renewable 
sources’ means energy 
from renewable non-
fossil sources, namely 
wind, solar, 
aerothermal, 
geothermal, 
hydrothermal and 
ocean energy, 
hydropower, biomass, 
landfill gas, sewage 
treatment plant gas 
and biogases; 

Art. 2(6) - ‘energy from renewable 
sources’ means energy from renewable 
non-fossil sources, namely wind, solar, 
aerothermal, geothermal, hydrothermal 
and ocean energy, hydropower, 
biomass, landfill gas, sewage treatment 
plant gas and biogases; 

All three Directives make extensive use of the words ‘energy’, ‘primary energy’, ‘energy from 
renewable  sources’  (or  renewable  energy)  and  ‘energy  efficiency’,  but  these  terms  are  not 
defined in each act and it is not straightforward why this is not the case. The EED, for example, 
includes provisions on ‘primary energy savings’ and ‘primary energy consumption’ but ‘primary 
energy’ is not defined, and there is neither a cross-reference to this definition in the EPBD. The 
definition of ‘energy’, on the other hand, is only explicitly provided for within the EED.  

‘Energy from renewable sources’ is defined in both the EPBD and the RESD (but not in the EED) 
and  these  definitions  are  literally  the  same,  hence  not  leading  to  any  incoherence  problems. 
However,  all  three  legal  instruments  also  use  the  terms  ‘renewable  energy  sources’  and 
‘renewable energy’ (even within the EED’s ‘energy’ definition), instead of opting for a consistent 
terminology.  

Further, while the EED provides a definition of ‘energy efficiency’, an explicit definition – or a 
cross-reference to the EED – has not been included in the EPBD or the RESD, even though the 
term is used multiple times throughout these two directives.  

However, even though, from a purely legal perspective, there is a gap and an inconsistency with 
most terms related to ‘energy’, literature, jurisprudence, and stakeholder interviews have not 
highlighted any specific practical problems in this regard. 

Renovation of buildings. The EPBD, the EED and the RESD all include provisions that apply to 
new buildings and existing buildings that are subject to major  renovation. The  EPBD includes 
various definitions related to buildings, in particular: ‘building’, ‘building envelope’, ‘building unit’ 
and  ‘building  element’  (Art.  2  EPBD).  The  term  ‘building’  is  only  defined  in  the  EPBD  and  a 
definition is lacking in both the EED and the RESD. The term ‘building envelope’ is also used in 
the EED, as is the term ‘building element’. Only the definition of the latter is cross-referenced to 
Art. 2(9) of the EPBD (see Art. 16 and 17 EED), while the definition of the former is missing. 
Even though there is hence a gap in the EED and RESD with most terms related to ‘building’, 
the literature, the jurisprudence, and stakeholder interviews have not highlighted any specific 
practical problems in this regard. 

177 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

While  the EPBD defines the term ‘building’, it does not include a definition or description of what 
may  constitute  a  ‘new  building’  –  to  which  an entire  article  is  devoted  (ref.  Art.  6  EPBD).  No 
confusion or interpretation issues with regard to this term have however been reported. 

‘Major renovation’ is defined in Article 2(10) of the EPBD as “the renovation of a building where:  
a)  the total cost of the renovation relating to the building envelope or the technical building 
systems is higher than 25 % of the value of the building, excluding the value of the land 
upon which the building is situated; or 

b)  more than 25 % of the surface of the building envelope undergoes renovation."   

Recital 16 of the EPBD explains this definition by stating that “Member States should be able to 
choose to define a ‘major renovation’ either in terms of a percentage of the surface of the building 
envelope or in terms of the value of the building. If a Membe 
r  State  decides  to  define  a 
major renovation in terms of the value of the building, values such as the actuarial value, or the 
current value based on the cost of reconstruction, excluding the value of the land upon which 
the building is situated, could be used.” 

The exhibit below shows whether and how major renovations are defined in the other two legal 
instruments. 

178 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 3.6   ‘Major renovation’ definitions in the EPBD, EED and RESD 

Terms used 

EED 

EPBD 

Major renovation  Recital 30 - When a connection is made in a 
new building or a building undergoes major 
renovations, as defined in Directive 
2010/31/EU, […] 

Art. 9(1)(b) – […] a new connection is made in 
a new building or a building undergoes major 
renovations, as set out in Directive 
2010/31/EU. 
Art. 2(44) - ‘substantial refurbishment’ means a 
refurbishment whose cost exceeds 50 % of the 
investment cost for a new comparable unit; 

Substantial 
refurbishment 

the total cost of the renovation relating 

Art. 2(10) – ‘major renovation’ means the 
renovation of a building where:  
a) 
to the building envelope or the technical 
building systems is higher than 25 % of the 
value of the building, excluding the value of the 
land upon which the building is situated; or 
b) more than 25 % of the surface of the 
building envelope undergoes renovation ; 
/  

Deep renovation  Recital 16 – […] That strategy should address 

/ 

cost-effective deep renovations which lead to a 
refurbishment that reduces both the delivered 
and the final energy consumption of a building 
by a significant percentage compared with the 
pre-renovation levels leading to a very high 
energy performance. Such deep renovations 
could also be carried out in stages. 

Art. 4(c) – This strategy shall encompass : 
policies and measures to stimulate cost-
effective deep renovations of buildings, 
including staged deep renovations; 

Art. 5 (6) – […] whereby they take other cost-
effective measures, including deep renovations 
and measures for behavioural change of 
occupants […] 
Art. 4 - When implementing measures for the 
comprehensive renovation of central 
government buildings in accordance with the 
first subparagraph, […] 

/ 

Comprehensive 
renovation 

RESD 
Art. 13(4) – […] in 
new buildings and 
in existing buildings 
that are subject to 
major renovation. 

/ 

/ 

/ 

179 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

With  regard  to  the  definition  of  ‘major  renovation’,  the  EED  correctly  cross-references  to  the 
EPBD, while the RESD uses the term but does not provide any cross-reference. The EED further 
seems to use other similar terms to major renovation, such as ‘substantial refurbishment’, ‘deep 
renovation’ and ‘comprehensive renovation’. The first of these terms is defined in Article 2(44) 
EED,  but  a  definition  of  ‘comprehensive  renovation’  is  lacking  and  a  clear  definition  of  ‘deep 
renovation’ can only be found through recital 16 and through the Article 6 guidance document414. 
This  guidance  document  states  the  following:  “Although  'deep  renovations'  are  not  defined  in 
the  Directive,  Recital  16  refers  to  them  as  renovations  'which  lead  to  a  refurbishment  that 
reduces  both  the  delivered  and  the  final  energy  consumption  of  a  building  by  a  significant 
percentage compared with the pre-renovation levels leading to a very high energy performance'. 
This implies that such renovations must at least go beyond the minimum efficiency requirements 
set  under  the  EPBD.”  The  term  ‘deep  renovation’,  used  in  the  EED,  is  explained  by  the 
Commission  by  making  a  direct  reference  to  the  EPBD,  hence  creating  an  unmistakable  link 
between the EED and the EPBD.  While a greater consistency would be certainly desirable from 
a  strictly  legal  point  of  view,  it  must  be  noted  that  neither  the  literature  and  jurisprudence 
reviewed nor the stakeholders consulted, have highlighted situations in which definitional issues 
have resulted in any tangible consequence for construction sector operators. Some stakeholders, 
in  the  public  consultation  on  the  review  of  progress  on  the  2020  energy  efficiency  objective, 
called for a revision of the EPBD and relevant parts of the EED “to include a measurable definition 
of deep  renovations and a quantifiable objective to accelerate deep  renovations  of residential 
and tertiary buildings”.415 Related hereto, also an EU-wide definition of ‘staged deep renovation’ 
would  be  welcomed  by  energy  efficient  stakeholders,  as  there  are  different  definitions  at  MS 
level.416 However, construction sector operators appear to have a more lukewarm attitude, as 
some  fear  that  such  definition  may  not  be  easily  adaptable  to  the  different  country  contexts, 
preferring to rely on common business practice (based upon costs of the work, complication of 
the work, historical elements of the building, need for specialised staff, etc.). 

The question of what a definition of ‘deep renovation’ (or refurbishment or retrofit) at EU level 
could  be  has  been  tackled  by,  inter  alia,  the  Global  Buildings  Performance  Network.  417  
According  to  its  research,  “the  definition  of  deep  renovation  varies  between  the  regions.  In 
Europe  most  definitions  focus  on  heating,  cooling,  ventilation  and  hot  water  and  the  general 
understanding is that these should lead to an improvement of at least 75 % in the before and 
after performances of the treated building”.418 Notably, the majority of construction stakeholders 
interviewed during the course of this study have pointed out that any definition of major or deep 
renovation may well be in line with national legislation, but does not  necessarily comply with 
common  business  practice.  For  construction  companies,  a  major  renovation  is  simply  a 
renovation work that implies considerable costs or a complicated renovation work, for example 
because  the  historical  elements  of  the  building  are  imposing  some  limits,  or  because  highly 
specialised staff or highly technological solutions are required. 

414  Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  Guidance  note  on  Directive  2012/27/EU  on  energy  efficiency, 
amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EC, and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC, 
Article 6: Purchasing by public bodies Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission 
to the European Parliament and the Council Implementing the Energy Efficiency Directive  – Commission 
Guidance, SWD(2013)446final 
415 European Commission (2014), Report of the public consultation on the review of progress on the 2020 
energy 
at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2014_summary_report_  energy2020.pdf  (last 
accessed on May 2016). 
416 Ecofys, Public Consultation on the Evaluation of the EPBD, Final Report, Nov. 2015. 
417 See: GBPN, What is a deep renovation definition?, Technical Report, Feb. 2013; and Shnapp, Sitjà Gibert 
and  Higgins,  How  can  we  renovate  deeply  if  we  don’t  know  what  that  is?,  ECEEE  2013  Summer  Study 
Proceedings, 1617-1625. 
418 Shnapp, S., Gibert, R.S. and C. Higgins (2013), How can we renovate deeply if we don’t know what that 
is?, ECEEE Summer Study proceedings, pp. 1617 and ff., at p. 1617. 

objective, 

efficiency 

available 

p.9 

at 

180 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

3.3 Substantive requirements established  by the  Energy Efficiency Directive, Energy 
Performance of Buildings Directive, and Renewable Energy Sources Directive 

Several  areas  can  be  identified  where  the  EED,  EPBD  and  RESD  may  potentially  overlap  or  – 
positively  –  create  synergies.  The  following  table,  which  only  focuses  on  the  substantive 
requirements  in  the  three  directives  that  are  related  to  the  construction  sector,  gives  a  short 
overview.419 

Exhibit 3.7   Areas of potential overlap between the EED, EPBD and RESD 

Interactions and 
synergies 

Public buildings 
Certification / 
auditing 
Training and 
accreditation 
Information 
Control 

EED 

EPBD 

RESD 

Articles 5, 6 
Article 8 

Articles 8, 16 

Articles 11, 13 
Articles 11, 12, 14, 
15 
Article 17 

Article 13(5) 
/ 

Article 14(3) 

Article 17 
Article 8, Annex VI 

Article 20 
Article 18, Annex II 

Article 14 
Article 14(3), Annex 
IV 
Article 14(3) 

Mutual recognition  Article 16(3) 

/ 

Public buildings 

The EED, EPBD and RESD all include provisions in relation to public/central government buildings 
and the exemplary role of the public sector in the area of energy efficiency. 

419 A more elaborate overview, showing nine identified areas of potential synergy, is provided in: CA-EPBD, 
Implementing the EPBD – featuring country reports, 2016, p.104. 

181 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation  - 
Annexes 

Exhibit 3.8   Provisions on public buildings in the EED, EPBD and RESD 

EED 

EPBD 

RESD 

Recitals  Recital 15 – The total volume of public spending is 

equivalent to 19 % of the Union’s gross domestic 
product. For this reason the public sector constitutes an 
important driver to stimulate market transformation 
towards more efficient products, buildings and services, 
as well as to trigger behavioural changes in energy 
consumption by citizens and enterprises. 

Recital 17 – Buildings owned by public bodies account 
for a considerable share of the building stock and have 
high visibility in public life. It is therefore appropriate to 
set an annual rate of renovation of buildings owned and 
occupied by central government on the territory of a 
Member State to upgrade their energy performance. 
This renovation rate should be without prejudice to the 
obligations with regard to nearly-zero energy buildings 
set in Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy 
performance of buildings. The obligation to renovate 
central government buildings in this Directive 
complements that Directive, which requires Member 
States to ensure that when existing buildings undergo 
major renovation their energy performance is upgraded 
so that they meet minimum energy performance 
requirements. 

Recital 19 – With regard to the purchase of certain 
products and services and the purchase and rent of 
buildings, central governments which conclude public 
works, supply or service contracts should lead by 
example and make energy-efficient purchasing 
decisions.  

/ 

Recital 21 – The public sector in 
each Member State should lead the 
way in the field of energy 
performance of buildings, and 
therefore the national plans should 
set more ambitious targets for the 
buildings occupied by public 
authorities. 

Recital 23 – Public authorities 
should lead by example and should 
endeavour to implement the 
recommendations included in the 
energy performance certificate. 

Recital 24 – Buildings occupied by 
public authorities and buildings 
frequently visited by the public 
should set an example by showing 
that environmental and energy 
considerations are being taken into 
account and therefore those 
buildings should be subject to 
energy certification on a regular 
basis. 

182 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation  - 
Annexes 

Articles  Art. 5 - Exemplary role of public bodies’ buildings 

1. Without prejudice to Article 7 of Directive 
2010/31/EU, each Member State shall ensure that, as 
from 1 January 2014, 3 % of the total floor area of 
heated and/or cooled buildings owned and occupied by 
its central government is renovated each year to meet 
at least the minimum energy performance requirements 
that it has set in application of Article 4 of Directive 
2010/31/EU. […] 

Art. 6 – Purchasing by public bodies 
1. Member States shall ensure that central governments 
purchase only products, services and buildings with high 
energy-efficiency performance, insofar as that is 
consistent with cost-effectiveness, economical 
feasibility, wider sustainability, technical suitability, as 
well as sufficient competition, as referred to in Annex 
III. […] 

Art. 13(5) – 
Member States 
shall ensure that 
new public 
buildings, and 
existing public 
buildings that are 
subject to major 
renovation, at 
national, regional 
and local level 
fulfil an 
exemplary role in 
the context of this 
Directive from 1 
January 2012 
onwards. 

Art. 11(5) - Subject to national 
rules, Member States shall 
encourage public authorities to 
take into account the leading role 
which they should play in the field 
of energy performance of buildings, 
inter alia, by implementing the 
recommendations included in the 
energy performance certificate 
issued for buildings owned by them 
within its validity period. 

Art. 13 - Member States shall take 
measures to ensure that where a 
total useful floor area over 500 m 2 
of a building for which an energy 
performance certificate has been 
issued in accordance with Article 
12(1) is occupied by public 
authorities and frequently visited 
by the public, the energy 
performance certificate is displayed 
in a prominent place clearly visible 
to the public. On 9 July 2015, this 
threshold of 500 m 2 shall be 
lowered to 250 m 2. 

183 

 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Article 5 of the EED stipulates that central governments should continue, as previously required 
by the Energy Services Directive, to play their exemplary role in energy efficiency through the 
renovation of the buildings they own or occupy and which do not meet the minimum efficiency 
requirements set under the EPBD (Article 4 and Annex I). The article also contains obligations 
for  Member States to  encourage public bodies at regional and local level to follow the central 
government’s exemplary role (art.5(7)).420 

Article 13 of the EPBD relates to the issuance and clearly visible display of the public authorities’ 
energy performance certificates, while Article 11 urges the public authorities to lead by example 
through  the  implementation  of  the  recommendations  included  in  the  energy  performance 
certificate. The exemplary role of public buildings (this time with regard to the use of renewable 
energy technologies) is further emphasised in Article 13(5) of the RESD.  

At first sight, there seems to be overlap between the legislative provisions for public buildings 
as  the  three  Directives  all  emphasise  the  exemplary  role  of  public  bodies’  buildings,  but,  in 
practice, these overlaps should rather be considered to be positive synergies. The following box, 
as elaborated by CA EED, gives a good illustration.421 

Exhibit 3.9   Potential  overlaps  related  to  the  exemplary  role  of  public  bodies' 
buildings 

Public buildings 

EED – Art.5 

What is it about? 
(content) 

Existing buildings. 
Minimum energy 
performance 
requirement for 
renovation of central 
government 
buildings. 

EPBD – Art.11(5) + 
Art. 13 

Buildings where a total 
useful floor area over 
500 m² is occupied by a 
public authority and 
frequently visited by the 
public (threshold 
lowered to 250 m² on 9 
July 2015). Display of 
energy performance 
certificates in a 
prominent place clearly 
visible to the public. 
Public authorities should 
implement the 
recommendations 
included in the energy 
performance certificate. 
Public authorities 

RESD – Art.13(5) 

New build and 
buildings subject to 
major renovation fulfil 
an exemplary role – 
potentially through 
complying with 
standards for nearly 
zero energy housing or 
by providing that the 
roofs of public or 
mixed private-public 
buildings are used for 
producing renewable 
energy. 

National, regional and 
local public authorities 
Exemplary role 

Who is it for? 
(target audience) 
Method and 
process (the how) 

Public authorities 

Exemplary role 

Exemplary role 

All  in  all,  many  stakeholders  have  indeed  emphasised  the  positive  synergies  with  existing 
legislation for buildings, especially in relation to the energy efficiency of public buildings and the 
public  purchases.422  However,  there  are  also  some  stakeholders  who  stated  during  the  2015 
public consultation on the EED that the EED has clear overlaps with the EPBD, especially with 

420  CA  EED,  Following  central  government’s  exemplary  role  in  building  renovation,  Executive  Summary 
Report 2.3, Core Theme 2 - Public Sector: public buildings and public purchasing, Working Group 3, April 
2014 
421 CA EED, Joint Working Group on potential topics for cooperation between the Concerted Actions, 2013. 
422 See, for example, the answer of an anonymous source to question 1.2 of the 2015 public consultation 
on the EED. 

184 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

regard to the exemplary role of public bodies’ buildings, suggesting that the related provisions 
do  not  work  together  but  instead  work  in  parallel  to  each  other.423  Therefore,  a  “thorough 
harmonization and coordination” is asked for by these stakeholders. 

Also Article 6 EED relates to the exemplary role of public authorities. The article establishes the 
principle that, when central governments purchase products, buildings and services, they must 
ensure high energy efficiency and comply with the standards listed in Annex III (which is not 
exhaustive). This Article does not introduce a new approach to the EU rules on energy efficient 
procurement  (as  already  laid  down in  the  Energy  Services  Directive  and  the  Energy  Labelling 
Directive) but merely extends the scope of the obligation to additional items. Also, the rules of 
the EED must be in line with the Public Procurement Directive.424 The question whether all EU 
public procurement rules relating to sustainability should be gathered into a single EU guidance 
framework  has  been  included  in  the  recent  open  public  consultation  on  the  EED.425  Another 
stakeholder raised concerns over the clarity of Article 6 and Annex III, and cross-references to 
different  EU  acts  and  labelling  schemes,  as  well  as  the  lack  of  mandatory  requirements  for 
local/public authorities and public utilities. 426 Finally, the majority of the 300 respondents to the 
2015  public  consultation  on  the  EED  think  that  there  is  insufficient  guidance  to  characterise 
“energy efficient products, services and buildings”.427 

Schemes related to the assessment of a building (unit) 

Between the EED and the EPBD, four different schemes are set up to assess the energy efficiency 
of a building (unit) by an expert. 428  These schemes are the following: 

  energy performance certification of residential buildings 
 
 
  energy audit of large companies, which can include their buildings. 

inspection of heating systems 
inspection of air-conditioning systems 

The EPBD requires regular inspection of heating and air‐conditioning systems (Articles 14 and 
15). In addition, according to Articles 11 to 13 of the  EBPD, Member States shall also ensure 
that an energy performance certificate (“EPC”) is issued for buildings or building units which are 
constructed,  sold  or  rented  out  to  a  new  tenant,  along  with  periodic  certification  of  buildings 
which are owned by public authorities and frequently visited by the public. Further, a voluntary 
common  European  Union  certification  scheme  for  the  energy  performance  of  non-residential 
buildings is also adopted. The EED includes a requirement for energy auditing (Article 8). 

423 See, for example, the reaction of EnR (European Energy Network) to question 1.2  of the 2015 public 
consultation on the EED. 
424 Recital 19 of the EED states: “The provisions of the Union’s public procurement directives should not 
however be affected.” 
425  See  question  7.3  at  https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/consultations/consultation-review-directive-
201227eu-energy-efficiency.  
426 See the reaction of an anonymous stakeholder to question 2.1 of the 2015 public consultation on the 
EED. 
427 See the answers to question 2.3 of the 2015 public consultation on the EED. 
428 A fifth scheme, the voluntary energy performance certification of non-residential buildings under 11(9) 
of EPBD, has not yet been adopted. 

185 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation  - 
Annexes 

Exhibit 3.10  Provisions on schemes related to the assessment of a building (unit) in the EED and EPBD 

EED – mandatory energy 
audit 

EPBD – energy performance 
certificates 

Background  Recital 24 - To tap the energy 

savings potential in certain 
market segments where energy 
audits are generally not offered 
commercially (such as small and 
medium-sized enterprises 
(SMEs)), Member States should 
develop programmes to 
encourage SMEs to undergo 
energy audits. Energy audits 
should be mandatory and 
regular for large enterprises, as 
energy savings can be 
significant. 

Content 

Art. 8 (1) - Member States shall 
promote the availability to all 
final customers of high quality 
energy audits […]  

Recital 22 - The prospective buyer 
and tenant of a building or building 
unit should, in the energy 
performance certificate, be given 
correct information about the energy 
performance of the building and 
practical advice on improving such 
performance. Information 
campaigns may serve to further 
encourage owners and tenants to 
improve the energy performance of 
their building or building unit. 
Owners and tenants of commercial 
buildings should also be encouraged 
to exchange information regarding 
actual energy consumption, in order 
to ensure that all the data are 
available to make informed 
decisions about necessary 
improvements. The energy 
performance certificate should also 
provide information about the actual 
impact of heating and cooling on the 
energy needs of the building, on its 
primary energy consumption and on 
its carbon dioxide emissions. 
Art. 11 (1) - Member States shall lay 
down the necessary measures to 
establish a system of certification 
of the energy performance of 
buildings. The energy performance 

EPBD – regular inspection 

Recital 26 - Regular maintenance 
and inspection of heating and air- 
conditioning systems by qualified 
personnel contributes to maintaining 
their correct adjustment in 
accordance with the product 
specification and in that way 
ensures optimal performance from 
an environmental, safety and energy 
point of view. An independent 
assessment of the entire heating 
and air-conditioning system should 
occur at regular intervals during its 
lifecycle in particular before its 
replacement or upgrading. In order 
to minimise the administrative 
burden on building owners and 
tenants, Member States should 
endeavour to combine inspections 
and certifications as far as possible. 

Art. 14 (1) - Member States shall lay 
down the necessary measures to 
establish a regular inspection of 
the accessible parts of systems 
used for heating buildings, such 

186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation  - 
Annexes 

certificate shall include the energy 
performance of a building and 
reference values such as minimum 
energy performance requirements in 
order to make it possible for owners 
or tenants of the building or building 
unit to compare and assess its 
energy performance. 
The energy performance certificate 
may include additional information 
such as the annual energy 
consumption for non- residential 
buildings and the percentage of 
energy from renewable sources in 
the total energy consumption. 

as the heat generator, control 
system and circulation pump(s), 
with boilers of an effective rated 
output for space heating purposes of 
more than 20 kW. 
That inspection shall include an 
assessment of the boiler efficiency 
and the boiler sizing compared with 
the heating requirements of the 
building. The assessment of the 
boiler sizing does not have to be 
repeated as long as no changes 
were made to the heating system or 
as regards the heating requirements 
of the building in the meantime. 

Art. 8 (4) - Member States shall 
ensure that enterprises that are 
not SMEs are subject to an 
energy audit carried out in an 
independent and cost-effective 
manner by qualified and/or 
accredited experts or 
implemented and supervised by 
independent authorities under 
national legislation by 5 
December 2015 […] 

Art. 2 (25) - ‘energy audit’ 
means a systematic procedure 
with the purpose of obtaining 
adequate knowledge of the 
existing energy consumption 
profile of a building or group of 
buildings, an industrial or 
commercial operation or 
installation or a private or public 
service, identifying and 
quantifying cost-effective energy 
savings opportunities, and 
reporting the findings; 

Art. 15 (1) - Member States shall lay 
down the necessary measures to 
establish a regular inspection of 
the accessible parts of air-
conditioning systems of an 
effective rated output of more than 
12 kW. 
The inspection shall include an 
assessment of the air-conditioning 
efficiency and the sizing compared 
to the cooling requirements of the 
building. The assessment of the 
sizing does not have to be repeated 
as long as no changes were made to 
this air-conditioning system or as 
regards the cooling requirements of 
the building in the meantime. 
Art. 14 (1) and Art. 15 (1) - Member 
States shall lay down the necessary 

187 

Time 
interval 

Art. 8 (4) - […] and at least 
every four years from the date 
of the previous energy audit. 

Art. 12 (2) - Member States shall 
require that, when buildings or 
building units are constructed, 

 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation  - 
Annexes 

Subject 

Art. 8 (1) - Member States shall 
promote the availability to all 
final customers of high quality 
energy audits […]  
- mandatory for large 
businesses 
- optional for SMEs and homes 

Follow-up 
measures 

Annex VI - Energy audits shall 
allow detailed and validated 
calculations for the proposed 
measures so as to provide 
clear information on 
potential savings. 

sold or rented out, the energy 
performance certificate or a copy 
thereof is shown to the prospective 
new tenant or buyer and handed 
over to the buyer or new tenant. 

Art. 11 (8) - The validity of the 
energy performance certificate shall 
not exceed 10 years. 

Art. 12 (1) - Member States shall 
ensure that an energy performance 
certificate is issued for: 
(a) buildings or building units 
which are constructed, sold or 
rented out to a new tenant; and 
(b) buildings where a total useful 
floor area over 500 m² is occupied 
by a public authority and 
frequently visited by the public. 
On 9 July 2015, this threshold of 
500 m² shall be lowered to 250 m². 
Art. 11 (2) - The energy 
performance certificate shall include 
recommendations for the cost-
optimal or cost-effective 
improvement of the energy 
performance of a building or 
building unit, unless there is no 
reasonable potential for such 
improvement compared to the 
energy performance requirements in 
force. 

measures to establish a regular 
inspection […] 

Art. 14 (3) - Heating systems with 
boilers of an effective rated output 
of more than 100 kW shall be 
inspected at least every two 
years. 
For gas boilers, this period may be 
extended to four years. 
Art. 14 (1) – […] systems used for 
heating buildings, such as the 
heat generator, control system and 
circulation pump(s), with boilers of 
an effective rated output for 
space heating purposes of more 
than 20 kW. 

Art. 15 (1) – […] air-conditioning 
systems of an effective rated 
output of more than 12 kW. 

Art. 16 (1) - An inspection report 
shall be issued after each inspection 
of a heating or air-conditioning 
system. The inspection report shall 
contain the result of the inspection 
performed in accordance with Article 
14 or 15 and include 
recommendations for the cost-
effective improvement of the 
energy performance of the 
inspected system. 

188 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

As buildings and building units have great potential to save energy, it is essential to first assess 
the  actual  energy-related  performance  of  the  building.  Based  on  the  various  schemes 
represented  above,  a  combination  of  measures  can  be  suggested  to  improve  the  energy 
efficiency of the building (unit). The EPC needs to include recommendations ‘for the cost-optimal 
or  cost-effective  improvement  of  the  energy  performance  of  a  building  or  building  unit’.  The 
inspection  report  shall  include  recommendations  ‘for  the  cost-effective  improvement  of  the 
energy performance of the inspected system’. And the energy audits need to propose measures 
‘so as to provide clear information on potential savings’. The EPCs, inspection reports and energy 
audits are therefore merely “a stimulus to action, rather than an energy saving action itself”.429  

Both the EED and the EPBD include provisions on the energy performance / energy consumption 
of a building / building unit. The Commission guidance note on Article 8 of the EED 430 already 
explored the synergies (and encourages Member States to explore the synergies) between the 
EPBD and the EED in this regard. A few of the most important conclusions from this guidance 
note are replicated below: “Article 11 of the EPBD imposes the obligation on Member States to 
establish a system of certification of the energy performance of buildings. This makes it possible 
for owners or tenants of a building to know its energy performance and compare it with others. 
According  to  Article  12  of  the  ESD,  certification  in  accordance  with  Article  7  of  Directive 
2002/91/EC on the energy performance of buildings must be regarded as equivalent to an energy 
audit  meeting  the  requirements  set  out  in  Article  12(1)  and  (2)  of  the  ESD.  However,  in 
recognition of the wider scope of energy audits under Article 8  of the EED, the EED no longer 
keeps  this  equivalence.”  (emphasis  added)  “Therefore,  energy  performance  certification  in 
accordance with Article 11 of the EPBD, and inspections in accordance with its Articles 14 and/or 
15, cannot automatically be regarded as equivalent to energy audits under Article 8 of the EED 
(which are e.g. based on measured data on energy consumption and load profiles for electricity, 
examine - where applicable - industrial operations or installations, including transportation, and 
allow detailed and validated calculations to provide information on potential savings). However, 
it  is  possible  that  in  specific  cases  (for  instance  when  auditing  office  buildings  of  a  large 
enterprise) certification and/or inspections under the EPBD in a given Member State may fulfil 
the requirements of Article 8 and Annex VI of the EED.” (emphasis added) 

Given the fact that, according to the above Commission guidance note, the energy audits under 
the EED are no longer equivalent to – but may fulfil the requirements of - the energy performance 
certificates and/or inspections under the EPBD, a comparison between the various schemes is 
recommended, given their potential overlaps. 

2014, 

429 B. Young, Concerted Action EPBD – Core Theme 2, 6th Energy Efficiency Co-ordination Group Meeting, 
November 
https://www.energy-
community.org/portal/page/portal/ENC_HOME/DOCS/3464147/07D2038B752D3F7EE053C92FA8C01D12.
PDF  
430  Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  Guidance  note  on  Directive  2012/27/EU  on  energy  efficiency, 
amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EC, and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC, 
Article 8: Energy audits and  energy management  systems Accompanying the document Communication 
from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  Implementing  the  Energy  Efficiency 
Directive – Commission Guidance, SWD(2013)447. 

available 

at: 

189 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 3.11  Potential  overlap  related  to  the  various  schemes  to  assess  a  building 

EED – Art.8 

EPBD – Art.11 

EPBD – Art. 14-15 

(unit) 

Schemes related 
to the assessment 
of a building 
(unit) 
What is it about? 
(content) 

Who is it for? 
(target audience) 

Energy audit of a 
building or group of 
buildings, an 
industrial or 
commercial 
operation or 
installation or a 
private or public 
service 
Mandatory for large 
enterprises 
Voluntary for SMEs 
and homes 

Energy performance 
certification of 
buildings 

Everybody who 
constructs, sells or 
rents out a building 
or building unit 

Method and 
process (the how) 

Obtain knowledge of 
the existing energy 
consumption profile 
of a building or 
group of buildings 
through detailed 
and validated 
calculations, based 
on up-to-date, 
measured, traceable 
operational data  

Calculate the energy 
performance of a 
building. Can 
include the annual 
energy consumption 
of the building and 
the percentage of 
energy from 
renewable sources. 

Time interval (the 
when) 

Every 4 years from 
5.12.2015 

Regular. 
With regard to 
boilers with an 
effective rated 
output of more than 
100 Kw, every two 
years. With regard 
to gas boilers, every 
four years. 

Inspection of the 
accessible parts of 
systems used for 
heating buildings 
and of air-
conditioning 
systems 

Everybody who 
owns a boiler of an 
effective rated 
output for space 
heating purposes of 
more than 20 kW. 
Everybody who 
owns an air-
conditioning system 
of an effective rated 
output of more than 
12 kW 
Visual examination 
to assess the 
efficiency and the 
sizing of the 
systems in order to 
give 
recommendations 
on their energy 
performance. No 
testing or 
measurements 
required. 
Every four years. 

190 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Generally,  the  inspections,  certifications  and  audits  all  relate  to  the  energy  consumption  of 
buildings  or  technical  building  systems  and  therefore  require  thorough  understanding  of  the 
energy efficiency of the system(s) installed.431 In addition, inspections and audits are scheduled 
at regular intervals. The CA EPBD has further stressed that “[o]n the one hand, inspections tend 
to be seen not only as a check of proper maintenance, but also as an assessment of the energy 
efficiency of the systems. On the other hand, the system performance is assessed as part of the 
overall building performance, using available information on system characteristics or checking 
the  conditions  of  the  system  components  and  their  assembly  on-site.  There  are  several 
interactions that might occur between maintenance, inspections and certification procedures”432. 
Said  in  other  words,  “[s]ome  of  the  activities  of  an  energy  audit  carried  out  for  the  EED  are 
similar to those for an inspection [or EPC] for the EPBD, although the purpose and level of detail 
is different”.433 For this reason, it has generally been acknowledged that some of the EPBD’s and 
EED’s  requirements  have  been  duplicated  and  have  not  been  harmonised.  The  majority  of 
respondents to the 2015 public consultation on the EED have indeed expressed their concern as 
to  the  overlaps  between  the  two  Directives  related  to  energy  efficiency  audits  and  energy 
performance certificates.434 

Therefore,  the  CA  EPBD  has  stated  that  “it  might  be  interesting  to  evaluate  the  possibility  to 
combine  maintenance,  inspection  and  certification  of  existing  buildings”,  especially  in  those 
specific cases where certification and/or inspections under the EPBD in a given Member State 
may go hand in hand with energy audits – for instance when auditing office buildings of a large 
enterprise. For example, the intervals at which the assessments need to occur do not coincide.435 
The  Concerted  Action  consequently  highlighted  this  point,  saying  that they  are  “performed  at 
different occasions and intervals, limiting the opportunity for shared activity. Carrying them out 
at  the  same  time  could  offer  significant  opportunities  for  reducing  costs  and  achieving  more 
reliable results.”436  

Further  energy  savings  (and  further  coordination  and  harmonization)  can  additionally  be 
achieved  when  the  apparent  gap  with  regard  to  EPCs  is  corrected.  Currently,  EPCs  are  only 
issued for buildings or building units which are constructed, sold or rented out to a new tenant, 
and buildings where a total useful floor area over 500m² is occupied by a public authority and 
frequently visited by the public.437 However, this means that currently occupied buildings (i.e. 
“existing buildings”, or those buildings currently envisaged by the inspections and energy audits) 
do not have any EPCs. With approximately two thirds of the EU’s residential buildings stock being 
owner occupied438 and given the relatively long time spans between change of owners, Ecofys 
has  rightly  concluded  that  this  represents  a  substantial  potential  for  further  energy  savings 
triggered  by  EPCs  (e.g.  realisation  of  renovation  possibilities  described  in  the  EPCs  in  owner 
occupied buildings).439 Also, by including currently occupied buildings under the EPC legislation, 
a further synergy with energy audits and inspections can be achieved. 

at: 

available 

431 See also: B. Young, Synergy (or not) between inspection and audit, EECG 7th meeting, Vienna, 17 March 
2015, 
https://www.energy-
community.org/portal/page/portal/ENC_HOME/DOCS/3648169/12079584F6F271E4E053C92FA8C0B7F4.P
DF 
432  CA  EPBD,  Certification  –  Core  Theme  1,  Nov.  2010,  available  at:  http://www.epbd-
ca.org/Medias/Pdf/CT_Reports_14-04-2011/CT1_Certification.pdf 
433 See also: CA EPBD, Training – Overview and Outcomes, Aug. 2015. 
434 See the answers to question 1.2 of the 2015 public consultation on the EED. 
435 While the EPBD does not specify what would be regarded as a ‘regular inspection’, it is the view of the 
European Commission services that inspections carried out at least every 7–8 years would be considered 
acceptable, whereas anything  less frequent than  every 10 years is likely  to  be  problematic. See: Public 
Consultation on the Evaluation of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive – questionnaire, 2015. 
436 CA EPBD, Training – Overview and Outcomes, Aug. 2015. 
437 On 9 July 2015, this threshold has been lowered to 250m². 
438 Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE), Europe’s buildings under the microscope. A country-by-
country review of the energy performance of buildings, 2011. 
439 Ecofys, Ex-post evaluation of the application of Directive 2010/31/EU, Final report, Dec. 2015. 

191 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Harmonization  and  coordination  at  a  practical  and  national  level  is,  nonetheless,  not 
straightforward.  In  most  countries,  regular  inspections  /  certifications  and  energy  audits  are 
managed by different public authorities and under different legislation.440 The establishment, at 
national or regional level, of one-stop-shops for delivering independent, tailor-made advice to 
homeowners, covering both technical and financial aspects of energy efficiency is therefore to 
be advocated. Further, according to CA EPBD, the regular inspection procedure is generally well‐
defined, while the audit procedure has not yet been properly established in many MS. This can 
be  partly  due  to  the  much  wider  scope  of  an  energy  audit  as  it  covers  building  structures, 
technical building systems and occupants’ behaviour. Therefore, energy auditors could possibly 
prepare  the  inspections,  but  the  inspectors  cannot  undertake  energy  audits  without  further 
training. Indeed, reporting templates for inspections and energy audits are different, reflecting 
their different purposes and procedures. Indeed, the methods to be used to establish the EPCs, 
the  inspection  reports  and  the  energy  audit  reports  differ  as  to  their  technical  difficulty  and 
complexity.441  Nevertheless,  respondents  to  the  2015  public  consultation  on  the  EPBD  have 
suggested to link inspections and inspectors with the energy audit requirements and the energy 
service providers laid down in the EED.442  The question of possible inconsistencies in national 
implementation  of  provisions  on  EPCs,  in  the  EPBD,  and  of  energy  audits,  in  the  EED  was 
addressed in the Commission Communication on implementing the Energy Efficiency Directive443 
and its accompanying Staff Working Document SWD(2013) 447 final, where  the link between 
the  obligations  on  energy  audits  in  large  enterprises  and  the  obligations  to  issue  Energy 
Performance Certificate for buildings for rent or sale are explained. The SWD provides guidance 
for  Member  States  to  ensure  that  national  transposition  measures  exploit  synergies  between 
both pieces of legislation. Further, numerous problems have also been reported with regard to 
the proper implementation of the EPCs at Member State level, which obviously will impede any 
harmonization with inspections and energy audits. First, the interviews performed in the course 
of this study444 have highlighted that, even though the EPC was designed to allow consumers to 
compare  different  buildings,  it  is  now  rather  used  as  a  sort  of  legislative  requirement  and 
certificates are based on ‘national standards and performances’, rather than on the actual usage 
of energy. Consequently, recommendations are based upon ‘standard’ interventions rather than 
tailored  ones.  Indeed,  EPCs  are  based  on  theoretical  calculations  according  to  normalised 
assumptions on occupancy or consumption. They are not considered to give a reliable indication 
of  how  a  building  performs.  Other  more  complex  assessments,  available  on  the  commercial 
market, are based on real values and can be used by investors and property managers to assess 
building technical and financial performance of a building. A better EPC regime  – accessible to 
the wider public  – is therefore recommended.  This is also proven by  portfolio managers, who 
believe that EPCs do not deliver enough value and therefore often resort to more comprehensive 
certification schemes. Also as a result, there are two types of certificates in the UK: the notional 
energy  performance  certificate,  comparing  your  building  to  a  standard  building,  and  the 
operational certificate which is only used for public buildings and record the actual use of energy 
in  the  building.  Further,  EPCs  are  generally  not  comparable  across  Europe  and  the  experts 
producing the EPCs can therefore not go cross-border. Given the above, the following proposal 
was already suggested after the 2012 public consultation on the EPBD: it is highly recommended 
to  adopt  a  single  EU-wide  calculation  and  certification  scheme  for  energy  efficiency  in 
buildings.445 This recommendation still stands today. 

To  conclude,  the  Commission  has  undertaken  efforts  to  highlight  the  synergies  between  the 

440 This conclusion was made in CA EPBD, Training – Overview and Outcomes, Aug. 2015. 
441 See also on the differences between the inspections and the audits: B. Young, Concerted Action EPBD 
–  Core  Theme  2,  6th  Energy  Efficiency  Co-ordination  Group  Meeting,  November  2014,  available  at: 
https://www.energy-community.org/portal/page/portal/ENC_HOME/DOCS/3464147/07D2038B752D3F 
7EE053C92FA8C01D12.PDF.  
442 See the answers to question 75 and question 76 in: Ecofys, Public Consultation on the Evaluation of the 
EPBD, Final Report, Nov. 2015. 
443 COM (2013)762 final. 
444 Based upon the interviews with stakeholders in 10 Member States. 
445  European  Commission,  Public  Consultation  “Financial  Support  for  Energy  Efficiency  in  Buildings”, 
Consultation Report, 2012. 

192 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

EPBD and the EED related to energy efficiency audits but harmonization and coordination at the 
national  level  of  EPCs  should  be  further  enforced.  However,  as  the  obligations  regarding  the 
certification of buildings and building units typically fall on the owners, the above considerations 
have  limited  relevance  for  construction  firms,  whereas  the  lack  of  coordination  among  the 
various  schemes  may  ‘artificially’  increase  the  revenues  of  the  professionals  involved  in 
certification activities.   

Accreditation and training of experts 

Inspections, certifications and energy audits are all to be carried out in an independent manner 
by  qualified  and/or  accredited  experts.  Such  independent  experts  are  also  required  to  install 
small-scale renewable energy systems. The Commission guidance note on Article 8 of the EED446 
explicitly states that synergies should be explored and consistency should be ensured between 
“the qualification/certification criteria and schemes of the EED and the EPBD […]”. Whether and 
– potentially – how these synergies could be further enhanced is explored in the following. Also 
the experts referred to in the RESD are taken up in the comparison. 

446  Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  Guidance  note  on  Directive  2012/27/EU  on  energy  efficiency, 
amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EC, and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC, 
Article 8: Energy audits and  energy management  systems Accompanying the document Communication 
from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  Implementing  the  Energy  Efficiency 
Directive – Commission Guidance, SWD(2013)447 final. 

193 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation  - 
Annexes 

Exhibit 3.12  Provisions on accreditation and training of experts in the EED, EPBD and RESD 

Background 

EED – Art.8 + Art. 16 Energy 
auditors 

Recital 25 - Where energy 
audits are carried out by in-
house experts, the necessary 
independence would require 
these experts not to be directly 
engaged in the activity audited. 

Expertise 

Art. 8 (1) - Member States shall 
promote the availability to all 
final customers of high quality 
energy audits which are cost-
effective and: 
(a) carried out in an 
independent manner by 
qualified and/or accredited 

EPBD – Art. 17 Independent 
experts 
Recital 27 - A common approach to 
the energy performance 
certification of buildings and to the 
inspection of heating and air-
conditioning systems, carried out 
by qualified and/or accredited 
experts, whose independence is to 
be guaranteed on the basis of 
objective criteria, will contribute to 
a level playing field […].  

Recital 29 - Installers and builders 
are critical for the successful 
implementation of this Directive. 
Therefore, an adequate number of 
installers and builders should, 
through training and other 
measures, have the appropriate 
level of competence for the 
installation and integration of the 
energy efficient and renewable 
energy technology required. 
Art. 17 - Member States shall 
ensure that the energy 
performance certification of 
buildings and the inspection of 
heating systems and air-
conditioning systems are carried 
out in an independent manner 
by qualified and/or accredited 
experts, whether operating in a 

RESD – Art. 14(3) Installers 

Recital 49 - Information and training gaps, 
especially in the heating and cooling sector, 
should be removed in order to encourage 
the deployment of energy from renewable 
sources. 

Art. 14 (3) - Member States shall ensure 
that certification schemes or equivalent 
qualification schemes become or are 
available by 31 December 2012 for 
installers of small-scale biomass boilers and 
stoves, solar photovoltaic and solar thermal 

194 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation  - 
Annexes 

experts according to 
qualification criteria; or 
(b) implemented and supervised 
by independent authorities 
under national legislation. 

The energy audits referred to in 
the first subparagraph may be 
carried out by in-house 
experts or energy auditors 
provided that the Member State 
concerned has put in place a 
scheme to assure and check 
their quality, including, if 
appropriate, an annual random 
selection of at least a 
statistically significant 
percentage of all the energy 
audits they carry out. 
Art. 16 (1) - Where a Member 
State considers that the national 
level of technical competence, 
objectivity and reliability is 
insufficient, it shall ensure that, 
by 31 December 2014, 
certification and/or 
accreditation schemes 
and/or equivalent 
qualification schemes, 
including, where necessary, 
suitable training programmes, 

Accreditation 
schemes 

self-employed capacity or 
employed by public bodies or 
private enterprises. 

systems, shallow geothermal systems and 
heat pumps.447 

Art. 17 - Experts shall be 
accredited taking into account 
their competence. 

Art. 14 (3) - Member States shall ensure 
that certification schemes or equivalent 
qualification schemes become or are 
available by 31 December 2012 […]. 
Those schemes may take into account 
existing schemes and structures as 
appropriate, and shall be based on the 
criteria laid down in Annex IV. 

447 In 2012, the Concerted Action RES reported that not all Member States were ready with the set-up of the certification schemes for the 5 
technologies mentioned. Only 35% of Member States were ready with the certification for boilers and stoves installers, 50% for PV installers, 
40%  for  solar  thermal,  20%  for  shallow  geothermal  and  40%  for  heat  pumps.  See:  BUILD  UP  Skills  –  EU  overview  report.  Staff  working 
document, Oct.2013 (revised in June 2014), available at: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/files/library/doc/overview-report.pdf  

195 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation  - 
Annexes 

Public 
availability 

Training 
programmes 

become or are available for 
providers of energy services, 
energy audits, energy managers 
and installers of energy-related 
building elements as defined in 
Article 2(9) of Directive 
2010/31/EU. 
Art. 16(3) - Member States shall 
make publicly available the 
certification and/or accreditation 
schemes or equivalent 
qualification schemes referred to 
in paragraph 1 […]. 
Member States shall take 
appropriate measures to make 
consumers aware of the 
availability of qualification 
and/or certification schemes in 
accordance with Article 18(1). 
Art. 8 (3) - Member States shall 
encourage training programmes 
for the qualification of energy 
auditors in order to facilitate 
sufficient availability of experts. 

Art. 16 (1) - Where a Member 
State considers that the national 
level of technical competence, 
objectivity and reliability is 
insufficient, it shall ensure that, 
by 31 December 2014, 
certification and/or accreditation 
schemes and/or equivalent 
qualification schemes, including, 
where necessary, suitable 
training programmes, become 

Art. 17 - Member States shall make 
available to the public information 
on training and accreditations. 
Member States shall ensure that 
either regularly updated lists of 
qualified and/or accredited experts 
or regularly updated lists of 
accredited companies which offer 
the services of such experts are 
made available to the public. 

Art. 14 (4) - Member States shall make 
available to the public information on 
certification schemes or equivalent 
qualification schemes as referred to in 
paragraph 3. Member States may also 
make available the list of installers who are 
qualified or certified in accordance with the 
provisions referred to in paragraph 3. 

Art. 20 (3) - Member States shall 
ensure that guidance and training 
are made available for those 
responsible for implementing this 
Directive. Such guidance and 
training shall address the 
importance of improving energy 
performance, and shall enable 
consideration of the optimal 
combination of improvements in 
energy efficiency, use of energy 
from renewable sources and use of 
district heating and cooling when 
planning, designing, building and 
renovating industrial or residential 
areas. 

Annex IV – 2. Biomass, heat pump, shallow 
geothermal and solar photovoltaic and solar 
thermal installers shall be certified by an 
accredited training programme or training 
provider. 
3. The accreditation of the training 
programme or provider shall be effected by 
Member States or administrative bodies 
they appoint. The accrediting body shall 
ensure that the training programme offered 
by the training provider has continuity and 
regional or national coverage. The training 
provider shall have adequate technical 
facilities to provide practical training, 
including some laboratory equipment or 
corresponding facilities to provide practical 
training. The training provider shall also 

196 

 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation  - 
Annexes 

or are available for providers of 
energy services, energy audits, 
energy managers and installers 
of energy-related building 
elements as defined in Article 
2(9) of Directive 2010/31/EU. 

offer in addition to the basic training, 
shorter refresher courses on topical issues, 
including on new technologies, to enable 
life-long learning in installations. The 
training provider may be the manufacturer 
of the equipment or system, institutes or 
associations. 
4. The training leading to installer 
certification or qualification shall include 
both theoretical and practical parts. At the 
end of the training, the installer must have 
the skills required to install the relevant 
equipment and systems to meet the 
performance and reliability needs of the 
customer, incorporate quality 
craftsmanship, and comply with all 
applicable codes and standards, including 
energy and eco-labelling. 
5. The training course shall end with an 
examination leading to a certificate or 
qualification. The examination shall include 
a practical assessment of successfully 
installing biomass boilers or stoves, heat 
pumps, shallow geothermal installations, 
solar photovoltaic or solar thermal 
installations. 
6. (a) Accredited training programmes 
should be offered to installers with work 
experience, who have undergone, or are 
undergoing, the following types of training: 
[…] 
(e) The installer certification should be time 
restricted, so that a refresher seminar or 
event would be necessary for continued 
certification. 

197 

 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

The EPBD, EED and RESD  all create the legal obligation for Member States to ensure that the 
experts,  inspectors,  energy  auditors  and  installers  have  the  necessary  accreditations  and 
qualifications – although the EPBD does not explicitly oblige the Member States to ensure the 
availability  of  these  accreditation  and  qualification  schemes.  The  importance  of  training  the 
experts is also underlined, especially in the EED and even more in the RESD.448 CA EPBD has 
recognised  that  there  are  “significant  potential  interactions  or  intersections  between  the 
obligations  and  needs  to  be  addressed  by  provisions  in  both  the  EPBD  and  EED  regarding 
training,  accreditation,  certification  and  registration  of  experts”449.  In  its  latest  publication  on 
synergies between EPBD,  EED and RESD, it states that “[t]raining and accreditation schemes 
are  an  area  of  potential  synergy”.450  And  there  is  not  only  synergy,  but  also  overlap  “where 
certification in the EPBD, and to some extent the RESD, covers a subset of the energy professions 
that  can  be  certified  under  the  EED”451.  This  hangs  closely  together  with  the  following  two 
considerations:  

  The  EPBD  increasingly  focuses  on  the  integration  of  renewable  energy  sources  when 

calculating the ‘minimum requirements of energy performance of buildings’.452  

  The  scope of the  EED is much  wider than the  scope of the EPBD  and  energy auditing, 
hence,  requires  a  wider  range  of  professional  experience  and  broader  knowledge  than 
inspections  alone.  In  fact,  energy  auditing  includes  reporting  on  heating  and  air-
conditioning systems in buildings and needs to draw a reliable picture of overall energy 
performance (ref. EPC). The EPBD is thus a subset of and may provide useful input to the 
energy audits in the EED. For example, it is possible for qualified energy auditors in the 
framework of the EED to be recognised as qualified experts to deliver EPCs in buildings. 
Qualified  experts  to  deliver  EPCs  in  buildings  could  be  targeted  for  training  to  become 
qualified energy auditors.453 

The Exhibit below gives a simple illustration. 

Exhibit 3.13  EPBD experts versus EED experts 

Source: J. Magyar, CA EED – Core Theme 6 

All qualification/accreditation schemes and training programmes can thus have the same basis 

448 See, e.g.: BUILD UP Skills – EU overview report. Staff working document, Oct.2013 (revised in June 
2014), available at: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/files/library/doc/overview-report.pdf  
449 CA EPBD, Training – Overview and Outcomes, Aug. 2015. 
450  CA  EPBD,  2016  Implementing  the  Energy  Performance  of  Buildings  Directive,  Sept.  2015,  p.  104, 
available at: http://www.epbd-ca.eu/outcomes/2011-2015/CA3-BOOK-2016-A-web.pdf  
451 CA EED, Consumer information programmes, training and certification of professionals, July 2015. 
452 CA EPBD, Training – Overview and Outcomes, Aug. 2015. 
453  Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  Guidance  note  on  Directive  2012/27/EU  on  energy  efficiency, 
amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EC, and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC, 
Article 8: Energy audits and  energy management  systems Accompanying  the document  Communication 
from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  Implementing  the  Energy  Efficiency 
Directive – Commission Guidance, SWD(2013)447final. 

198 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

but differ in the details. CA EPBD is therefore proposing Member States to  “develop and offer 
modular  education  schemes  to  train  experts  that  can  perform  EPBD  and  EED  assessments, 
leading  to  substantial  cost  reduction  for  building  owners”.454  CA  EPBD  further  states  that 
“[m]odular training of experts has some benefits, e.g., experts can be trained specifically in the 
particular sector they are interested in, and can expand their training as and when they wish, 
without having to undergo training in the areas where they are already qualified.” It is, in theory, 
possible that one and the same person could perform all building assessments if he passes the 
necessary exams and meets the obligatory requirements. There is hence the possibility to create 
true synergies and avoid duplicated efforts. The different accreditation/qualification schemes and 
modalities foreseen in all three Directives correspond to different needs, leading to the fact that 
different persons are providing the services of energy certification, regular inspection, auditing 
and the installation of small-scale renewable energy systems.  

One important recommendation in order to create synergies is to work upon one harmonised set 
of definitions with regard to the quality schemes aiming at giving assurance regarding the skills 
of  the  energy  expert.  These  schemes  now  have  different  names  (including  certification, 
qualification, label and accreditation) – at EU level and at national level - and the meaning of 
these  words  can  be  quite  different  from  one  country  to  another.455  This  may  lead  to 
insurmountable  obstacles  in  discussions  between  people  from  different  countries  and  having 
different native languages. 

However,  also  in  this  case,  harmonization  and  coordination  at  Member  State  level  is  not 
straightforward. Qualification and training remains a competence of Member States and, in most 
Member  States,  different  ministries  are  responsible  for  –  especially  –  the  EPBD  and  the 
EED/RESD,  also  leading  to  different  approaches  with  regard  to  the  accreditation  and/or 
qualification  schemes  and  to  the  training  programmes.456  457  Indeed,  experts  carrying  out 
inspections, audits and EPCs need to  fulfil different  requirements  with regard to their level of 
education and/or length of experience. In addition, CA EPBD has proven that there is currently 
still a lack of “accredited institutions offering the required training at sufficient quality” and “EPC 
assessors  are  often  certified  by  a  public  compulsory  procedure,  while  energy  auditors  are 
normally part of voluntary schemes”, creating a difficult dialogue due to different interests. 458 
Further,  the  fact  that  the  EED  allows  for  in-house  experts  to  perform  energy  audits,  while 
external experts are needed according to the EPBD is seen as an inconsistency or gap.459 Also, 
the remark has been made that, while qualifications are achieved once and for all, certification 
needs to be reviewed every X number of years, leading to a clear inconsistency. 

Further,  the  existing  certification  and  qualification  schemes  for  installers  of  small-scale 
renewable energy systems in buildings are so diverse among themselves that any harmonization 
with the schemes and training programmes foreseen under the EED and EPBD is impeded. As 
ADEME  has  demonstrated,  “a  scheme  might  be  implemented  by  public  authorities  or  private 
organisms, and both have proved to work. Some certifying bodies [for RES installers] comply 
with an international norm (such as ISO 17024) or have been accredited by the national body. 
Other bodies have been created by the stakeholders themselves, involved in the RES sector, and 
have  been  implemented  following  a  collaborative  initiative  between  installers’  unions  and 
industry  sectors.  Most  of  the  schemes  implemented  have  started  with  one  technology  (most 
often solar thermal installations or heat pumps) and some have then been extended to integrate 

454 CA EPBD, Training – Overview and Outcomes, Aug. 2015. 
455  This recommendation has also been given be ADEME with regard  to the RES  industry. See: ADEME, 
QualiCert Publishable report  -  Quality certification  &  accreditation for installers of small-scale  renewable 
energy systems, supported by Intelligent Energy Europe, 2012. 
456 See, e.g.: ENFORCE, Comparison of building certification and energy auditor training in Europe, Sept. 
2010, 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/sites/iee-
projects/files/projects/documents/enforce_european_comparison_energy_auditors_training_en.pdf 
457  It  has  therefore  been  proposed  to  install  a  central  contact  point  at  national  level.  See:  CA  EED, 
Availability  of  qualification,  accreditation  and  certification  schemes,  Executive  Summary  6.4  Consumer 
information programmes, training and certification of professionals, Nov. 2014 
458 Taken from: CA EPBD, Training – Overview and Outcomes, Aug. 2015. 
459 Ecofys, Public Consultation on the Evaluation of the EPBD, Final Report, Nov. 2015. 

available 

at: 

199 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

other  technologies.  Beyond  these  intrinsic  characteristics,  it  was  found  that  the  success  of  a 
scheme  very  much  depends  on  the  way  in  which  it  is  implemented.  In  particular,  a  purely 
voluntary  scheme  and  one  linked  to  a  subsidy  programme  will  draw  very  different  results. 
Training for RES installers may be provided by different training infrastructures depending on 
the country. The training structures may [or may not] be accredited.”460 After the 2012 public 
consultation  on  the  renewable  energy  strategy,  some  conclusions  were  already  drawn  with 
regard  to  the  certification  and  qualification  schemes  for  installers  of  small-scale  renewable 
energy systems.461 In particular, the length and complexity of administrative procedures relating 
to authorisation, certification and licensing was identified as a key obstacle to further growth of 
renewables by most respondents. 

Finally, also the implementation of Article 14(3) of the RESD in various Member States differs 
considerably.462  In  France,  for  example,  a  very  strict  interpretation  is  maintained  as  both 
certification  and  formal  training  are  required.  Other  countries,  on  the  other  hand,  have 
introduced the liberty to choose between the certification scheme or the equivalent qualification 
scheme.  Also  in  France,  certification  has  –  in  practice  –  become  compulsory  (it  is  extremely 
difficult to install e.g. photovoltaic panels if you are not certified). This political pressure against 
‘simple’ qualifications has been a more general concern and has been seen in many forms. In 
Belgium,  for  example,  even  though  certification  is  not  obligatory,  it  is  required  in  public 
procurement  cases  or  for  accessing  certain  subsidies.  Not  surprisingly,  most  installers  of  RES 
systems  want  to  see  this  practice  overturned,  as  equivalent  qualification  schemes  take  into 
account previous professional experience, without having the obligation to undergo numerous 
compulsory  and recurrent training programmes; installers are, after all, constantly trained on 
the job. Also, installers of RES systems are very often electricians, plumbers, roofers, or other 
craft  professionals  who  are  already  contributing  to  RES  in  buildings  –  therefore,  equivalent 
qualification  should  suffice.  SMEs  are  also  highly  in  favour  of  the  equivalent  qualification 
schemes,  as  certification  would  limit  market  access  for  SMEs  (due  to  their  high  costs)  and, 
currently,  only  1  to  2  percent  of  companies  in  Europe  are  certified.  Therefore,  the  mid-term 
evaluation on the RESD has concluded, amongst others, that the “guidelines for certification or 
qualification training should be more specific as to the depth and length of training. However, 
this should take into account past and ongoing efforts in Member States, as some already have 
well organised certification and training in place.”463 

To conclude, there is a high potential for overlap between the EED, EPBD and RESD with regard 
to the accreditation and training systems for experts. Further coordination and integration, at 
EU and at national level, is recommended. The lack of a better coordination may result in entry 
costs, and thus barriers, in the various markets for professionals. 

3.4 Conclusions 

The comparative analysis of the EED, EPBD and RESD confirms that there is great synergy with 
regard to their objectives. The conclusion that external coherence does not raise a major issue 
fits with the conclusions of the Public Consultation on the Evaluation of the EPBD and with the 
evaluation of the EPBD.464 The related report has stated the following: “The EPBD and the EED 
have  linked  effects  on  the  realisation  of  the  objectives  of  the  EPBD”.465  In  addition,  “[a]s  the 
EPBD  aims  to  reduce  the  energy  consumption  of  buildings  as  well  as  to  increase  the  use  of 
energy  from  renewable  sources,  the  EPBD  is  also  connected  to  the  Renewables  Directives 
(2009/28/EC) (RED) and vice versa.” According to the stakeholders interviewed by Ecofys in the 
context of the EPBD ex-post evaluation, the streamlined approach of the EBPD and the RESD 

460 ADEME, QualiCert Manual - A common approach for certification or equivalent qualification of installers 
of small-scale renewable energy systems in buildings, March 2011. 
461 European Commission, Executive Summary, Consultation on the renewable energy strategy, 2012. 
462 Based upon the interviews with stakeholders in 10 Member States. 
463 CE DELFT, Mid-term evaluation of the Renewable Energy Directive. A study in the context of the REFIT 
programme, prepared for DG Energy, April 2015. 
464 EPBD Evaluation Study. 
465 Ibid, p. 165-166. 

200 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

has led to an increased uptake of renewables in buildings. 
There are some important overlaps between the EED, EPBD and RESD which may impact on the 
construction sector. Further to the differences in definitions and scope, the most important issue 
relates to the certification of buildings and building units (EPC, inspections and energy audits), 
and  their  related  certification/qualification  schemes  and  training  programmes.  Due  to  the 
existence of some overlaps with regard to the more substantive requirements of the EED, EPBD 
and  RESD,  a  number  of  stakeholders  suggest  fully  integrating  the  energy  performance  of 
buildings in the EED466 or to have only one directive entirely focusing on buildings (i.e. separating 
the EED into two directives – one for industry and another one for the building sector)467, due to 
the varying nature of the different sectors covered under the EED. The report on the 2014 public 
consultation on the review of progress on the 2020 energy efficiency objective,  in turn, suggests 
that the building-related provisions of the EED (i.e. Articles 4 and 5) should be incorporated in 
the EPBD to have a “single and powerful policy instrument”.468 Similarly to this suggestion, the 
report on the 2015 EPBD public consultation states that a single and robust renovation strategy 
should be required, “rather than provisions under EPBD and under EED separately and linking to 
each other”.469 On the whole, numerous stakeholders are of the opinion that it is confusing that 
the energy performance of buildings is targeted in three different directives.  

466 See the reactions to question 1.2 of the 2015 EED public consultation. See also: Report of the public 
consultation  on  the  review  of  progress  on  the  2020  energy  efficiency  objective,  2014,  available  at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2014_summary_report_energy2020.pdf  
467 Anonymous contribution to question 1.2 of the 2015 EED public consultation. 
468 European Commission (2014), Report of the public consultation on the review of progress on the 2020 
energy  efficiency  objective,  available  at:  https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/ 
2014_summary_report_energy2020.pdf (last accessed on May 2016). 
469 EPBD Evaluation Study, at p. 160. 

201 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

4. CONSTRUCTION-RELATED EU LEGAL INSTRUMENTS ENHANCING MOBILITY 
OF PROFESSIONALS IN THE EU AND FREE MOVEMENT OF SERVICES: Services 
Directive, Professional Qualifications Directive, and Late Payments Directive  

The  previous  section  of  this  coherence  assessment  dealt  with  product  and  energy  efficiency 
requirements  for  materials,  construction  products  or  works  in  the  construction  sector.  The 
instruments  thus  focused  on  the  free  movement  of  goods  in  the  EU  market  and  on  the 
achievement of the EU´s overarching climate and energy objectives from the perspective of the 
construction sector. The current section focuses on the professionals in the construction sector 
and their free movement in the EU. It thus concerns the possibility for these persons to either 
establish themselves in a different Member State or to provide services on a temporary basis in 
another Member State. To this end, this chapter covers in particular the 2006 Services Directive 
and the 2005 Directive on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, as amended in 
2013.   

Under this chapter, we will finally consider the coherence of this legal framework with Directive 
2011/7/EU on late payments. 

4.1 Objectives of the Services Directive and the Professional Qualifications Directive 
and their relevance to the construction sector 

The Services Directive (SD) was adopted in 2006 with the objective of eliminating the remaining 
obstacles to the freedom of establishment for providers in the Member States and to the free 
provision  of  services  between  Member  States.470  It  requires  Member  States  to  simplify  the 
procedures that service providers need to comply with when setting up a business or providing 
services  in  another  Member  State.  The  SD  does  not  deal  with  qualification  requirements  but 
regulates other aspects of free movement of professionals (e.g. tariffs, legal form requirements, 
ownership  requirements,  etc.).471    The  mutual  recognition  of  professional  qualifications  is 
regulated by Directive 2005/36/EC (PQD). Pursuant to the PQD, a Member State which makes 
access to or the pursuit of a regulated profession in its territory contingent upon possession of 
specific  professional  qualifications  shall  recognise  professional  qualifications  obtained  in  other 
Member  States  and  which  allow  the  holder  of  the  said  qualifications  to  pursue  the  same 
profession there, for access to and pursuit of that profession.472 It also regulates partial access 
to a regulated profession and recognition of professional traineeships pursued in another Member 
State.473 The system was modernised in 2013 through amendments to the 2005 PQD, an issue 
that  was  identified  as  a  priority  in  the  2011  Single  Market  Act.474  Improving  access  to 
professions,  in  particular  through  a  more  flexible  and  transparent  regulatory  environment  in 
Member States, would facilitate the mobility of qualified professionals within the internal market 
and the cross-border provision of professional services.475  

The  SD  and  PQD  thus  aim  at  making  the  free  provision  of  services  within  the  Community  as 
simple as within an individual Member State. They share the same general objective of removing 
obstacles  to  the  free  movement  of  services  and  enhancing  professional  mobility  in  the  EU 
through  different  complementary  measures,  in  line  with  the  requirements  of  the  TFEU. 476 

470 Recitals Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market. 
471 European Commission, Evaluation of the professional qualifications Directive (Directive 2005/36/EC), 5 
July 2011 
472 Article 1 Directive 2005/36/EC on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications 
473 Article 1 Directive 2005/36/EC on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications 
474 Communication from the Commission, Single Market Act, Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen 
confidence, “Working together to create new growth”, COM(2011)206, SEC(2011)467 
475  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  on  Evaluating  national  regulations  on  access  to  professions, 
COM(2013)676, 2013. 
476 Article 3(1)(c) of the Treaty establishes the abolition of obstacles to the free movement of persons and 
services as one of the objectives of the Community. For nationals of the Member States, this includes, in 
particular, the right to pursue a profession, in a self-employed or employed capacity, in a Member State 

202 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Construction companies have a high potential for mobility due to the nature of the services they 
provide.477  Moreover,  there  are  many  regulated  professions  in  the  construction  sector  (e.g. 
architects, engineers, electricians, etc.).478 Hence, the correct implementation of both Directives 
is important for ensuring the mobility of professionals in the construction sector in the EU internal 
market.  

The  objectives  of  the  SD  and  PQD  are  overall  considered  complementary  and  coherent. 
Implementation reports on the SD and PQD479 and stakeholders do not point to inconsistencies 
among the objectives of both instruments. On the contrary, each of the instruments is considered 
to  clearly  aim  at  achieving  specific  complementary  objectives  within  the  overall  objective  of 
achieving  a  fully  functional internal  market  for  services.  In  spite  of  progress  made,  the  2015 
Communication  on  Upgrading  the  Single  Market  however  still  identifies  several  obstacles 
affecting mobility of professionals across Member States.480 These issues of implementation and 
how they may affect the coherence of the instruments will be discussed below.  

4.2 Scope and definitions of the Services Directive and the Professional Qualifications 
Directive 

The  PQD  applies  to  all Member  State  nationals  wishing  to  practise  a  regulated  profession,  on 
either a self-employed or employed basis, in a Member State other than the one in which they 
obtained their professional qualifications.481 Both the PQD and the SD make a distinction between 
‘freedom  to  provide  services’  and  ‘freedom  of  establishment’.  While  the  PQD  covers  the 
recognition of professional qualifications, use of titles and knowledge of languages as well as any 
other  requirements  under  national  legislation  restricting  access  to  a  profession,  the  SD  deals 
with  other  requirements,  such  as  tariffs,  legal form  requirements  or  ownership  requirements, 
among  others.  The  SD  covers  a  large  variety  of  sectors  ranging  from  traditional  activities  to 
knowledge-based  services,  including  services  in  the  construction  sector.482  Therefore  both 
Directives are considered to complement each other whilst covering different aspects of the free 
movement of professionals.483  

As  mentioned  in  recital  31  of  the  SD:  “This  Directive  is  consistent  with  and  does  not  affect 
Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on 
the recognition of professional qualifications. It deals with questions other than those relating to 

other than the one in which they have obtained their professional qualifications. Article 47(1) of the Treaty 
lays  down  that  directives  shall  be  issued  for  the  mutual  recognition  of  diplomas,  certificates  and  other 
evidence of formal qualifications. 
477  The construction itself generally takes place at its final destination, and many other specialised services 
that contribute to it are also dispatched on site more or less regularly. 
478 Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment accompanying the Proposal for a Directive of 
the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  amending  Directive  2005/36/EC  on  the  recognition  of 
professional  qualifications  and  Regulation  on  administrative  cooperation  through  the  Internal  Market 
Information System, COM(2011)883, 2011. 
479 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the implementation of the Services Directive. 
A  partnership  for  new  growth  in  services  2012-2015,  COM(2012)  261,  2012,  European  Commission, 
Evaluation of the professional qualifications Directive (Directive 2005/36/EC), 5 July 2011, Communication 
from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  on  Evaluating  national  regulations  on  access  to  professions,  COM(2013)676,  2013  and 
Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  Detailed  information  on  the  implementation  of  Directive 
2006/123/EC on services in the internal Market, SWD(2012) 148 final. 
480 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Upgrading the Single Market: more opportunities 
for people and business, COM(2015)550, 2015. 
481 Article 2, Directive 2005/36/EC on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications 
482 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the implementation of the Services Directive. 
A partnership for new growth in services 2012-2015, COM(2012) 261, 2012. 
483  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  on  the  transposition  and  implementation  of  the  Professional 
Qualifications Directive, SEC (2010) 1292. 

203 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

for  example  professional 

professional  qualifications, 
insurance,  commercial 
communications,  multidisciplinary  activities  and  administrative  simplification.  With  regard  to 
temporary cross-border service provisions, a derogation from the provision on the freedom to 
provide services in this Directive ensures that Title II on the free provision of services of Directive 
2005/36/EC is not affected. Therefore, none of the measures applicable under that Directive in 
the Member State where the service is provided is affected by the provision on the freedom to 
provide services.” For matters not relating to professional qualifications, the "Services Directive" 
applies to those regulated professions that fall within its scope.484  

liability 

Consistency in the definitions is ensured through a specific cross-reference to the PQD in the 
definition of ´regulated professions´ under the SD.485 Regulated profession is defined in the SD 
as ´a professional activity or a group of professional activities as referred to in Article 3(1)(a) of 
the PQD’. 

4.3  Substantive  requirements  of  the  Services  Directive  and  the  Professional 
Qualifications Directive 

The PQD regulates both the freedom of establishment and the freedom of providing services on 
a temporary basis for EU citizens performing a professional activity through different regimes. 
For the freedom of establishment, three recognition regimes are foreseen: 

1.  The  automatic  recognition  system  based  on  harmonised  minimum  training 

requirements, currently applicable i.a. to architects; 

2.  The  automatic  recognition  system  based  on  professional  experience,  currently 

applicable to certain craft activities; 

3.  The general system, applicable to all professions not covered by specific rules and to 
professionals  that  do  not  meet  the  conditions  of  the  other  recognition  systems,  i.a. 
engineers, architects whose title is not included in Annex V to the PQD, and craftsmen 
without sufficient working experience to access the automatic recognition system.  

As  for  temporary  service  provision  (‘temporary  mobility’),  regulating  the  freedom  to  provide 
services,  an  EU  citizen  may  occasionally  and  temporarily  provide  services  in  a  Member  State 
other than the one where he is established. The host Member State may only require a yearly 
declaration  including  details  of  insurance  cover,  nationality  and  professional  qualifications.  It 
may also conduct a prior check of these qualifications when the profession has public health and 
safety implications and is not subject to automatic recognition.  

The amended PQD also provides for the introduction by 2016 of a European Professional Card 
(EPC), taking the form of an electronic certificate. The EPC will be delivered in the home MS and 
transmitted via the Internal Market System (IMI) to the host MS, to present the documents for 
the  recognition  process,  both  for  permanent  and  temporal  mobility.486  However,  it  should  be 
noted that the EPC has so far been only introduced for five professions, which do not concern 
the construction sector. 

The  SD,  on  the  other  hand,  establishes  a  broad  framework  for  ensuring  the  cross-border 
provision of services in the EU. Similarly to the PQD, the SD distinguishes between the freedom 
of establishment and the freedom of providing services on a temporary basis. The SD imposes 
obligations on Member States to remove obstacles to the freedom to provide services by service 
providers originating from another Member State. To this end, the SD requires Member States 
to simplify their procedures for providers to set up or carry out service activities in their territory. 
Member States are also required to establish Points of Single Contact where service providers 
can obtain information and carry out all formalities required to provide services in the country. 
The  SD  also  prohibits  Member  States  to  implement  authorisation  schemes  that  would  be 
discriminatory,  disproportional  or  not  justified  by  overriding  reasons  of  public  interest  and  to 

EC 

website, 

484 
professionals/qualifications-recognition/index_en.htm 
485 Article 4, 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market 
486 Dr Katerina-Marina Kyrieri, “The Modernised Directive on Professional Qualifications and its Impact on 
National Legislations, 2014. 

http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/services/free-movement-

204 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

have residence or nationality conditions for providing services. Overall, the SD establishes the 
obligation  for  Member  States  to  guarantee  the  free  movement  of  services.  While  access 
requirements may exist for regulated professions in the Member State, these should be in line 
with  the  requirements  of  the  PQD.  Finally,  the  SD  also  establishes  requirements  for 
administrative cooperation between Member States. These include the obligation, for instance, 
to provide mutual assistance to each other and to establish electronic exchange of information 
systems.  

The SD and PQD refer in several instances to the mutual complementarity of the requirements 
established under each instrument with a view to achieve the internal market for services, as 
illustrated in the section on scope above.  

The 2011 evaluation of the 2005 PQD Directive identified several areas where the coherence and 
interaction between the procedures under both Directives could be enhanced. For instance, the 
Commission proposal for the 2013 amending PQD noted that the obligations for Member States 
to exchange information had to be reinforced similar to the alert system existing under the SD.487 
The proposal also noted that one of the major difficulties a citizen who is interested to work in 
another Member State is facing, is complexity and uncertainty of administrative procedures to 
comply with under the PQD. The report noted that the single points of contact established under 
the SD should be used for the purposes of the PQD. Such changes have been introduced in the 
amended  PQD  Directive,  which,  for  instance,  requires  Member  States  to  ensure  that  certain 
information is available online and regularly updated through the points of single contact referred 
to in Article 6 of Directive 2006/123/EC and that all requirements, procedures and formalities 
relating to matters  covered by the PQD may  be  easily completed, remotely and by  electronic 
means, through the relevant point of single contact or the relevant competent authorities. 

Following the positive experience with the mutual evaluation under the SD, the EC proposal also 
recommended that a similar evaluation system should be included in the PQD, with a view to 
contribute to more transparency in the professional services market. A similar exercise of mutual 
evaluation has started under the PQD.  Each Member State will be required to actively perform 
a review and to modernise their regulations on qualifications governing access to professions or 
professional titles.488  

Several  initiatives  have  thus  been  undertaken  to  improve  the  coherence  of  the  parallel 
complementary procedures under the SD and the PQD, with a view to enhance the mobility of 
professionals in the EU. As noted by the Architect´s Council of Europe, the interplay between 
the SD and the PQD  appears to work reasonably well as far as the architectural profession is 
concerned.489  While the substantive requirements of the SD and PQD have thus been largely 
aligned,  the  implementation  of  the  free  movement  of  services  in  the  construction  sector  in 
practice  still  raises  problems.  Stakeholders  note,  for  instance,  that  mutual  recognition  in  the 
construction sector is still not working in certain cases, even when professional qualifications are 
involved  and  the  PQD  also  applies  (such  as  with  professional  capacity,  certification,  and 
organisational  health  and  safety  requirements).  Another  particular  obstacle,  for  example, 
highlighted by stakeholders is that some Member States only accept foreign documents if they 
are authenticated by local professionals (e.g. translators, notaries). Another stakeholder notes 
that the SD did not have a significant effect on the ground for the construction sector and related 
services due to a lack of sector-specific implementation (see section 4 above). A recent study 
by Ecorys on simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the Services 
Directive identified several obstacles to the free provision of services in the construction sector. 
The report concluded that several horizontal authorisation schemes identified in several Member 

487 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2005/36/EC 
on the recognition of professional qualifications and Regulation on administrative cooperation through the 
Internal Market Information System, COM(2011) 883, 2011. 
488  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  on  Evaluating  national  regulations  on  access  to  professions, 
COM(2013)676, 2013. 
489 Architect´s Council of Europe, Response to consultation on the internal market for services. 2 May 2015. 

205 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

States did not appear to be justified and proportionate under the Services Directive.490 Moreover, 
the study identified a lack of mutual recognition rules in some Member States for requirements 
regarding  technical/professional  capacity,  registration  and  certification,  and  organisational 
health  and  safety  requirements.491  The  challenges  related  to  implementation  of  the  internal 
market rules for services are addressed in the next section.  

The  mutual  evaluation  exercises  introduced  under  the  SD  and  the  amended  PQD  should  help 
identify the existing obstacles to the free movement of services in the EU.  

4.4 Challenges related to implementation of internal market rules 

In spite of progress made towards the achievement of the internal market for services, the 2015 
Communication on Upgrading the Single Market still identifies several obstacles in relation to the 
SD  and  the  PQD,  which  affect  mobility  of  professionals  in  other  Member  States.492  The  2012 
performance  checks  of  the  internal  market  for  services,  which  focused  particularly  on  the 
construction sector, noted that while the objectives of these Directives are shared, a number of 
significant  challenges  still  existed  for  businesses,  in  particular  where  they  wish  to  provide 
services in other Member States.493 The report noted that businesses are often confronted with 
requirements  imposed  on  them  in  addition to  those  to  which  they  are  subject  in  the  Member 
State  where  they  are  established.  Problems  are  also  considered  to  be  a  consequence  of  the 
incomplete or incorrect implementation of the SD, the PQD or the E-Commerce Directive.  

The 2012 State of play of the internal market in the construction sector494 noted that the level 
and intensity of regulation of the activities of the construction sector and the regulatory options 
taken  vary  considerably  between  the  Member  States:  “There  are  Member  States  in  which 
services activities in the construction sector are generally not regulated as such and where these 
activities can be provided by anybody, qualified professional or not. In these countries (Finland, 
Sweden,  the  Netherlands),  individual  construction  projects  and  activities  are  subject  to 
requirements related to environmental and spatial planning rules but are not reserved to specific 
service providers or professionals. In other Member States, construction services activities are 
in generally reserved to specific regulated professions. Between these two systems there is a 
multitude of regulatory situations in the Member States.”495 Business Europe noted in 2014 that 
the high number of regulated professions in some Member States hampers service provision or 
establishment  across  borders,  and  stressed  the  importance  of  the  evaluation  exercise  taking 
place under the SD and PQD to remove such barriers to the free movement of services.496   

The Commission Staff Working Document on the results of the performance checks highlights a 
number of instances of deficient implementation of the SD and the PQD which jointly affect the 

490  Ecorys  Nederland,  in  association  with  Delft,  University  of  Technology,  “Simplification  and  mutual 
recognition  in  the  construction  sector  under  the  Services  Directive,  November  2015,  published  on  the 
European Commission website, DG MARKT.  
491  Ecorys  Nederland,  in  association  with  Delft,  University  of  Technology,  “Simplification  and  mutual 
recognition  in  the  construction  sector  under  the  Services  Directive,  November  2015,  published  on  the 
European Commission website, DG MARKT. 
492 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Upgrading the Single Market: more opportunities 
for people and business, COM(2015)550, 2015. 
493 Commission Staff Working Document on the result of the performance checks of the internal market for 
services  (construction,  business  services  and  tourism)  accompanying  the  Communication  from  the 
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and 
the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  the  implementation  of  the  Services  Directive.  A  partnership  for  new 
growth in services 2012-2016, COM(2012)261 and SWD(2012)147, 2012. 
494  2012 State of play of the  internal  market  in the construction sector, Background Note Expert Group 
Meeting 22nd March 2012. 
495 Ibid. 
496 Business Europe, “Remaining obstacles to a true single market for services, 15 December 2014. 

206 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

mobility of professionals in the construction sector.497  The report points, for instance, to the fact 
that, in the construction sector, some Member States carry out prior checks of qualifications for 
professions that should benefit from automatic recognition, such as architects. It also identifies 
additional notification or authorisation obligations and insurance obligations. The specific report 
on  the  construction  sector  also  notes  that  most  Member  States  do  not  seem  to  impose  any 
horizontal  authorisation  on  construction  service  providers.498  However,  some  Member  States 
seem to have authorisation schemes under the SD which apply to economic activities / services 
in a rather horizontal manner, thus affecting also the construction sector.   

The  2015  study  on  simplification  and  mutual  recognition in  the  construction  sector  under  the 
Services Directive, moreover, identified several horizontal authorization schemes which do not 
appear justified on the basis of the Services Directive.499 Moreover, stakeholders noted in this 
study that there are still important problems with the provision of services in another Member 
State.  For  example,  stakeholders  point  to  problems  relating  to  the  understanding  of 
documentary  requirements  (e.g.  whether  a  translation  is  required),  the  limitation  to  locally 
registered professionals for submitting designs when applying for building permits or very costly 
insurance  obligations  to  be  recognised  in  other  Member  States.500  Finally,  it  was  found  that: 
“many  companies  choose  not  to  work  cross-border  due  to  these  problems.  If  cross  border 
services are provided, a number of different strategies are used to circumvent problems, such 
as setting up a joint venture with a local company, or hiring a local architect or firm to handle 
administrative procedures.”501 

The  2012  Communication  on  the  implementation  of  the  Services  Directive  also  found  that 
requirements  based  on  nationality  or  residence,  even  though  prohibited  under  the  SD  and 
actively  removed  by  Member  States,  were  still  applied  in  specific  sectors,  including  in  one 
Member  State  in  the  construction  sector.502      This  means  that  a  service  provider  has  to  be  a 
national  of  the  country  where  the  service  is  provided  or  be  resident  in  the  country  to  start  a 
business or, in the case of a company that its registered office has to be located in the Member 
State.  

The  performance  check  for  the  construction  sector  notes  that  the  cumulative  application  of 
internal  market  rules,  including  the  SD  and  PQD,  lacks  consistency  and  coherence.503    For 
example, tariff or legal form requirements applicable to certain professional services cannot be 
tentatively applied to cross-border providers on the basis of Article 5(3) of the PQD (since they 
are  not  directly  linked  with  professional  qualifications).  Member  States  are  only  allowed  to 
impose such rules on cross-border service providers if they are justified under Article 16 of the 
SD. Article 16 SD ensures that Member States shall not make access to or exercise of a service 

497 Commission Staff Working Document on the result of the performance checks of the internal market for 
services  (construction,  business  services  and  tourism)  accompanying  the  Communication  from  the 
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and 
the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  the  implementation  of  the  Services  Directive.  A  partnership  for  new 
growth in services 2012-2016, COM(2012)261 and SWD(2012)147, 2012. 
498  2012 State of play of the  internal  market  in the construction sector, Background Note Expert Group 
Meeting 22nd March 2012. 
499  Ecorys  Nederland,  in  association  with  Delft,  University  of  Technology,  “Simplification  and  mutual 
recognition  in  the  construction  sector  under  the  Services  Directive,  November  2015,  published  on  the 
European Commission website, DG MARKT. 
500 Ibid. 
501 Ibid. 
502  Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  Detailed  information  on  the  implementation  of  Directive 
2006/123/EC  on  services  in  the  internal  Market  Accompanying  the  document  Communication  from  the 
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and 
the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  the  implementation  of  the  Services  Directive.  A  partnership  for  new 
growth in services 2012-2015, SWD (2012) 148 final, p. 25.  
503 Commission Staff Working Document on the result of the performance checks of the internal market for 
services  (construction,  business  services  and  tourism)  accompanying  the  Communication  from  the 
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and 
the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  the  implementation  of  the  Services  Directive.  A  partnership  for  new 
growth in services 2012-2016, COM(2012)261 and SWD(2012)147, 2012. 

207 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

activity in their territory subject to compliance with any requirements which do not respect the 
principles of non-discrimination, necessity and proportionality and prohibits the introduction of 
specific requirements affecting the free provision of services, such as residency or authorisation 
requirements, in national legislation. The 2015 Communication on upgrading the single market 
announced a first step aiming to enhance the notification procedure for Member States to enable 
the Commission to verify the conformity and proportionality of new regulatory measures adopted 
in the Member States possibly affecting the free movement of services.504   

The problems highlighted above are confirmed by stakeholders throughout the interviews carried 
out under this study. Several stakeholders highlight problems with the implementation of the 
SD  and  PQD  in  the  construction  sector  affecting  the  freedom  to  provide  services  in  another 
Member  State.  For  example,  one  stakeholder  noted  that  certain  Member  States  only  accept 
documents  authenticated  by  local  professionals,  such  as  translators  or  notaries.  Another 
stakeholder  notes  that  there  is,  to  some  extent,  in  practice  an  obligation  to  hire  local  people 
instead of working with people from their country of establishment with equivalent requirements 
due to the practical obstacles on the ground. 

4.5 Directive 2011/7/EU on late payments  

Many payments in commercial transactions between economic operators or between economic 
operators contract are laid down in the general commercial conditions. Although the goods are 
delivered  or  the  services  performed,  many  corresponding  invoices  are  paid  well  after  the 
deadline.  Such  late  payment  negatively  affects  liquidity  and  complicates  the  financial 
management of undertakings.505  One of the priority actions of the Commission Communication 
of  26  November  2008  entitled  ‘European  Economic  Recovery  Plan’  was  the  reduction  of 
administrative  burdens  and  the  promotion  of  entrepreneurship,  including  through  the  timely 
payments  of  invoices.506  Directive  2011/7/EU  on  combating  late  payments  (LPD)  aims  at 
combating late payment in commercial transactions, in order to ensure the proper functioning 
of the internal market, thereby fostering the competitiveness of undertakings and in particular 
of  SMEs.507  The  overarching  purpose  of  the  Directive  is  to  improve  business  cash  flow  in  EU 
Member States, and to facilitate the functioning of the internal market through the elimination 
of barriers related to  cross-border  commercial transactions. Another important  objective is to 
contribute to the development and improvement of the Single Market.508  

The  Directive  ultimately  aims  at  contributing  to  the  free  provision  of  services  due  to  the 
elimination of obstacles to the internal market resulting from the late payments of invoices by 
businesses established in another Member State. Nevertheless, it regulates a different matter 
than the SD and PQD. The correct implementation of the LPD should however contribute to a 
level-playing  field  for  EU  businesses  in  the  construction  sector  providing  services  in  another 
Member State, in particular for SMEs. No specific inconsistencies were raised between the LPD 
and the SD in the implementation reports and interviews with stakeholders.  

4.6 Conclusions 

The SD and PQD aim at making the free provision of services within the EU as simple as within 
an individual Member State. They share the same general objective of removing obstacles to the 
free  movement  of  services  and  enhancing  professional  mobility  in  the  EU  through  different 
complementary measures. Both apply to the mobility of professionals in the construction sector.  

504 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Upgrading the Single Market: more opportunities 
for people and business, COM (2015)550, 2015. 
505 Recital 3, Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payment in commercial transactions 
506 Recital 7, Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payment in commercial transactions 
507 Article 1, Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payment in commercial transactions 
508  Valdani  Vicari  Associati,  Technopolis  Group,  Ernst  &  Young  for  the  European  Commission,  “Ex-post 
evaluation of the late payment directive”, November 2015.  

208 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

The  objectives  of  the  SD  and  PQD  are  overall  considered  complementary  and  coherent. 
Implementation reports and stakeholders do not point to inconsistencies among the general and 
specific objectives of both instruments. 

The  PQD  covers  the  recognition  of  professional  qualifications,  use  of  titles  and  knowledge  of 
languages. Moreover, the mutual evaluation exercise under the PQD requires Member States to 
examine additional requirements under their legal system restricting access to a profession. The 
SD deals with other requirements hindering the provision of services in another Member States, 
including,  for  example,  tariffs,  legal  form  or  ownership  requirements.  As  mentioned  by  the 
European  Parliament:  “for  matters  not  relating  to  professional  qualifications,  the  "Services 
Directive" applies to those regulated professions that fall within its scope.”509 The SD covers a 
large variety of sectors ranging from traditional activities to knowledge-based services, including 
services  by  construction  companies  and  professionals.  Therefore  the  two  Directives  are 
considered  to  complement  each  other  whilst  both  covering  different  aspects  of  the  free 
movement of professionals. 

The Directives cross-refer one to each other in several instances. Consistency in the definitions 
is, for example, ensured through specific cross-references to the PQD definition within the SD. 
The 2011 evaluation of the 2005 PQD Directive identified several areas where the coherence and 
interaction  between  the  procedures  under  both  Directives  could  be  enhanced.  Such  changes 
have been introduced in the amended PQD Directive, which now, for instance uses the points of 
single contact referred to in Article 6 of Directive 2006/123/EC for making available information 
on  the  PQD  and  for  easy  and  remote  completion  of  all  requirements,  procedures,  formalities 
related to the PQD.  

While  the  substantive  requirements  of  the  SD  and  PQD  have  thus  been  largely  aligned,  the 
implementation of the free movement of services in the construction sector in practice still raises 
important problems. Stakeholders note, for instance, that mutual recognition in the construction 
sector is still not working in certain cases. 

The Commission Staff Working Document on the results of the performance checks highlights a 
number of instances of deficient implementation of the SD and the PQD which jointly affect the 
mobility of professionals in the construction sector. These concern authorisation requirements 
for automatically recognised professions (i.e. architects), residence or nationality requirements 
and insurance obligations. The performance check for the construction sector also notes that the 
cumulative application of internal market rules, including the SD and PQD, lacks consistency and 
coherence.  

While the LPD ultimately also aims at contributing to the free provision of services due to the 
elimination of obstacles from the late payments of invoices, it regulates a different matter from 
the SD and PQD. The overarching purpose of the Directive is to facilitate the functioning of the 
internal  market  through  the  elimination  of  barriers  related  to  cross-border  commercial 
transactions.  No  specific  inconsistencies  were  raised  between  the  LPD  and  the  SD  in  the 
implementation reports and interviews with stakeholders. 

509 
professionals/qualifications-recognition/index_en.htm 

website, 

EC 

http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/services/free-movement-

209 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

5.  OTHER  POTENTIAL  COHERENCE  ISSUES  BETWEEN  CONSTRUCTION-
RELATED  EU  LEGAL  INSTRUMENTS  ON  ENERGY  EFFICIENCY  AND  INTERNAL 
MARKET THAT WERE GROUPED INTO DIFFERENT BLOCKS  

After having discussed coherence within each of the three main groups of EU legal instruments 
identified for the purpose of this fitness check, some of these pieces of EU legislation are also 
connected with one another outside of these groups. This is already reflected through the cross-
references within the legal text themselves. The following exhibit systematically lays down any 
cross-reference  that  the  legal  act  in  each  column  includes  to  any  of  the  other  legal  EU 
instruments. The green block refers to the coherence subsection on the EPBD, EED and RESD; 
the orange block to the coherence subsection on the EDD, ELD and CPR; and the purple block 
to the coherence subsection on the PQD, SD and LPC.   

Exhibit 5.1   Cross-references 

EPBD 

EED  

RESD  

EDD 

ELD 

CPR  PQD 

SD 

LPD 

EPBD 

EED 

[Dir. 
2006/32/EC] 
Rec.21, 
Art.5, 
Art.10, 
Art.14,  
Art.15 
RESD  Rec.5, 
Rec.6, 
Art.9(3)(c), 
Annex I 
Rec.12 

EDD 

ELD 

Rec.12 

[EPBD 2002] 
Rec.17, Rec.48 

[Dir. 
2006/32/EC] 
Rec.17 

[Dir.2005/32/EC] 
Rec.17  

Rec.2, 
Rec.7, 
Art.10(3)(a) 

[Dir. 
92/75/EEC] 
Rec.35 

Rec.17, 
Rec.30, 
Rec.59, 
Art.5, 
Art.9, 
Art.16, 
Art.17, 
Art.24, 
Art.27, 
Annex 
III  

Rec.14, 
Art.15, 
Art.24 

Rec.58, 
Rec.59, 
Art.27, 
Annex 
III, 
Annex 
V 
Rec.58, 
Rec.63, 
Art.6, 
Art.27, 
Annex 
III 

CPR 
PQD 

Rec.30 

Rec.50, 51 

SD 

LPD 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration 

Rec.31, 
Art.3(1)(d), 
Art. 4(11), 
Art.5(4), 
Art.15(2)(d), 
Art.17(6) 

Rec. 5, 
Art.57, 
Art.57a  

210 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

The cross-references also reveal connections between the EPBD – EED and the EDD – ELD, and 
between the EED – EPBD – RESD and the PQD. An additional connection is made between the 
EPBD and the CPR. In addition, the CPR, in Annex I, outlines basic requirements for construction 
works: although meant to serve as the basis for designing harmonised technical specifications 
for  placing  products  in  the  market,  Member  States,  while  regulating  construction  services, 
subject to the Service Directive, must take into consideration these basic requirements. In doing 
so the CPR takes precedent, as prescribed by Article 3(1) SD. 

5.1  Energy  Performance  of  Buildings  and  Energy  Efficiency  Directives  vs. 
Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Directives 

The  list  of  EU  legal  instruments  identified  for  the  purpose  of  this  fitness  check  includes  four 
directives  that  directly  relate  to  energy,  and  more  particularly  to  energy  performance  of 
buildings:  Directive  2012/27/EU  (EED),  Directive  2010/31/EU  (EPBD),  Directive  2009/125/EC 
(EDD) and Directive 2010/30/EU (ELD). The following exhibit illustrates how these four pieces 
of legislation relate to each other. 

Exhibit 5.2   Connection between EPBD - EED - EDD and ELD 

Source: Ferreira, V. (2015) State of play of EU policy on energy efficiency in buildings, EUSEW 

The EPBD and the EED are generally considered to be “the EU’s main legislation when it comes 
to reducing the energy consumption of buildings”.510 In addition, the ELD and the EDD mainly 
focus  on  the  consumption  of  energy-related  products  (e.g.  heating  and  lighting).511  As  the 
inspection of heating and air-conditioning systems – which are energy-related products –  is laid 
down in the EPBD, the EPBD is already often linked to the EDD and the ELD. Equally, the energy-
related products possibly in scope of the EDD and the ELD, though not covered by any secondary 
regulation so far (e.g. windows or insulation materials), can have a direct impact on the energy 
performance of buildings (i.e. EPBD).512 

510 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/buildings  
511 See also: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Resource Efficiency Opportunities in 
the Building Sector, COM(2014)455 final. 
512 Ecofys, Ex-post evaluation of the application of Directive 2010/31/EU, Final report, Dec. 2015, p. 163. 

211 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Scope  of  the  Energy  Performance  of  Buildings  Directive,  the  Energy  Efficiency  Directive,  the 
Ecodesign Directive and the Energy Labelling Directive 

Within the context of the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe513 and the Strategy for the 
Sustainable Competitiveness of the Construction Sector and its Enterprises514, the four directives 
aim to improve the energy performance of buildings throughout their lifecycle.515 Each have their 
specific  scope,  as  the  EED  focuses  on  energy  efficiency  in  general,  the  EPBD  focuses  on  the 
energy performance  of  buildings and the EDD  and ELD both establish particular requirements 
and/or  means  to  provide  information  on  energy  consumption  with  regard  to  energy-related 
products. It is to be noted that the ELD addresses the supply side of the product markets, while 
the EDD addresses the demand side, and the EPBD and EED address both sides. 

Exhibit 5.3   Objectives / scope of the EED, EPBD, EDD and ELD 

EED 
Art. 1(1) – This Directive 
establishes a common 
framework of measures 
for the promotion of 
energy efficiency within 
the Union in order to 
ensure the achievement 
of the Union’s 2020 20 % 
headline target on energy 
efficiency and to pave the 
way for further energy 
efficiency improvements 
beyond that date. 
It lays down rules 
designed to remove 
barriers in the energy 
market and overcome 
market failures that 
impede efficiency in the 
supply and use of 
energy, and provides for 
the establishment of 
indicative national energy 
efficiency targets for 
2020. 

EPBD 

EDD 

ELD 

Art. 1(1) – This 
Directive promotes 
the improvement 
of the energy 
performance of 
buildings within 
the Union, taking 
into account 
outdoor climatic 
and local 
conditions, as well 
as indoor climate 
requirements and 
cost-effectiveness. 

Art. 1(1) - 1. This 
Directive 
establishes a 
framework for the 
setting of 
Community 
ecodesign 
requirements for 
energy-related 
products with the 
aim of ensuring the 
free movement of 
such products 
within the internal 
market.  

Art. 1(1) - This 
Directive establishes 
a framework for the 
harmonisation of 
national measures on 
end-user 
information, 
particularly by means 
of labelling and 
standard product 
information, on the 
consumption of 
energy and where 
relevant of other 
essential resources 
during use, and 
supplementary 
information 
concerning energy-
related products, 
thereby allowing 
end-users to choose 
more efficient 
products. 

The EPBD and the EDD/ELD do not overlap with regard to their objectives as the EPBD focuses 
on the building level, components and systems, while the EDD and the ELD target energy-related 
products.516 First, however, it is necessary to have a look at the definitions involved. 

513 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  Roadmap  to  a  Resource  Efficient  Europe, 
COM(2011)571 final. 
514 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Strategy for the 
sustainable competitiveness of the construction sector and its enterprises, COM(2012)433 final. 
515  See  also  with  regard  to  the  environmental  performance  of  buildings:  Communication  from  the 
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and 
the Committee of the Regions on Resource Efficiency Opportunities in the Building Sector, COM(2014)455 
final. 
516 Ecofys, Ex-post evaluation of the application of Directive 2010/31/EU, Final report, Dec. 2015, p.46. 

212 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 5.4   Definitions in the EED, EPBD, EDD and ELD 

Technical 
building 
system 

/ 

EED 

Air-
conditioning 
system 

/ 

ELD 

EDD 
(the word building system is 
not used in the EDD, but 
‘heating and water heating 
equipment’ as well as ‘HVAC 
(heating ventilating air 
conditioning) systems’ are 
used, without providing a 
definition) 

(‘HVAC (heating ventilating 
air conditioning) systems’ is 
used in the EDD, without 
providing a definition) 

/ 

/ 

EPBD 

Art. 2(3) – 
‘Technical building 
system’ means 
technical equipment 
for the heating, 
cooling, ventilation, 
hot water, lighting 
or for a combination 
thereof, of a 
building or building 
unit; 
Art. 2(15) – ‘Air-
conditioning system’ 
means a 
combination of the 
components 
required to provide 
a form of indoor air 
treatment, by which 
temperature is 
controlled or can be 
lowered; 

213 

 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Energy-
related 
product 

/ 

Recital 58 - In order to tap the 
considerable energy-saving potential of 
energy-related products, the 
implementation of Directive 2009/125/EC 
of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a 
framework for the setting of ecodesign 
requirements for energy-related products 
and Directive 2010/30/EU of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 
19 May 2010 on the indication by 
labelling and standard product 
information of the consumption of energy 
and other resources by energy-related 
products should be accelerated and 
widened. Priority should be given to 
products offering the highest energy-
saving potential as identified by the 
Ecodesign Working Plan and the revision, 
where appropriate, of existing measures. 

Component 

/ 

(no definition even 
though the word is 
used in the EPBD, 
see e.g. definition of 
‘air-conditioning 
system’) 

Energy 
efficiency 

Art. 2(4) – ‘energy efficiency’ means the 
ratio of output of performance, service, 
goods or energy, to input of energy;  

/ 

Art. 2(1) - ‘Energy-related 
product’, (a ‘product’), means 
any good that has an impact 
on energy consumption 
during use which is placed on 
the market and/or put into 
service, and includes parts 
intended to be incorporated 
into energy-related products 
covered by this Directive 
which are placed on the 
market and/or put into 
service as individual parts for 
end-users and of which the 
environmental performance 
can be assessed 
independently; 

Art. 2(2) - ‘Components and 
sub-assemblies’ means parts 
intended to be incorporated 
into products which are not 
placed on the market and/or 
put into service as individual 
parts for endusers or the 
environmental performance 
of which cannot be assessed 
independently; 
/ 

Art. 2(a) - ‘energy-
related product’ or 
‘product’ means any 
good having an impact 
on energy consumption 
during use, which is 
placed on the market 
and/or put into service 
in the Union, including 
parts intended to be 
incorporated into 
energy-related products 
covered by this 
Directive which are 
placed on the market 
and/or put into service 
as individual parts for 
end-users and of which 
the environmental 
performance can be 
assessed 
independently; 
/  

/ 

214 

 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

While the EPBD includes definitions for ‘technical building system’ and ‘air-conditioning system’, 
similar wording is used in the EDD, without however providing a definition or a cross-reference 
to the EPBD. Equally, the EDD includes a definition of ‘components and sub-assemblies’, while 
the  EPBD  uses  the  word  ‘components’  without  referencing  a  definition.  Ecofys  has  therefore 
concluded  that  “to  support  implementation,  the  definitions  within  the  Directives  (as  e.g. 
definitions of “system” or “component”) could be streamlined”.517  It is to be further noted that 
none of the directives includes a definition of ‘energy efficiency’ even though these words are 
used throughout. Therefore, this Study suggests to add a definition of ‘energy efficiency’ aligned 
with the EED.518  The lack of streamlined definitions does, however, not impact the construction 
sector. 

Technical building systems 

According  to  Article  8  EPBD,  Member  States  are  to  set  system  requirements  for  new,  the 
replacement of and upgrading of technical building systems, including at least heating systems, 
hot water systems, air-conditioning systems and large ventilation systems (or combinations of 
such  systems).  Several  stakeholders  have  argued  that  incoherence  issues  with  the  EDD/ELD 
may arise related to the regulation of systems, although – according to Ecofys – their comments 
generally  lack  argumentation.519  For  example,  some  have  stated  that  optimizing  individual 
products could be to the detriment of system performance, hence concluding that product and 
system approaches could be in conflict. However, no example has been put forward, and the 
argument has therefore lost its attractiveness.  After having indeed considered all arguments, 
Ecofys  reached  the  conclusion  that  “[o]verall,  the  products  and  systems  approach  (under 
E[D]D/ELD and EPBD respectively) may be considered compatible, and may complement each 
other to realize a large energy savings potential. The E[D]D and ELD guarantee a good quality 
of  the  individual  heating  product,  also  if  used  for  retrofit,  while  the  EPBD  addresses  the 
performance  of  the  whole  building,  mainly  for  new  buildings.”  Indeed,  the  EDD  and  ELD  set 
specific values for the efficiency of certain energy related products, while the EPBD sets energy 
performance  standards  via  the  cost-optimality  process  at  building  or  component  level.  Even 
though there is no incoherence, the links between products, systems and buildings can still be 
less fragmented.520 

However,  ecodesign  requirements  for  individual  product  groups  which  are  created  under  the 
EDD  and  which  are  laid  down  in  specific  regulations,  may  overlap  with  Article  8  EPBD.  An 
example mentioned in the Ecofys study is the “package label” for boilers521.522 Ecofys has also 

pp. 

June 

2014, 

43-44, 

Directive 

ENER/C3/2012-523, 

517 Ecofys, Ex-post evaluation of the application of Directive 2010/31/EU, Final report, Dec. 2015, p.46. 
518 This suggestion has also been included in Draft Opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public 
Health  and  Food  Safety  for  the  Committee  on  Industry,  Research  and  Energy  on  the  proposal  for  a 
regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting a framework for energy efficiency labelling 
and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU (COM(2015)0341 – C8-0189/2015 – 2015/0149(COD)). 
519 Ecofys, Final technical report Evaluation of the Energy Labelling Directive and specific aspects of the 
Ecodesign 
at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Final_technical_report-
Evaluation_ELD_ED_June_2014.pdf  
520 This view was also given as an answer to Q76 in Ecofys, Public Consultation on the Evaluation of the 
EPBD, Final Report, Nov. 2015. For some examples, see: J. Railio, Is the Eco-design Directive compatible 
with  the  Energy  Performance  Buildings  Directive?,  REHVA  journal,  Jan.  2011,  pp.  28-29,  available  at: 
http://www.rehva.eu/fileadmin/hvac-dictio/01-2011/art_jorma-railio-epbd-erp.pdf.  
521  Regulations (EU)  No 811 &  812/2013 with regard  to  energy labelling of  space  heaters, combination 
heaters,  packages  of  space  heater,  temperature  control  and  solar  device  and  packages  of  combination 
heater, temperature control and solar device, and of water heaters, hot water storage tanks and packages 
of  water  heater  and  solar  device,  and  Regulations  (EU)  No  813  &  814/2013  with  regard  to  ecodesign 
requirements  for  space  heaters  and  combination  heaters,  and  for  water  heaters  and  hot  water  storage 
tanks  establish  minimum  requirements  and  an  energy  labelling  scheme  for  space  heaters  and  water 
heaters.  These  Regulations  only  came  into  force  on  26  September  2015  and  their  impacts  on  the 
construction sector therefore fall outside of the scope of this study (i.e. 2004-2014).  
522  See,  e.g.,  Ecofys,  Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  application  of  Directive  2010/31/EU,  Final  report,  Dec. 
2015: “The Ecodesign Directive sets requirements of products such as boilers or air-conditioners and as 
215 

available 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

added that “[t]he potential for contradictions will probably grow with provisions of Ecodesign on 
energy related products, like windows, which are also addressed by component requirements of 
the  cost  optimality  process  under  the  EPBD.”523  The  Ecofys  study    therefore  recommends  to 
“explore potentials for including system aspects in regulations made under the EDD and ELD”.524 

Inputs and outputs 

Articles 3 to 7 of the EPBD relate to the calculation of the energy performance of buildings, the 
methodology of which shall be adopted at national or regional level. As the EPBD uses the EU-
wide primary energy factors (PEF) in calculating the building system efficiency requirements, it 
is recommended that the PEF are also used in the context of the EDD and ELD – even though 
there are arguments against using the PEF as these energy factors  may not always take into 
account the technology used.525 In short, the EPBD, EDD and ELD would be more consistent if 
the  required  outputs  of  tests  and  measurements  under  the  EDD  and  ELD  are  made  directly 
compatible with the required data inputs under the EPBD.526 It is to be noted that Ecofys refers 
to ‘Mandate M480 for updating the set of CEN standards underlying the recast of the EPBD’ and 
that “[d]uring recent discussions in M480, the argument came up that the CE marking, which is 
governed  by  the  Common  Provisions  Regulation,  might  also  be  the  place  to  define  technical 
parameters that can be used as input into calculations of the energy performance of buildings 
rather than using Ecodesign for that purpose.”527 

Conclusion 

The EED, EPBD, EDD and ELD all have complementary objectives which are well-aligned with 
each  other  and  which  do  not  overlap,  given  that  the  directives  focus  on  energy  efficiency  at 
different levels in the building chain528. Their synergies could be strengthened by streamlining 
the concepts of ‘system’, ‘product’ and ‘component’ and by focusing on overall system efficiency 
instead of single-minded measures. Further fragmentation can be avoided by requiring that the 
outputs under the EDD and ELD are directly compatible with the inputs under the EPBD. This 
conclusion is supported, inter alia, by the results from the ex-post evaluation of the application 
of the EPBD and by the results from the evaluation of the EDD.529  

5.2 Energy Performance of Buildings Directive vs. Construction Product Regulation 

Directive 

such does in principal not create an overlap with the EPBD. An  exception is the new “package label” for 
boilers that does create an overlap with the system requirement Article 8 of the EPBD. It remains to be 
seen whether this overlap will lead to issues in implementation. As a product-specific approach (e.g., an 
energy efficient boiler) does not consequently lead to an energy efficient building. It is important to reach 
for the highest efficiency in products to support energy efficiency in buildings and to reduce energy costs. 
But  the  highest  overall  efficiency  will  only  be  reached  by  optimising  the  entire  system  by  effectively 
matching – if applicable e.g. in replacements or upgrades new and existing – components [DENA, 2011]. 
It can be concluded that the product approach of the ED and the system efficiency approach of the EPBD 
are complementary approaches, with the exception of the package label for boilers.” 
523 Ecofys, Ex-post evaluation of the application of Directive 2010/31/EU, Final report, Dec. 2015, p. 164. 
524 Ecofys, Final technical report Evaluation of the Energy Labelling Directive and specific aspects of the 
Ecodesign 
at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Final_technical_report-
Evaluation_ELD_ED_June_2014.pdf.  
525 More information on the PEF, and on the compatibility with the EPBD, can be found in:  Ecofys, Final 
technical report Evaluation of the Energy Labelling Directive and specific aspects of the Ecodesign Directive 
at: 
ENER/C3/2012-523, 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Final_technical_report-
Evaluation_ELD_ED_June_2014.pdf  
526 Ecofys, Ex-post evaluation of the application of Directive 2010/31/EU, Final report, Dec. 2015, p. 164. 
527 Ecofys, Ex-post evaluation of the application of Directive 2010/31/EU, Final report, Dec. 2015, p. 164. 
528  This  conclusion  is,  inter  alia,  supported  by  the  European  Environmental  Citizens’  Organisation  for 
Standardisation (ECOS), in their reply to the 2015 EED open public consultation. 
529  Ecofys,  Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  application  of  Directive  2010/31/EU,  Final  report,  Dec.  2015;  and 
CSES,  Evaluation  of  Ecodesign  Directive,  3rd  stakeholder  meeting,  18  January  2012,  available  at: 
http://www.cses.co.uk/upl/File/session-1.pdf 

ENER/C3/2012-523, 

available 

available 

2014, 

2014, 

June 

June 

4-5, 

pp. 

216 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

The clear link between the EPBD and the EDD/ELD has been elaborated upon above as laying 
down the connection between energy efficiency in buildings and in related products (e.g. a boiler 
or an air-conditioning system). A similar link exists between the EPBD and the CPR, as the latter 
establishes  harmonised  rules  for  the  marketing  of  construction  products,  hereby  allowing the 
comparison of the energy related performance of products from different manufacturers. As the 
EPBD takes a system approach while the CPR acts at product level, it is generally acknowledged 
that  both  directives  do  not  overlap.530  Nevertheless,  the  adoption  of  a  new  standard  on 
sustainability or energy economy under the CPR could contribute to achieving the objectives of 
the EPBD.  

Annex I to the CPR establishes a list of basic requirements that shall constitute the basis for the 
preparation of standardisation mandates and harmonised technical specifications. Sustainable 
construction  could  be  incentivised  through  the  properties  and  performance  of  construction 
products  and  construction  works  through  the  Basic  Requirements  for  construction  works  as 
defined in Annex I CPR. These Basic Requirements (BR) cover:  

1)  Mechanical resistance and stability,  
2)  Safety in case of fire,  
3)  Hygiene, health and the environment,  
4)  Safety and accessibility in use,  
5)  Protection against noise,  
6)  Energy economy and heat retention,  
7)  Sustainable use of natural resources. 

Sustainable  construction  requirements  for  construction  products  would  involve  BR3  (hygiene, 
health and the environment), BR6 (energy economy and heat retention) and BR7 (sustainable 
use of natural resources).  

The  development  of  harmonised  standards  at  EU  level  for  sustainable  or  energy  efficient 
construction  products  could  therefore  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  the  objectives  of  the 
EPBD.  In particular, where the  EDD adopts a product-based approach, the CPR considers the 
product  in  the  lifecycle  of  the  construction  works.  There  is  thus  an  opportunity  to  achieve 
important  synergies  between  the  CPR  and  the  EPBD  through  a  coordinated  approach.  Many 
stakeholders  moreover  clearly  express  a  preference  for  regulating  the  issue  of  sustainable 
construction products through the CPR rather than the EDD for these same reasons.  

Setting  standards  is  considered  the  most  direct  and  appropriate  way  to  target  sustainable 
construction. It is important to consider, however, that the development and implementation of 
EU standards is a timely and often costly process.  

5.3 Energy Efficiency, Energy Performance in Buildings and Renewable Energy Source 
Directives vs. Professional Qualifications and Services Directives 

On  one  side,  the  EED,  EPBD  and  RESD  all  provide 
for  MS  to  set  up  certain 
certification/accreditation  schemes.  On  the  other  side,  the  PQD  and  SD  regulate  the  free 
movement  of  service  providers,  and  the  recognition  of  professional  qualifications  and  other 
requirements  for  establishing  providers.  As  such,  the  provisions  on  accreditation/certification 
should apply without prejudice to the requirements of the PQD and SD. Even though the EED, 
EPBD  and  RESD  consistently  urge  MS  to  take  the  PQD  into  account,  the  differences  in 
certification  and  qualification  criteria  persist  and  cross-border  mutual  recognition  therefore 
remains slow to emerge. This is considered problematic in view of the PQD and the SD, which 
apply without prejudice to the specific certification requirements set out in these Directives in 
particular as – as indicated below – this applicability should result in some cases in automatic 
recognition whether under the PQD or SD. Additionally, any authorisation/certification scheme 

530  See,  e.g.,  Ecofys,  Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  application  of  Directive  2010/31/EU,  Final  report,  Dec. 
2015, p. 156. 

217 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

established under national law shall meet the requirements of Article 10 of the SD, including the 
requirement  to  be  non-discriminatory,  justified  and  proportionate.  Under  Article  16  SD 
temporary cross-border providers should, in principle, comply with requirements from the home 
MS only: host MS requirements can only be imposed if they can be exceptionally justified, in a 
proportionate manner, under overriding reasons of public policy, public health, public safety and 
the protection of the environment. Such justification can only be truly exceptional in cases where 
Directives  such  as  EED,  EPBD  and  RESD  harmonise  the  regulatory  environment  for  service 
provision. 

Exhibit 5.5   Provisions on mutual recognition in the EED, EPBD and RESD  

EED 

EPBD 

RESD 

Art. 16(3) - Member 
States shall make publicly 
available the certification 
and/or accreditation 
schemes or equivalent 
qualification schemes 
referred to in paragraph 1 
and shall cooperate 
among themselves and 
with the Commission on 
comparisons between, 
and recognition of, the 
schemes. 

Recital 30 - Member States 
should take account of 
Directive 2005/36/EC of the 
European Parliament and of 
the Council of 7 September 
2005 on the recognition of 
professional qualifications 
with regard to the mutual 
recognition of professional 
experts which are addressed 
by this Directive, and the 
Commission should continue 
its activities under the 
Intelligent Energy Europe 
Programme on guidelines 
and recommendations for 
standards for the training of 
such professional experts. 

Recital 50 - In so far as the 
access or pursuit of the 
profession of installer is a 
regulated profession, the 
preconditions for the 
recognition of professional 
qualifications are laid down in 
Directive 2005/36/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the 
Council of 7 September 2005 
on the recognition of 
professional qualifications. This 
Directive therefore applies 
without prejudice to Directive 
2005/36/EC. 

Art. 14 (3) – […] Each Member 
State shall recognise 
certification awarded by other 
Member States in accordance 
with those criteria. 

The  EED,  in  Art.  16(3),  urges  MS  to  cooperate  on  the  recognition  of  the  certification  and/or 
accreditation schemes or equivalent qualification schemes for the providers of energy services, 
energy audits, energy managers and installers of energy-related building elements. However, it 
does not refer to PQD, nor does it set rules on mutual recognition. The EPBD explicitly refers to 
the PQD in its recitals with regard to the mutual recognition of ‘professional experts’ (qualified 
and/or accredited). The RESD also makes a direct reference to the PQD in its recital with regard 
to  the  access  or  pursuit  of  the  profession  of  installers  in  particular  when  it  is  a  regulated 
profession. It also includes, in Article 14(3), a general requirement on mutual recognition for 
certification awarded in accordance with a number of general criteria listed in Annex IV to the 
Directive.  
When there are no rules on the mutual recognition of certificates on professional qualifications, 
the recognition procedure of the PDQ applies: 

 

 

if  the  holders  of  the  certificates  have  to  fulfil minimum  requirements,  there  should  be 
automatic recognition of the certificates.  
in the absence of such minimum requirements, but when the EU legislation requires MS 
to  establish  a  certification  scheme,  MS  can  decide  on  the  criteria  and  the  certificates 
should follow the general recognition procedure of the PQD. 

The same approach should be followed for those other controls and requirements, not related 
to professional qualifications, governed by the SD: 

 

If requirements are set at EU-level, even at a minimum level, there should be automatic 
recognition of the authorisations/certificates.  

218 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

 

In the absence of such minimum requirements, but when the EU legislation requires MS 
to establish an authorisation/certification scheme, MS can decide on the criteria and the 
certificates should follow the general recognition rule of the SD (Article 10(3)). 

Under each of the three energy-related directives, the certification schemes or equivalent can 
be  voluntary.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  the  PQD  and  the  SD  do  not  apply  to  voluntary 
schemes. For instance, certification schemes under the RESD can be voluntary or compulsory, 
even if the majority of those are voluntary.531 Where the scheme is compulsory, the recognition 
of certificates shall meet the requirements of the PQD or the SD.  
In  2012,  the  Commission  raised  concerns,  noting  that  “businesses  and  professionals  face 
problems because of the lack of mutual recognition clauses in sector-specific EU legislation that 
provides for authorisation or registration schemes or the certification of experts”.532 Even in the 
case  of  the  RESD,  which  provides  for  mutual  recognition,  the  differences  in  certification  or 
qualification systems lead to challenges in practice.533 This suggests that the application of the 
PDQ  and  SD  does  not  prevent  problems  in  terms  of  practical  implementation.  The  mutual 
evaluation  exercise  of  obstacles  to  the  access  to  professions  under  the  PQD  could  provide  a 
useful tool to identify and address such problems in practical implementation.   

To address this problem,  QualiCert has suggested an approach to make the various schemes 
compatible in the context of a European market with free movement of labour.534 Stakeholders 
have  also  suggested  that  providing  EU-specific  training  and  examination  regulations  could 
ensure a higher standard of installations and increase the coherence across MS, although this 
could lead to costly system adaptations. CE Delft has proposed the introduction of a standardised 
test 
installers/inspectors/certifiers/auditors  as  part  of  national 
certification/qualification  (including  country-specific  elements),  which  could  also  benefit  the 
harmonisation of training standards and would be a cost-efficient way to guarantee a Europe-
wide minimum standards while keeping intervention into national systems low.535  

for  all  European 

Conclusion 

Even though the EED, EPBD and RESD consistently urge Member States to take the PQD into 
account, the problem of differences in certification and qualification criteria persists and cross 
border mutual recognition therefore remains slow to emerge. This is considered problematic in 
view of the PQD and the SD, which aim at reducing obstacles to the freedom of establishment 
and free provision of services across the EU and which apply without prejudice to the specific 
certification requirements set out in these Directives. In addition, some specialised construction 
workers,  such  as  installers  of  small-scale  renewable  energy  systems,  may  be  considered 
‘regulated professions’ under the PQD in some Member States, but not in all: installers of RES 
technologies  are  considered  a  regulated  profession  in  40%  of  the  Member  States.536  The 
regulation of some specialised construction activities in a limited number of Member States can 
further  create  an  obstacle  to  the  free  movement  of  professionals,  as  protected  under  the  SD 

531  CA-RES  (2015)  II  Core  Theme  Interim  Report  –  Core  Theme  3  RES  HEAT,  at  p.6,  available  at 
http://www.ca-res.eu/fileadmin/cares/public/Reports/CT_Interim_Reports/CT3_Interim_ 
Report_Final.pdf, (last accessed on April 2016). 
532 Commission Staff Working Document on the result of the performance checks of the internal market 
for  services  (construction,  business  services  and  tourism))  accompanying  the  Communication  on  the 
implementation of the SD, SWD(2012)247, at p.9. 
533  See,  e.g.,  in  the  conclusions  of  CE  DELFT  (2015),  Mid-term  evaluation  of  the  Renewable  Energy 
Directive. A study in the context of the REFIT programme, Report for DG ENER; See also CA EPBD (2016) 
Implementing the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, at p. 105, available at: http://www.epbd-
ca.eu/outcomes/2011-2015/CA3-BOOK-2016-A-web.pdf (last accesed on April 2016). 
534 ADEME (2011), QualiCert Manual - A common approach for certification or equivalent qualification of 
installers of small-scale renewable energy systems in buildings, 
535 CE DELFT (2015), Mid-term evaluation of the Renewable Energy Directive. A study in the context of the 
REFIT programme, Report for DG ENER, at p. 26. 
536 
Working 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/sites/iee-projects/files/projects/documents/ca-
res_working_group_publication_no_5_en.pdf 

Information 

available 

training, 

CA-RES, 

Group 

and 

at: 

5. 

219 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

and the PQD.537 Any authorisation/certification schemes established in national law shall meet 
the requirements of Article 10 SD, which requires, among others, that such schemes be non-
discriminatory,, justified and proportionate. In the absence of harmonisation, mutual recognition 
for establishing providers shall follow either the PQD or Article 10(3) SD. Harmonisation, if if at 
a  minimum  level,  should  mean  automatic  recognition  in  a  host  MS.  Temporary  cross-border 
providers  should  be  bound  to  home  MS  rules  only,  particularly  in  a  (partially)  harmonised 
context...  Particular  attention  thus  seems  necessary  to  the  correct  application  of  the  internal 
market  legislation  for  services  to  the  certification  schemes  established  under  sector-specific 
legislation  in  the  construction  sector.  The  mutual  evaluation  exercise  under  the  PQD  could 
provide a useful tool for identifying and remedying the obstacles to the mutual recognition of 
professional qualifications in these specific cases.   

537  CSES,  Study  to  provide  an  Inventory  of  Reserves  of  Activities  linked  to  professional  qualifications 
requirements in 13 EU Member States & assessing their economic impact, Final Report, January 2012, p.1, 
available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/qualifications/docs/news/20120214-report_en.pdf 

220 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

6. COHERENCE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

To  what  extent  do  all  pieces  of  EU  legislation  fit  together  sufficiently  well  and 
provide the construction sector with a clear and predictable regulatory framework?   

The  list  of  legal  instruments  identified  for  the  purpose  of  this  fitness  check  consists  of  three 
Directives  and  one  Regulation  mainly  aimed  at  Internal  Market,  and  five  Directives  mainly 
focusing on Energy Efficiency. For the purpose of the coherence analysis, these EU instruments 
were divided into three groups, of which the first group comprehends three instruments which 
establish requirements for construction products, either as product requirements or as labelling 
requirements,  namely  the  Construction  Product  Regulation  (EU)  305/2011  (CPR),  the  Eco-
Design Directive 2009/125/EC (EDD) and the Energy Labelling Directive 2010/30/EU (ELD). The 
second  group  includes  the  energy  efficiency  legislation  that  is  applicable  to  the  construction 
sector, in particular the Energy Efficiency Directive 2012/27/EU (EED), the Energy Performance 
in  Buildings  Directive  2010/31/EU  (EPBD)  and  the  Renewable  Energy  Sources  Directive 
2009/28/EC (RESD).  The third group deals with legislation applicable to the provision of services 
in the construction sector, in particular Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market 
(SD), Directive 2005/36/EC on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications (PQD) and 
Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payment in commercial transactions (LPD). Within each 
group, an analysis was made as to what extent the three pieces of EU legislation fit together 
sufficiently  well.  The  few  existing  links  between  Internal  Market  legislation  impacting  on  the 
construction  industry,  on  the  one  hand,  and  Energy  Efficiency  legislation  impacting  on  the 
construction industry, on the other hand, have been discussed in the last subsection 5.  

This Study has shown that all pieces of EU legislation fit together sufficiently well in the sense 
that  their  scope  and  their  objectives  are  considered  to  be  complementary  and  coherent.  The 
main conclusions are further elaborated upon as follows: 

  The SD and PQD aim at making the free provision of services within the Community as simple 
as within an individual Member State. They  share the  same general objective of  removing 
obstacles  to  the  free  movement  of  services  and  enhancing  professional  mobility  in  the  EU 
through different complementary measures. Both apply to the mobility of professionals in the 
construction sector.  The objectives of both Directives are overall considered complementary 
and  coherent.  Implementation  reports  and  stakeholders  do  not  point  to  inconsistencies 
among the general and specific objectives of both instruments. Consistency in the definitions 
is, for  example,  ensured through specific cross-references to the  PQD definition within the 
SD. 

  While the LPD ultimately also aims at contributing to the provision of cross-border services, 
it regulates a different matter from the SD and PQD. The LPD aims at combating late payment 
in commercial transactions in order to ensure the proper functioning of the Internal Market. 
No specific inconsistencies were raised between the LPD and the SD in the implementation 
reports and interviews with stakeholders. 

  The comparative analysis of the EED, EPBD and RESD carried out has confirmed that there is 
great synergy with regard to their objective. This conclusion has been corroborated through 
the 2015 ex-post evaluation of the EPBD.  The related report has stated the following: “The 
EPBD and the EED have linked effects on the realisation of the objectives of the EPBD”. In 
addition, “[a]s the EPBD aims to reduce the energy consumption of buildings as well as to 
increase  the  use  of  energy  from  renewable  sources,  the  EPBD  is  also  connected  to  the 
Renewables Directives (2009/28/EC) (RED) and vice versa.” 

  The  objectives  of  the  CPR,  ELD  and  EDD  are  clearly  distinct  and  are  mostly  considered 
complementary and coherent. While, similarly to the CPR aiming to eliminate barriers in the 
EU internal market, the EDD also aims at reducing the overall negative impact of products 
placed  on  the  EU  market  in  the  perspective  of  sustainable  development.  The  ELD 
complements  the  EDD  by  setting  a  framework  for  the  labelling  and  the  provision  of 

221 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

information regarding energy consumption. The substantial requirements under the EDD and 
ELD are mostly considered coherent and complementary. 

  The EED, EPBD, EDD and ELD all have complementary objectives which are well-aligned with 
each other and which do not overlap, given that the directives focus on energy efficiency at 
different levels in the building chain. 

While in terms of scope and objectives, great synergies have been found between the identified 
EU  legal  acts,  the  total  picture  is  more  nuanced.  The  legal  analysis  has  concluded  that  there 
exist  several  shortcomings  related  to  the  more  substantial  requirements  and  the  definitions 
within these acts. These shortcomings are further discussed in the following EQ, but it must be 
noted that, from a practical perspective, the legal shortcomings do not currently impact on the 
performance  of  the  construction  sector.  Consequently,  it  is  considered  that  the  regulatory 
framework is sufficiently predictable for the construction sector. 

What are the specific inconsistencies overlaps (e.g. in terms of definitions) or gaps 
that can be identified across the identified EU legal acts?  

  All  in  all,  no  major  overlaps,  but  rather  synergies,  both  actual  and  potential,  have  been 
identified between the SD and the PQD. The proposal for the review of the PQD in 2013 took 
into account some areas where coherence could still be improved (e.g. with regard to the 
exchange of information, similar to the alter system under the SD, and the introduction of a 
single point of contact), resulting in consistent substantive requirements at EU level. 

  The comparative analysis of the EED, EPBD and RESD shows a strong synergy with regard 
to  their  substantive  requirements,  which  however  implies  that  there  may  be  potentially 
overlapping provisions, especially with regard to the  certification of buildings and building 
units, and the accreditation and training of experts. The coexistence of four different schemes 
regarding  the  certification  of  buildings  (or  building  units)  may  give  rise  to  some 
inconsistencies,  also  due  to  the  interaction  with  national  legislation.  Especially  in  those 
specific cases where certification and/or inspections under the EPBD in a given Member State 
may go hand in hand with energy audits – for instance when auditing office buildings of a 
large enterprise - some of the respondents to the 2015 public consultation on the EED were 
of  the  opinion  that it is  confusing  that  the  energy  performance  of  buildings  is  targeted  in 
different  directives.538  Concerning  the  accreditation  and  training  of  experts,  where 
certification  in  the  EPBD,  and  to  some  extent  the  RESD,  covers  a  subset  of  the  energy 
professions that can be certified under the EED, the qualification/accreditation schemes may 
overlap to a rather large extent. The various overlaps create some impact on the construction 
sector, but not necessarily in a negative way. 

o  Recommendations:  Due  to  the  existence  of  some  overlaps  with  regard  to  the 
substantive requirements of the EED, EPBD and RESD, an increasing number of 
stakeholders  suggests  having  the  energy  performance  of  buildings  entirely  and 
fully  integrated  in  the  EED  or    having  only  one  directive  entirely  focusing  on 
buildings. The report on the 2014 public consultation on the review of progress 
on the 2020 energy efficiency objective, on its turn, suggests that the building-
related provisions of the EED should be incorporated in the EPBD to have a single 
and powerful policy instrument.  

  There  is  currently  only  one  potential  inconsistency  between  the  EDD  and  CPR  for  specific 
product categories, namely for solid fuel space heaters, as regulated by the recently adopted 
Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1185 and a hEN under the CPR. For four other product 
categories which may be considered a construction product and an energy-related product 
at  the  same  time,  there  are  currently  no  concrete  overlaps  as  both  acts  cover  different 

538 The problem is covered by the Commission guidance note on Article 8 of the EED, which advices Member 
States as to how to ensure that national transposition measures to exploit the synergies between the EPBD 
and the EED. 

222 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

aspects  of  the  products  and  have  different  objectives.  The  overlap  could  extend  to  other 
product categories when implementing acts for additional construction products are adopted 
under the EDD.  

o  Recommendations: In Recital 18 of the most recent Regulation (EU) 2015/1185, 
the Commission announced the further integration of ecodesign requirements in 
hEN  for  the  sake  of  legal  certainty  and  simplification.  Notably,  though,  the 
adoption or modification of harmonised standards is a lengthy process and not a 
sole competence of the Commission. Close collaboration will be required between 
the  Commission,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  European  Standardisation 
Organisations. Finally, ecodesign requirements will have to be integrated within 
the  relevant  hEN  when  adopted,  for  every  product  category.  Nevertheless,  the 
integration  would  be  an  easy,  but  clear  way  forward  to  remedy  the  concerns 
expressed by stakeholders, given the small scope of overlaps currently existing 
between both legal instruments (currently only one product category). 

  The EDD, ELD, and CPR do not use identical definitions of ‘economic operators’ nor of the 
term  ‘placing  on  the  market’.  These  inconsistences,  however,  do  not  lead  to  substantial 
problems for the construction sector. 

o  Recommendations: It is recommended, in view of legal clarity, to aim at using the 
same  definitions  where  possible,  especially  in  the  situation  in  which  the 
requirements  under  the  different  instruments  will  apply  to  a  same  operator  for 
making one same product available on the market. 

To  what  extent  can  the  inconsistencies  and  overlaps  be  attributed  to  provisions  in 
the  existing  EU  legislative  framework  or  to  implementation  and/or  transposition  at 
national  (including  regional  and  local)  level  or  to  existing   national  legislative 
frameworks? 

  The implementation of the free movement of services in the construction sector in practice 
still raises important problems. Significant obstacles affecting the mobility of professionals 
across  Member  States  have  been  identified  in  performance  checks,  mutual  evaluation 
exercises and studies. Businesses are often confronted with requirements imposed on them 
in  addition  to  those  to  which  they  are  subject  in  the  Member  State  where  they  are 
established. For example, stakeholders point to problems relating to the understanding of 
documentary  requirements  (e.g.  whether  a  translation  is  required)  or  to  the  limitation  to 
locally registered professionals for submitting designs when applying for building permits. 
Also  prior  checks  of  qualifications  for  professions  that  should  benefit  from  automatic 
recognition have been reported. Other concerns relate to the authorisation requirements for 
automatically recognised professions (i.e. architects), residence or nationality requirements 
and insurance obligations.  

  With regard to the harmonization and coordination at a practical and national level of the 
EED,  EPBD  and  RESD,  several  impediments  have  arisen.  In  most  countries,  regular 
inspections  /  certifications  and  energy  audits  are  covered  by  different  legislation  and 
managed  by  different  public  authorities.  Further,  numerous  problems  have  also  been 
reported with regard to the proper implementation of the EPC at Member State level, which 
obviously will prevent any harmonization with inspections and energy audits. Furthermore, 
also qualification and training of energy efficiency experts remains a competence of Member 
States, sometimes at regional level, and, in most Member States, different ministries are 
responsible  for  the  EPBD  and  the  EED/RESD,  also  leading  to  different  approaches.  In 
addition, the existing certification and qualification schemes for installers of small-scale RES 
in buildings are so diverse among themselves that any harmonization with the schemes and 
training  programmes  foreseen  under  the  EED  and  EPBD  is  impeded.  Finally,  also  the 
implementation of Article 14(3) of the RESD in various Member States differs considerably. 
o  Recommendations:  One  important  recommendation,  in  order  to  create 
synergies, is to  work upon one harmonised set of definitions with regard to 
the  schemes  aiming  for  quality  assurance  of  energy  professionals.  These 

223 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

schemes currently have different names (including certification, qualification, 
label and accreditation) – at EU level and at national level - and the meaning 
of these words can be quite different from one country to another, reflecting 
the different needs in each country.  

  Even though the EED, EPBD and RESD consistently urge Member States to take the PQD into 
account, the problem of differences in certification and qualification criteria persists and cross 
border mutual recognition therefore remains slow to emerge. This is considered problematic 
in  view  of  the  PQD  and  the  SD,  which  aim  at  reducing  obstacles  to  the  freedom  of 
establishment and free provision of services across the EU and which apply without prejudice 
to  the  specific  certification  requirements  set  out  in  these  Directives.  In  addition,  some 
specialised construction workers, such as installers of small-scale renewable energy systems, 
may be considered ‘regulated professions’ under the PQD in some Member States, but not 
in  all:  installers  of  RES  technologies  are  considered  a  regulated  profession  in  40%  of  the 
Member  States.539  The  regulation  of  some  specialised  construction  activities  in  a  limited 
number  of  Member  States  can  further  create  an  obstacle  to  the  free  movement  of 
professionals,  as  protected  under  the  SD  and  the  PQD.540  Any  authorisation/certification 
schemes  established  in  national  law  shall  meet  the  requirements  of  Article  10  SD,  which 
requires,  among  others,  that  such  schemes  be  non-discriminatory,  justified  and 
proportionate. In the absence of harmonisation, mutual recognition for establishing providers 
shall follow either the PQD or Article 10(3) SD. Harmonisation, if at a minimum level, should 
mean automatic recognition in a host MS. Temporary cross-border providers should be bound 
to home MS rules only, particularly in a (partially) harmonised context. Particular attention 
thus seems necessary to the correct application of the internal market legislation for services 
to the certification schemes established under sector-specific legislation in the construction 
sector.  The  mutual  evaluation  exercise  under  the  PQD  could  provide  a  useful  tool  for 
identifying  and  remedying  the  obstacles  to  the  mutual  recognition  of  professional 
qualifications in these specific cases.  

Concluding remarks 

In  general,  the  evaluation  of  coherence  of  the  acts  retained  in  the  scope  of  the  analysis  is 
positive.  While  a  detailed  assessment  has  identified  shortcomings  and  overlaps,  they  are  not 
perceived as currently having an impact on the performance, competitiveness and sustainability 
of the construction sector. In other words, the identified shortcomings have not yet generated 
material effect on the construction sector and would, at most, only entail possible future costs. 
Furthermore, a good deal of complementary measures or synergies could be identified.  

Group 

Working 

CA-RES, 

539 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/sites/iee-projects/files/projects/documents/ca-
res_working_group_publication_no_5_en.pdf  
540  CSES,  Study  to  provide  an  Inventory  of  Reserves  of  Activities  linked  to  professional  qualifications 
requirements in 13 EU Member States & assessing their economic impact, Final Report, January 2012, p.1, 
available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/qualifications/docs/news/20120214-report_en.pdf  

Information 

available 

training, 

and 

at: 

5. 

224 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Annex V  
Retrieval of primary information 
from stakeholders 

225 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

1 INTRODUCTION 

This annex provides information on the counterparts that were contacted during the fact-finding 
phase of this Assignment. Fact-finding covered 10 MS to be analysed in detail. Information was 
also  collected  in  other  countries,  in  particular  from  stakeholder  associations  and  professional 
bodies. Retrieval of primary information for this Study was carried out via: 

1.  Face-to-face or telephone interviews with firms in the MS to be covered in-depth. 
2.  Face-to-face or telephone interviews with stakeholder associations at EU and national 

level; 

3.  Face-to-face or telephone interviews with  public authorities in the MS to be covered 

in-depth;  

4.  Two  surveys  were  deployed:  (i)  an  online  questionnaire  with  associations  and  other 
stakeholders  active  in  the  construction  product  industry;  and  (ii)  an  email  survey  of 
architects’  professional  bodies.  In  addition,  the  Consultants  attended  four  events 
organized by business associations/institutions.  

In total, 132  interviews were  held, of which 10 with national authorities, 41  with  industry 
associations, and 81 with firms.541 Considering also the two surveys, 170 successful contacts 
have taken place. 

Interviews with associations and national authorities were conducted on the basis of checklists, 
consisting of lists of themes for discussion. The checklists were always tailored to the specific 
context  and  interlocutor.  Interviews  with  firms  were  conducted  on  the  basis  of  structured 
questionnaires. A set of four questionnaires was developed, targeting different categories of 
firms, namely: (i) firms and craftsmen involved in the construction of building and specialized 
construction  activities  (corresponding  to  NACE  Division  41  and  NACE  Groups  43.1,  43.3  and 
43.9);  (ii)  firms  and  craftsmen  providing  installation  services  (corresponding  to  NACE  Group 
43.2);  (iii)  professionals  providing  construction-related  architectural  and  engineering  services 
(included  i.a.  in  NACE  Group  71.1);  and  (iv)  manufacturers  of  construction  products  (which 
belong to various groups in NACE Sections B and C). 

The annex is structured as follows 

1.  Section 2 provides information on interviewed companies and a description of the sample 

and the sub-samples for the various market segments; 

2.  Section  3  provides  information  on  the  interviews  with  governments  and  stakeholder 

associations at EU and national level; 

3.  Section 4 provides information on the coverage of and the respondents to the surveys 
targeted  at  associations  and  other  stakeholders  active  in  the  construction  product 
industry, and at architects’ professional bodies. 

2 RETRIEVAL OF PRIMARY INFORMATION INTERVIEWS WITH COMPANIES 

2.1 All company segments 

Interviews with firms proved to be the most complex task in the fact-finding phase. In total, 81 
interviews  were  carried  out,  and  in  particular  48  interviews  were  held  with  construction 
companies  and  providers  of  specialised  construction  services  (of  which  8  with  installers)  and 
providers  of  specialised  construction  services,  and  33  with  other  operators,  of  which  16  with 
professionals and 17 with product manufacturers. 

The  four  market  segments  covered  –  construction  companies,  installers,  professional,  and 
product manufacturers – are not homogeneous in terms of activities carried out, number and 
type of EU acts relevant to their activities, position in the value chain, and prevalent legal form. 
For  this  reason,  detailed  information  on  the  composition  of  each  sub-sample  is  provided 
separately  for  the  various  market  segments  in  the  various  sub-sections  here  below.  The 

541  The methodology originally envisaged  100  interviews,  of which 10 with national authorities, 20 with 
industry associations, and 70 with firms. 

226 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

information provided described: (i) information retrieved; (ii) specific activities carried out by 
respondents; (iii) geographical distribution; (iv) firm size; (v) turnover; (vi) market segments 
in which they operate; and (vii) type of customers.  

For  the  overall  sample  firms,  Exhibit  2.1  below  presents  the  sample  distribution  in  terms  of 
geographical  coverage  and  firm  size.  Geographical  distribution542  was  defined  on  the  relative 
importance of each MS contribution to the construction sector.543 As for firm size, 75% of the 
sample is represented by SME, including a plurality of micro companies  – also accounting for 
independent professionals.  

Exhibit 2.1   Geographical (left) and size (right) distribution of interviewed companies 

RO
3

IE
2

BE
6

IT
15

PL
7

DK
7

ES
8

DE
14

FR
8

UK
11

38%

Micro

Small

Medium

Large

25%

8%

29%

Source: Authors’ own elaboration. Notes: 5 companies declined to provide information on their size. 

2.2 Construction companies 

Forty interviews were held with firms and craftsmen involved in the construction of 
buildings (NACE 41) and specialized construction activities (NACE 43) with exclusion 
of  installation  activities  (NACE  43.2),  hereinafter  ‘construction  companies’.  They  were 
interviewed on the following issues: 

1.  Basic  information  on  the  enterprise  (e.g.  country  of  establishment,  activity,  market 

segments, types of clients, turnover); 

2.  Simplification of administrative procedures; 
3.  Cross-border operations; 
4.  Effects of inward movements of EU operators; 
5.  Energy efficiency; 
6.  Late payments; 
7.  Coherence of the regulatory framework. 

The 40 companies interviewed are located in 9 Member States (Belgium, Germany, Denmark, 
Spain  France,  Italy,  Poland,  Romania,  and  the  UK).  Activities  covered  include  construction 
activities,  encompassing  companies  specialised  in  construction  of  new  buildings  and  or 
renovation, as well as building completion and finishing activities. With respect to the type of 
company, 33% of them are sole proprietorships, 53% are limited liability companies, 6% are 
public stock companies, and 6% have other legal forms. 

542 A Portuguese professional was included as he had experience in working cross-border in Spain (and is 
accounted among Spanish respondents). 
543 The exact ex ante distribution was defined based on the share of each country in terms of value added 
and number of persons employed, with each variable being given equal weight (source: Eurostat Structural 
Business Statistics). Then, the distribution was subsequently refined to account for issue of data quality 
and  consistency  emerging  from  interviews  with  national  companies  and  to  cover  specific  topics  which 
deserved additional data points (e.g. cross-border provision of professional or construction services). 

227 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

To capture the effects of Single Market integration, construction companies active cross-border 
where actively looked for. This resulted in interviewing 9 companies active in other EU MS, so 
that the sample is likely to overrepresent cross-border companies compared to the universe of 
construction firms. Countries of destination include France, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, 
and  the  Netherlands.  Companies  operating  cross-border  have  reported  a  foreign  turnover 
ranging from €100,000 to more than €100,000,000 (20% of the turnover for a large company). 

Concerning  firm  size,  31%  of  companies  interviewed  are  micro  enterprises  with  less  than  10 
workers, 39% are small enterprises with 10-49 workers, 6% are medium enterprises with 50-
249 workers, and 25% are large companies with more than 250 workers. Two companies are 
very large, having more than 10,000 employees. In total, SME represent 76% of the sample. 
The median number of worker is 14. 

Three  quarters  of  sampled  companies  mostly  work  as  main  contractors,  one  quarter  both  as 
main and sub-contractors, and only 1 firm mainly as a sub-contractor (a micro enterprise active 
in the building finishing segment). As for turnover, 33 companies reported their 2014 turnover. 
The  median  2014  turnover  is  €1,200,000.  With  respect  to  past  turnover  data,  29  companies 
reported  their  2009  turnover,  with  a  median  value  of  €920,000;  and  26  companies  reported 
their 2004 turnover, with a median value of about €1.6 mln.  

Companies’ operation in the various market segments is shown in Exhibit 2.2 below. About three 
fifths of the sample signalled changes in the composition of turnover during the period in scope 
of  the  study,  and  in  particular  a  contraction  of  the  ‘new  buildings’  market  segment,  and  an 
expansion of the renovation market. As it appears clearly from Exhibit 2.2 below, new buildings 
represented 50% of the market in 2004, 47% in 2009, and a substantially lower 36% in 2014. 
To  the  contrary,  renovation  was  worth  one  third  of  the  market  in  2004,  while  it  represented 
more than 50% of the market in 2014. Renovation of residential buildings is the market segment 
gaining most relevance, passing from 18% of the turnover in 2004 to 36% in 2014. 

228 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 2.2   Composition  of  turnover  for  construction  companies  (2014,  2009,  and 

2004), % values. 

2014 

11%

22%

17%

14%

36%

New - Residential

New - Non-
Residential

Renovation -
Residential

Renovation - Non
Residential

Other

2009 

2004 

16%

13%

30%

17%

29%

15%

24%

17%

18%

21%

2.3 Installers 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.  

Eight  interviews  were  held  with  firms  and  craftsmen  providing  installation  services 
(NACE 43.2), hereinafter ‘installers’. They were interviewed on the following issues: 

1.  Basic  business  information  (e.g.  country  of  establishment,  activity,  market  segments, 

types of clients, turnover); 

2.  Simplification of administrative procedures; 
3.  Cross-border operations; 
4.  Effects of inward movements of EU operators; 
5.  Energy efficiency; 
6.  Accreditation and certification for inspections of building systems and installation of RES; 
7.  Coherence of the regulatory framework. 

The 8 companies interviewed are located in 4 Member States (Italy, Poland, Spain and the UK). 
Activities covered include electricians, installers of heating or cooling systems, installers of RES, 
building  maintenance  services.  With  respect  to  the  type  of  company,  2  of  them  are  sole 
proprietorships, 4 are limited liability companies, and 2 have other legal forms. 

To capture the effects of Single Market integration, installers active cross-border where actively 
looked  for.  This  resulted  in  interviewing  3  installers  active  in  other  EU  MS,  implying  that  the 
sample overrepresent cross-border companies compared to the universe of installers  

Concerning firm size, 6 companies are micro enterprises with less than 10 workers, 1 is a small 
229 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

firm  with  17  workers,  and  one  preferred  not  to  disclose  the  number  of  workers.  The  median 
number of worker is 5.  As for turnover, 7 interviewees reported their 2014 turnover. The median 
2014  turnover  is  about  €500,000.  With  respect  to  past  turnover  data,  5  companies  reported 
their 2009 and 2004 turnover, with a median value of about €500,000 for 2009, and of €400,000 
for 2004. 

Composition  of  turnover  per  market  segment  is  shown  in  Exhibit  2.3  below.544  Most  of  the 
turnover  is  realised  in  the  renovation  market,  namely  46%  through  renovation  of  residential 
buildings,  and  14%  through  renovation  of  residential  buildings.  Market  segments  for  new 
buildings represent one third of the turnover for the respondent. Only two installers signalled a 
change in composition of turnover over the period in scope of the study. In particular, one British 
installer reported that ‘work for non-residential clients has declined, mainly because of general 
economic slowdown’. 

Installers  were  also  surveyed  to  ascertain  the  share  of  works  carried  out  for  construction 
companies or for private clients. More than two thirds of 2014 turnover for sampled installers is 
generated  by  private  clients,  and  about  50%  by  households,  while  about  a  quarter  by 
construction companies. Full data are again shown in Exhibit 2.3. 

Exhibit 2.3 Installers: composition of turnover (2014) – Left; type of customers (right) 

New - Residential

7%

19%

14%

New - Non-
Residential

14%

Renovation -
Residential

46%

Renovation - Non
Residential

Other

Public
8.6%

Private 
- other
17.1%

Construction 
firms
25.7%

Private -
Households
48.6%

2.4 Professionals 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.  

Sixteen interviews were held with firms and professionals active in the construction 
sector, hereinafter ‘professionals’. They were interviewed on the following issues: 

1.  Basic  business  information  (e.g.  country  of  establishment,  activity,  market  segments, 

types of clients, turnover); 

2.  Simplification of administrative procedures; 
3.  Cross-border operations and recognition of professional qualifications; 
4.  Effects of inward movements of EU operators; 
5.  Energy efficiency; 
6.  Late payments; 
7.  Coherence of the regulatory framework. 

The 16 professionals interviewed are located in 5 Member States (Italy, Spain, France, Ireland, 
and  the  UK)545.  Activities  covered  include  architects  (8  interviews),  engineers  (4  interviews), 
and  other  professions,  such  as  building  surveyor,  project  manager,  or  project  consultant  (4 

544  Average  composition  is  not  weighted  for  turnover  size,  to  avoid  overrepresentation  of  very  large 
companies.  
545 Cf. note 542 above. 

230 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

interviews). With respect to the type of company, 5 interviewees are independent professionals, 
8  of  them  work  for  a  limited  liability  company  or  partnership,  2  for  a  sole  proprietorship 
company, and 1 has a different legal form. 

To  capture  the  effects  of  Single  Market  integration,  professionals  active  cross-border  where 
actively looked for. This resulted in interviewing 6 professionals which have provided services in 
at  least  another  EU  MS,  implying  that  the  sample  is  likely  to  overrepresent  cross-border 
professionals. 

Concerning firm size, 6 interviewees are independent professionals, and 10 interviewees work 
for a company. More in detail, 5 companies are micro enterprises with less than 10 workers, 4 
are a small firm with 10-49 workers, and one is a medium company with 65 worker. The median 
number  of  worker  is  5.  As  for  turnover,  10  interviewees  reported  their  2014  turnover:  the 
median value is €305,000, and the average turnover is €400,000. With respect to past data, 10 
and 9 interviewees reported respectively their 2009 and 2004 turnover, with a median value of 
about €474,919 for 2009 and €200,000 for 2004.  

Composition of turnover per market segment is shown in Exhibit 2.4.546 Market for new buildings 
represent slightly less than 40% of the turnover for the interviewees, whereas renovation work 
generate  almost  half  of  the  turnover.    60%  of  the  sample  signalled  a  change  in  the  relative 
importance  of  the  various  market  segments  in  the  period  2004-2014.  Various  respondents 
underlined a ‘dramatic decline in the market for new buildings, only partially compensate by the 
increase in renovation, so that the relative importance of the two market is now largely inversed’. 
Also, certain professionals reported that other parts of the market have shrank due to the crisis, 
such as public works. 

Professionals  were  also  surveyed  to  ascertain  the  share  of  works  carried  out  for  construction 
companies  or for private  clients: the  former generate about  one fifth of the overall turnover, 
while private clients more than half. About 10% of revenues come from public customers. Full 
data are again shown in Exhibit 2.4. 

546  Average  composition  is  not  weighted  for  turnover  size,  to  avoid  overrepresentation  of  very  large 
companies.  

231 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit  2.4  Professionals:  composition  of  turnover  (2014,  left);  type  of  customers 

(right) 

15%

19%

12%

36%

18%

New - Residential

New - Non
Residential

Renovation -
Residential

Renovation - Non
Residential

Other

Other; 
15%

Public; 
10%

Private 
- other; 
37%

Constructio
n firms; 
21%

Private -
Households; 
18%

2.5 Construction Product Manufacturers 

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.  

Seventeen interviews were held with manufacturers of construction products, to retrieve 
information on: 

1.  Basic information on the enterprise; 
2.  the impacts of CPR and CPD;  
3.  the impact of the energy efficiency policy area; and  
4.  legal coherence.  

Not  all  interviews  delivered  information  on  all  aspects.  In  particular,  not  all  manufacturers 
subject to the CPR are also affected by energy efficiency provisions, as this depends on the type 
of product: for example, cement manufacturers are much less concerned by energy efficiency 
requirements than producers of insulation materials. At the same time, not all the interviewees 
being  acquainted  with  energy  efficiency  provisions  are  also  well-versed  with  the  CPR/CPD 
framework. To tackle this issue, several interviews were held with different people in the same 
companies, or certain product categories where specifically targeted to retrieve information on 
the impact of energy efficiency provisions. All in all, 14 interviews included information on the 
CPR/CPD  framework,  and  10  interviews  included  information  on  the  energy  efficiency 
requirements. 

The  17  interviewees  are  located  in  8  Member  States  (Belgium,  Germany,  Denmark,  France, 
Ireland,  Italy,  Poland  and  the  UK).  Sectors  covered  include  water  storage,  anchors,  chemical 
construction products, tiles, asphalt, grid systems, bituminous membranes, windows, insulation 
materials, sealing, glues, and cement. Most companies (12) are stock companies; the sample 
also include 4 limited liability companies, and one company with a different legal form. 

To  capture  the  effects  of  Single  Market  integration,  the  attention  was  focused  on  companies 
active in more than one Member State. Hence, 15 companies out of 17 export their product to 
at  least  another  MS;  the  average  number  of  destination  MS  is  15.8,  and  the  median  is  17.5 
Fourteen companies provided information on the share of revenues generated by exports: in 10 
cases, the share is lower than 25% of total revenues, and in 4 cases is higher.  

Such a focus on exporting companies had an impact on firm size, as the larger a company, the 
more  likely it is  to  sell  products  in  other  countries.  Among  the  companies  interviewed,  3  are 
small-sized  firms,  3  are  medium-size  firms,  and  11  are  large-sized  firms.  To  compensate  for 
such  a  focus,  information  on  SME  was  specifically  requested  through  the  survey  targeted  at 
trade associations and other stakeholders (see below). 

232 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

3  RETRIEVAL  OF  PRIMARY  INFORMATION:  INTERVIEWS  WITH  PUBLIC 
ADMINISTRATIONS AND STAKEHOLDER ASSOCIATIONS 

Ten interviews were devoted to retrieving information from the public administrations in the 
10  MS  where  the  fact-finding  phase  took  place.  In  some  cases,  more  than  one  public 
administrations needed to be contacted, as the various pieces of legislation were not covered 
by  a  single  unit  or  even  ministry.  Interviews  or  public  meetings  were  held  with  13  EU 
stakeholder associations. With respect to  national stakeholder associations, interviews 
were held with 28 entities.  

Geographical distribution of interviews with public administrations and stakeholder associations 
is represented in the left side of Exhibit 2.5. At MS level, the number of counterparts interviewed 
depended on idiosyncratic features of national organisations, e.g. whether a single association 
covers both construction companies and installers, or whether SME are represented by their own 
association;  and  accounts  for  specific  research  needs,  e.g.  a  discussion  of  issues  with  cross-
border  insurance  with German  and  French  insurance  federations.  On  the  right  side  of  Exhibit 
2.5,  the  coverage  in  terms  of  sectors  is  shown.  Interviewed  stakeholder  associations  mainly 
represent  construction  companies  and  installers,  but  also  cover  professionals,  product 
manufacturers, and real estate. 

Exhibit  2.5  Geographical  (left)  and  sectoral  (right)  distribution  of  interviewed 

stakeholders and public administrations 

UK
2

IE
3

BE
3

PL
3

DK
3

FR
4

EU
13

DE
6

IT
4

RO
5

ES
5

Construction
Companies and
Installers
Professionals

Construction
Products

Real Estate

10

3

4

18

7

9

Other

Public
administrations

Source: Authors’ own elaboration.  

4 RETRIEVAL OF PRIMARY INFORMATION: OTHER SURVEYS 

Two  additional  surveys  were  carried  out  to  respond  to  specific  needs  arising  during  the 
Assignment: (i) an online survey of construction product stakeholders; and (ii) an email survey 
of architects’ professional bodies.  

An  online  survey  of  construction  product  stakeholders  was  set  up  and  disseminated  in 
cooperation with Construction Products Europe. The survey had a two-fold aims: (i) validating 
information retrieved from companies; (ii) gathering data and information on niche issues (e.g. 
CPR derogations  for SME) on which sampled companies had not any  practical experience.  32 
respondents participated in the survey: 4 companies, 19 stakeholder associations, 9 of which 
active at EU level and 10 at national level, 4 other entities (e.g. standardisation bodies, research 
institutes), and 5 anonymous contributors. Respondents originated from 10 EU MS and Norway.  

Stakeholders were surveyed about various themes concerning the CPR and the energy efficiency 
framework. Results are as follows: 

233 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

1.  BAU factor of the DOP and CE Marking. 14% of respondents considered that DOP and 
CE marking do not have any commercial value, 43% considered their commercial value 
as limited, 26% as moderate, and 17% as high. 

2.  One-off costs related to the introduction of the CPR. 72% of respondents reported 

that companies incurred in one-off costs linked to the new framework. 

3.  Use  of  eDOP.  More  than  70%  of  respondents  reported  that  eDOP  is  largely  used  by 

product manufacturers, and that it is largely accepted by customers.  

4.  Art. 5 derogations. Through the survey, stakeholders where first asked whether these 
derogations apply to companies in their sector,  and 36% of respondents replied that this 
was not the case. Among the 16 respondents for which art. 5 derogations were relevant, 
most of them (63%) replied that they knew of no cases in which these derogations were 
resorted  to;  5  respondents  mentioned  that  this  derogation  is  used  for  products 
manufactured  on  the  construction  site;  and  only  1  for  traditionally-manufactured 
products. 

5.  Impact  of  energy  efficiency  legislation.  Construction  product  stakeholders  were 
surveyed  about  their  assessment  of  and  the  impacts  originating  from  both  EE 
requirements for construction products, systems and buildings, and EE support measures 
undertaken at national level. Full results are presented above in Annex II, Section 7.4.  

An  email  survey  of  architects’  professional  bodies  was  set  up  and  disseminated  in 
cooperation  with  the  Architects’  Council  of  Europe.  10  professional  bodies  from  10  MS 
participated  in  the  survey.  The  survey  aimed  at  collecting  data  on  costs  and  documents 
necessary to undergo the recognition procedures. Results for various recognition regimes are as 
follows: 

1.  Automatic  system.  On  average,  professional  bodies  require  3.6  documents  per 
application (median value: 3). Of these, on average 1 document shall be presented in 
original, and 1.5 documents shall be translated by the applicant (in most cases, a certified 
or  sworn  translation  is  required).  The  complexity  of  the  documents  may  vary,  from  a 
copy of the applicant’s ID, to a certified translation of university degrees or the proof of 
professional  qualifications  in  the  home  MS.  Fees  amount  on  average  to  €103  (median 
value: €133), and the average lead time is estimated to be about 36 days 

2.  General system. On average, professional bodies require 4.1 documents per application 
(median value: 5). Of these, on average 1 document shall be presented in original, and 
1.8 documents shall be translated by the applicant (in most cases, a certified or sworn 
translation is required). The complexity of the documents may vary, from a copy of the 
applicant’s ID, to a certified translation of university degrees or the proof of professional 
qualifications in the home MS. Fees amount on average to €103 (median value: €133), 
and the average lead time is estimated to be about 45 days; 

3.  Temporary  mobility.  On  average,  professional  bodies  require  3.7  documents  per 
application (median value: 4). Of these, on average 1 document shall be presented in 
original, and 1.7 documents shall be translated by the applicant (in most cases, a certified 
or sworn translation is required). The type of documents is similar to those required for 
the establishment regimes. Fees amount on average to €20 (median value: €0). 

234 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Annex VI  
List of References 

235 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

  ADEME  (2011),  QualiCert  Manual  -  A  common  approach  for  certification  or  equivalent 

qualification of installers of small-scale renewable energy systems in buildings. 

  ADEME  (2012),  QualiCert  Publishable  report  -  Quality  certification  &  accreditation  for 
installers  of  small-scale  renewable  energy  systems,  supported  by  Intelligent  Energy 
Europe. 

  ADEME  (2014),  Marchés  et  emplois  liés  à  l'efficacité  énergétique  et  aux  énergies 

renouvelables: situation 2012-2013 et perspectives à court terme. 

  Aggerholm  S.  (2009),  Skærpede  krav  til  nybyggeriet  2010  og  fremover:  Økonomisk 

analyse, Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut. 

  ANCE  (2015),  Rapporto  2015  sulla  presenza  delle  imprese  di  costruzione  italiane  nel 

mondo. 

  Architect´s Council of Europe (2015), Response to consultation on the internal market 

for services. 

  ARGE (2015), Kostentreiber für den Wohnungsbau - Untersuchung und Betrachtung der 
wichtigsten  Einflussfaktoren  auf  die  Gestehungskosten  und  auf  die  aktuelle 
Kostenentwicklung von Wohnraum in Deutschland. 

  Asociación de Empresas de Eficiencia Energética (2012), Estudio sobre el Mercado de la 

Eficiencia Energética en España. 

  Bau  und  Reaktorsicherheit  (BMUB)  –  Endbericht  (2015),  Wissenschaftliche  und 
im  Rahmen  des 
technische  Begleitung  der  Baukostensenkungskommission, 
Forschungsprogramms „Zukunft Bau“ des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz. 
  Belgian  Energy  Efficiency  Action  Plan  According  to  the  Directives  2006/32/EC  and 

2012/27/EU article 24.2 Annex XIV part 2 

  BPIE (2012), Energy Efficiency Policies in Buildings – The Use of Financial Instruments at 

Member State Level. 

  BPIE  (2014),  Energy  Performance  Certificates  Across  the  EU,  A  Mapping  of  National 

Approaches. 

  BPIE  (2016),  Financing  Building  Energy  Performance  Improvement  in  Poland  –  Status 

Report. 

  BUILD UP Skills (2013 and revised in 2014), EU overview report. Staff working document. 
  Business Europe (2014), Remaining obstacles to a true single market for services. 
  CA EED (2014), Following central government’s exemplary  role in building renovation, 
Executive Summary Report 2.3, Core Theme 2 - Public Sector: public buildings and public 
purchasing, Working Group 3. 

  CA  EPBD  (2013),  Implementing  the  Energy  Performance  of  Buildings  Directive  – 

Featuring Country Reports 2012. 

  CA EPBD (2016), Implementing the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. 
  Camera dei deputati (2015), Il recupero e la riqualificazione energetica del patrimonio 

edilizio: una stima dell’impatto delle misure di incentivazione. 

  CA-RES (2015), II Core Theme Interim Report – Core Theme 3 RES HEAT (last accessed 

on April 2016). 

  CE DELFT (2015), Mid-term evaluation of the Renewable Energy Directive. A study in the 

context of the REFIT programme, Report for DG ENER. 

  CEOE (2014), La rehabilitación de edificios como motor de crecimiento y empleo. 
  CEPS  –  Economisti  Associati  (2013),  Assessing  the  Costs  and  Benefits  of  Regulation, 

Study for the European Commission - Secretariat General. 

  Chuan  C.  (2008),  Entry  mode  selection  for  international  construction  markets:  the 
influence of host country related factors, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 
26, No. 3. 

  Committee on Climate Change (2015), Meeting Carbon Budgets – Progress in reducing 

the UK’s emissions - 2015 Report to Parliament. 

  Construction  Products  Europe  (2014)  implementation  of  the  Construction  Product 

Regulation, Manufacturers’ report. 

  Cribis D&B (2014), Payment Study 2014 

236 

 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

  Danish  Energy  Agency  (2013),  Notification  to  the  Commission  regarding  Denmark's 

anticipated implementation of Article 5 of the Energy Efficiency Directive. 

  Dansk Byggeri (2015), Byggeriets Energianalyse 2015, København. 
  Department for communications, Energy and Natural Resources (2013), National Energy 

Efficiency Action Plan  2014. 

  Department for Communities and Local Government (2009), Impact Assessment of the 

European Commission’s proposed Construction Products Regulation 

  Department  for  Communities  and  Local  Government  (2013),  Changes  to  Part  L  of  the 

Building Regulations 2013 - Impact Assessment. 

  Department  for  Communities  and  Local  Government  (2010),  Implementation  Stage 
Impact Assessment of Revisions to Parts F and L of the Building Regulations from 2010. 
  Department of Energy and Climate Change (2014), UK National Energy Efficiency Action 

Plan. 

  Department of Energy and Climate Change (2013), An investigation of the effect of EPC 

ratings on house prices. 

  Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (2010), Regulatory 
Impact  Analysis  -  Conservation  of  Fuel  and  Energy  in  New  Dwellings  -  Proposed 
amendments to Building Regulations Part L and Technical Guidance Document L. 

  Department  of  the  Environment,  Heritage  and  Local  Government  (2007),  Regulatory 
Impact Assessment - Building Regulations Part L and Technical Guidance Document L. 
  Directorate  General  for  Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs  E/5 
(2015), Mutual evaluation of regulated professions Overview of the regulatory framework 
in  the  construction  sector  by  using  the  example  of  civil  engineers  Report  based  on 
information transmitted by MS and on the meeting of 30 September 2014. 

  Ecofys  (2014),  Final  technical  report  Evaluation  of  the  Energy  Labelling  Directive  and 

specific aspects of the Ecodesign Directive Report for DG ENER. 

  Ecofys (2015), Ex-post evaluation of the application of Directive 2010/31/EU, Final report 

for DG ENER. 

  Ecofys  (2015),  Public  Consultation  on  the  Evaluation  of  Directive  2010/31/EU,  Final 

synthesis report for DG ENER. 

  Economist Intelligence Unit (2013), Investing in energy efficiency in Europe’s buildings 

– A view from the construction and real estate sectors. 

  Ecorys (2015), Simplification and mutual recognition in the construction sector under the 

Services Directive, Final Report for DG MARKT. 

  EIB (undated, but 2015), The EIB in Romania in 2014. 
  ELIOS project (2010), Liability and insurance regimes in the construction sector: national 
schemes  and  guidelines  to  stimulate  innovation  and  sustainability,  Special  report  on 
liability and insurance regimes in 27 EU Member States. 

  Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen (2014), Late payment in western Europe: Comparative study. 
  Energy  Efficiency Financial Institutions Group (2015), Energy  Efficiency  – the first fuel 

for the EU Economy - How to drive new finance for energy efficiency investments. 

  Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes (Nov 2008), An assessment of the size of the 

UK household energy efficiency market, November 2008. 

  Enertech/ADEME (2011), Bâtiments performants – Etude économique – Rapport Final. 
  EPBD  (2011),  Implementing  the  Energy  Performance  of  Buildings  Directive  featuring 

country reports. 

  Euler Hermes (2012), Payment periods in Europe: wide gaps. 
  Euler Hermes (2012), Payment periods in Europe: wide gaps. 
  European Commission - DG Energy (2013), Energy performance certificates in buildings 
and their impact on transaction prices and rents in selected EU countries – Final Report. 

  European Commission (2015), Better Regulation Guidelines, SWD(2015)111. 
  European  Commission  (2015),  Better  Regulation  Toolbox,  annexed  to  the  European 

Commission, Better Regulation Guidelines, SWD(2015)110. 

237 

 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

  European  Commission  (2011),  Evaluation  of  the  Professional  Qualifications  Directive, 

Brussels, 05.07.2011. 

  European  Commission  (2011),  Evaluation  of  the  professional  qualifications  Directive 

(Directive 2005/36/EC). 

  European  Commission  (2012),  Executive  Summary,  Consultation  on  the  renewable 

energy strategy. 

  European Commission (2014), Report of the public consultation on the review of progress 

on the 2020 energy efficiency objective (last accessed on May 2016). 

  European Commission (2014) Report of the public consultation on the review of progress 
at: 

on 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2014_summary 
_report_energy2020.pdf. 

efficiency 

objective 

available 

(2014), 

energy 

2020 

the 

  European  Parliament  (2012),  Report  on  the  proposal  for  a  directive  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council on energy efficiency and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC 
and 2006/32/EC. European Parliament. Rapporteur: Claude Turmes. 

  European Parliament (2015), State of play on the transposition of Directive 2011/7/EU 

on late payments in commercial transactions, Briefing - Implementation in action. 

  European  Parliament  (2015),  Draft  Report  on  the  proposal  for  a  regulation  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  setting  a  framework  for  energy  efficiency 
labelling  and  repealing  Directive  2010/30/EU  (COM(2015)0341  –  C8-0189/2015  – 
2015/0149(COD)) 

  Expert Group on European Insurance Contract Law (2013), Discussion Paper 5: Liability 

Insurance, Meeting of 9-10 September. 

  Fabbri  D.  &  Klapper  F.L.  (2013),  Bargaining  Power  and  Trade  Credit,  working  paper 
http://www.cass.city.ac.uk/_media/internals/easy-edit-

available 
at: 
suite/wym?a=179726. 

  FFB (2013), Analyse de l’évolution comparée des prix  et  des coûts dans le bâtiment  - 

Préconisations en matière de simplifications règlementaires. 
  FFB (2015), Évolution des délais de paiement dans le bâtiment. 
  VHK, ift Rosenheim, VITO (2015), Final Report, LOT 32 / Ecodesign of Window Products, 
June 2015,  http://www.ecodesign-windows.eu/documents.htm (last accessed  on April, 
2016). 

  García-Navarro J. et al. (2014), Estudio Precost&: evaluación de los costes constructivos 
y consumos energéticos derivados de la calificación energética en un edificio de viviendas 
situado en Madrid, Informes de la Construcción. 

  GBPN (2013), What is a deep renovation definition?, Technical Report. 
  Georges  L.  and  others  (2012),  Environmental  and  economic  performance  of  heating 
systems  for  energy-efficient  dwellings:  Case  of  passive  and  low-energy  single-family 
houses, Energy Policy. 

  Giraudet L.G. and others (2010), A model of the French residential demand for heating 

energy to evaluate the impact of policy instruments, CIRED. 

  Gornig  M.  and  others  (2015),  German  construction  industry:  refurbishment  lacks 

momentum, new residential construction gets second wind, DIW Economic Bulletin 49. 

  Gouvernment  Français  (2015),  Rapport  annuel  2015,  dû  au  titre  de  l’article  24  de  la 

Directive Efficacité Energétique (DEE). 

  Graydon (2015), Comportement de paiement, Q3 2015. 
  Grupo de Trabajo sobre Rehabilitación (2013), Strategy for Buildings Renovation - Keys 

 

 
 

to Transform Spain’s Buildings Sector. 
International  Standard  Cost  Model  Network  (2005),  The  International  SCM  Manual: 
measuring and reducing administrative burdens for businesses. 
Intrum Justitia (2014), European Payment Index 2014 - Industry White Paper. 
Janssens B. and Verbruggen A. (2014), Feasibility of upgrading the energy performance 
of recent massive brick houses, Frontiers of Architectural Research. 

238 

 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

  Kyrieri  K.M.  (2014),  The  Modernised  Directive  on  Professional  Qualifications  and  its 

Impact on National Legislations. 

  Magyar J. (2014), CA EED – Core Theme 6, CA EPBD meeting in Dubrovnik – outcomes 
on co-ordinated approaches to training and accreditation of experts (EPBD recast Article 
17 and EED Article 16). 

  Manchester Business School (2009), Study on voluntary arrangements for collaborative 

working in the field of construction services, Report for DG ENTR. 

  MDRAP (2015), Annex to Government Resolution No. 122/2015 for the approval of the 
National Energy Efficiency Action Plan, at p. 75 - Official Journal of Romania, Year 183 
(XXVII) – No. 169 bis. 

  Ministère de l'Emploi, de la Cohésion sociale et du Logement, Règlementation Thermique 

2005 - Réunion départementale d’information (undated). 

  Ministère l'Écologie, de l'Énergie, du Développement durable et de la Mer (undated), La 

réglementation thermique 2012  

  Ministerio De Industria, Energia y Turismo (2014), 2014–2020 National Energy Efficiency 

Action Plan. 

  Ministry  of  Ecology,  Sustainable  development  and  Energy  (2013),  Transposition  de 
l’article 5 de la directive européenne 2012/27/UE relative à l’efficacité énergétique. Rôle 
exemplaire des bâtiments appartenant à des organismes publics. fiche de synthèse. 
  Ministry  of  Economic  Development  (2014),  Application  of  Article  5  of  Directive 

2012/27/EU on the exemplary role of public bodies’ buildings. 

  NSCC and FMB (2014), Credit Where Credit Isn’t Due - The Results of the NSCC & FMB 

Payment Survey 2014. 

  Observatoire des délais de paiement (various  years), Rapport annuel de l’observatoire 

des délais de paiement, Banque de France. 

  ODYSSE – MURE (2015), Synthesis: Energy Efficiency Trends and Policies in the EU. 
  OECD (2014), Regulatory Compliance Cost Assessment Guidance. 
  Office  of the Deputy Prime Minister (2006), Regulatory  Impact Assessment Part  L and 

Approved Document F. 

  PRC (2007), Study to evaluate the Internal Market and Competitiveness Effects of Council 

Directive 89/106/EEC, Final Report to DG ENTR. 

  Prognos  (2013),  Ermittlung  der  Wachstumswirkungen  der  KfW-Programme  zum 

Energieeffizienten Bauen und Sanieren. 

  PWC  and  London  Economics  (2013),  Study  on  ‘The  cost  of  non-Europe:  the  untapped 
potential of the European Single Market’, Final Report for the European Commission. 

  Ricardo-AEA (2014), Ireland’s Sustainable Energy Supply Chain Opportunity. 
  Rosenow, J. and  Eyre  N. (2014), Re-energising the UK’s approach to domestic energy 

efficiency, ECEEE Summer Study Proceedings. 

  RPA (2015), Analysis of implementation of the  Construction Products Regulation, Final 
Report  prepared  for  the  European  Commission,  DG  Internal  Market,  Industry, 
Entrepreneurship, and SME. 

  Santos P. and Wittchen K. B. (2011), The price of energy performance certificates, CA 

EPBD. 

  Schrelfer,  L.,  Luchetta,  G.  and  F.  Simonelli  (2013),  Regulatory  Impact  Assessment:  A 
New  Approach  to  ex  post  Evaluation  in  the  EU:  The  Cumulative  Cost  Assessment, 
European Journal of Risk Regulation, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 539 – 541. 

  Shnapp, S., Gibert, R.S. and C. Higgins (2013), How can we renovate deeply if we don’t 

know what that is?, ECEEE Summer Study proceedings 

  Stanley S. , R C Lyons and S Lyons (2015), Price Effect of Building Energy Ratings in the 

Dublin Residential Market, Trinity Economics Papers - Working Paper No. 0415.  

  The  Coalition  for  Energy  Savings  (2015)  -  Implementing  the  EU  Energy  Efficiency 

Directive: Analysis of Member States plans to implement Article 5. 

  Thomsen K. E. and Aggerholm S. (2009), Denmark: Impact, compliance and control of 

legislation, ASIEPI, 31 December. 

239 

 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

  UEAPME  (2008)  Position  of  the  UEAPME  Construction  Forum  on  “Directive  on  the 

promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources” (COM/2008/19). 

  Urge-Vorsatz  D.  and  others  (2015),  Monetary  Benefits  of  Ambitious  Building  Energy 
Policies. Research report prepared by ABUD for the Global Building Performance Network. 
  Valdani Vicari Associati, Technopolis Group, Ernst & Young (2015), Ex-post evaluation of 

the late payment directive, Report for the European Commission. 

  Young  B.  (2014),  Concerted  Action  EPBD  –  Core  Theme  2,  6th  Energy  Efficiency  Co-

ordination Group Meeting. 

  Young B. (2015), Synergy (or not) between inspection and audit, EECG 7th meeting. 

240 

 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Annex VII  
Analysis of findings from the 
open public consultation 

241 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

1 INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH 

1.1 The fitness check and the Open Public Consultation 

As  required  by  the  Better  Regulation  Toolbox,  the  European  Commission  launched  an  Open 
Public Consultation (OPC) to gather the views and opinions of interested stakeholders and the 
public at large on the impact of selected pieces of EU legislation on the construction sector 547, 
The findings of the OPC have been used to support and validate the analysis in the Final Report 
of  this  Study,  which  will,  in  turn,  feed  into  the  Fitness  Check  for  the  Construction  Sector 
undertaken by the Commission. 

The public consultation involved a broad internet-based exercise designed to capture the views 
of  a  wide  range  of  EU  stakeholders,  as  part  of  the  European  Commission’s  open  governance 
policy.  

The purpose of this report is to present a brief overview of the methodology used, together with 
a detailed summary of the answers gathered by the OPC. 

1.2 A single Open Public Consultation for the two studies 

The OPC was publicly available for 12 weeks, from 29 March 2016 until 20 June 2016. It covered 
both the current Study, and the parallel study on health and safety and environmental policies.   

The Consultation focused on the 15 EU legislative texts selected by the two studies in the policy 
fields  of  Internal  Market,  Energy  Efficiency,  Environment  and  Health  &  Safety  and,  more 
specifically, on those provisions within these EU texts that may impact the construction sector. 

This report only deals with the OPC questions in the current Study that relate to the nine pieces 
of legislation relevant to the areas of Internal Market and Energy Efficiency. 

1.3 Reaching a large audience and gathering the most relevant information 

It was vital that members of the public be given an opportunity to provide their views on whether 
the EU legislation remains ‘fit for purpose’ and to comment on the main research questions of 
the Fitness Check. However, the EU legislation on Internal Market and Energy Efficiency consists 
of several complex Directives and Regulations. While the consultation process should be as open 
as possible, the Fitness Check itself necessarily goes into a very high level of detail. 

In order to reach the widest possible audience and gather the most relevant information from 
various stakeholders, two tools were used: 

  Tool 1: three questionnaires were devised for three types of respondents – professionals, 

public authorities and citizens. 

  Tool  2:  respondents  could  easily  opt-out  of  having  to  answer  questions  on  a  specific 
instrument  or  issue  if  they  felt  their  answer  would  not  be  relevant.  This  option  was 
presented after explanations had been provided on the theme and piece of legislation.  

More information on these two tools are presented in the sections below. 

547  European  Commission,  Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  SWD(2015)111,  19.5.2015;  European  Commission,  Better 
Regulation Toolbox, annexed to the European Commission, Better Regulation Guidelines, SWD(2015)110, 19.5.2015.  

242 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

1.3.1 Three different questionnaires: citizens, professionals, public authorities 

In order to gather the most relevant information from various types of stakeholders, three sets 
of questions were devised to correspond to the following three categories of respondents: 

  A questionnaire directed towards citizens (Citizens’ Questionnaire).  
  A  questionnaire  directed  towards  professionals  in  the  construction  sector  (e.g. 
employees, independents, entrepreneurs) and those respondents answering on behalf of 
an organisation/institution/company (Professionals’ Questionnaire). 

  A questionnaire directed towards public authorities (Authorities’ Questionnaire).   

While this report outlines the stakeholders’ answers, it should be borne in mind before reading 
the  detailed  summary  of  the  responses  that  small  sentencing  differences  between  the 
questionnaires  exists.  In  addition,  some  questions  were  only  asked  to  certain  respondents, 
especially  as  concerns  the  questionnaires’  first  section  that  gathered  information  on  the 
respondents. Finally, the Professionals’ Questionnaire included a few additional questions that 
were not asked to other respondents, in which case it is indicated throughout the Annex.  

1.3.2 The three blocks of legislation, subsections of the OPC relating to the Internal Market and 
Energy Efficiency 

The part of the OPC covered by the current Study begins with an introductory section followed 
by four sections, three asking questions about a group of EU legal acts in the areas of Internal 
Market and Energy Efficiency, with a fourth addressing all EU legal acts considered. The approach 
taken in the coherence section of the current Study – dividing the identified EU legal acts into 
three groups – was also followed in the OPC.  

The first section concentrates on EU legislation on the provision of services in the construction 
sector.  It  explores the implications on the construction sector  of the following Directives: the 
Professional Qualifications Directive (PQD), the Services Directive (SD) and the Late Payments 
Directive (LPD) in three subsections: 

  The first subsection tackles the issue of simplification of administrative procedures;  
  The second subsection focuses on cross-border operations; and  
  The third subsection offers respondents the possibility to comment on late payments. 

The second section concentrates on three pieces of energy efficiency legislation that impact the 
construction sector – the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED), the Energy Performance of Buildings 
Directive (EPBD) and the Renewable Energy Sources Directive (RESD). This section is divided 
into two subsections:  

  A first subsection on heating and air-conditioning systems, in particular the inspection 
and  installation  of  these  systems  and  the  accreditation  of  inspection  and  installation 
experts; and  

  A second subsection dealing with the improvement and strengthening of energy efficiency 

through public procurement. 

A third section is dedicated to EU legislation establishing product or labelling requirements for 
construction  products,  i.e.  the  Construction  Products  Regulation  (EU)  305/2011  (CPR),  the 
Ecodesign Directive 2009/125/EC (EDD) and the Energy Labelling Directive 2010/30/EU (ELD). 
A single subsection addresses issues linked to entry into the market,  namely CE marking and 
Declaration of Performance (DOP) of construction products.  

Finally,  a  fourth  section  tackles  the  more  complex  issue  of  coherence  between  the  different 
pieces  of  legislation  and  seeks  to  further  identify  sources  of  impact  –  positive  or  negative  – 
between either the various pieces of EU legislation themselves or between EU legislation and its 
implementation at national level. 

243 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

2 RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

2.1 Overview of responses 

2.1.1 Number of respondents 

Fifty-five respondents answered the survey and are covered by the following analysis. 

In practice, 53 stakeholders answered the survey while the OPC was publicly available, i.e. from 
29  March  2016  until  20  June  2016.  These  included  34  respondents  to  the  Professionals’ 
Questionnaire, 14 to the Authorities’ Questionnaire, and five to the Citizens Questionnaire.  

Some stakeholders indicated that they would provide answers shortly after the deadline, which 
the Commission accepted from three professional bodies and one public authority. Two of these 
late  answers  were  not  subsequently  included  in  the  analysis  of  the  OPC,  as  they  consisted 
exclusively  of  written  statements  instead  of  answering  the  survey  questions.  These  answers 
were considered, where appropriate, within the Study’s final report. 

During the analysis, one respondent to the Authorities’ Questionnaire was re-categorised as a 
professional body and considered among the professional respondents. The analysis assumes 
that this respondent chose not to answer those questions only asked within the Professionals’ 
Questionnaire. 

The  total  of  respondents  was  therefore  55,  including  37  respondents  to  the  Professionals’ 
Questionnaire,  13  respondents  to  the  Authorities’  Questionnaire  and  five  respondents  to  the 
Citizens’ Questionnaire. 

244 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

2.1.2 Responses to section i of the questionnaires 

Geographical coverage  

The 55 respondents covered 18 EU Member States and two reported as non-European countries 
(Norway and Switzerland). Exhibit 2.1 gives an overview of the data recorded by country. 

Exhibit 2.1  Geographical coverage (Number of respondents) 

8

13

Belgium
Germany
Finland
Spain
United Kindom
France
Non-EU
Sweden
Luxembourg
Italy
Croatia
Denmark
No information
Romania
Austria
Netherlands
Malta
Ireland
Estonia
Czech Republic

4
4

3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

0

2

4
8
6
Geographical coverage

10

12

14

Note: One respondent did not provide information about the country. 

Belgium was the Member State most frequently cited, with 13 of respondents out of 55 stating 
it  as  their  main  place  of  residence  (including  8  European  business  federations).  Germany 
followed with 8 respondents, with Finland and Spain each mentioned by four respondents. The 
UK  and  France  were  cited  by  three  apiece,  and  Sweden,  Luxembourg,  Italy,  Croatia  and 
Denmark by two respondents each.   

Breakdown of the three questionnaires 

A majority of respondents were professionals (37 of 55), followed by 13 public authorities and 
five citizens. Most of the professionals and public authorities reported that their organisations 
were involved with the construction sector  

Principal field of activity of professionals  

Of the latter category, eight professionals indicated that their companies specialised in building 
activities,  seven  in  manufacturing,  imports  and  distribution  of  construction  materials,  five  in 
architecture, and two in real estate activity. Six respondents did not provide precise information 
about the field of activity (category: other).  

245 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 2.2   Principal field of activity of professionals (Number of respondents) 

Field of activity 

Respondents 

a. Manufacturing/import/distribution of construction 
materials or construction products (NACE Rev.2, sections B 
and C) Total 

b. Building construction activities (NACE Rev.2, code F41) 
Total 

g. Architecture and/or engineering (NACE Rev.2, code M71) 
Total 

h. Technical testing and analysis (such as auditors, certifiers) 
(NACE Rev.2, code M71) Total 

i. Real estate activities (NACE Rev.2, code L) Total 

j. Other Total 

Total 

Professionals’ market segments  

7 

8 

5 

1 

2 

6 

29 

A total of 22 respondents provided information about the market segment of their companies:  

 
 
 

Eight involved in construction of new buildings; 
Four in maintenance and renovation of existing buildings (residential); and  
Two  in  construction  of  new  buildings  (non-residential)  and  in  maintenance  and 
renovation and non-residential buildings.  

Classification of respondents to the Professionals’ Questionnaire 

Exhibit 2.3   Type  of  organization  represented  by  professionals  (Number  of 

respondents) 

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

9

s
r
e
k
r
o
W

i
t
a
i
c
o
s
s
a
/
n
o

i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o

i

n
o
n
u
e
d
a
r
t
/
n
o

4

–
y
n
a
p
m
o
c
e
t
a
v
i
r
P

y
m
g
n
i
t
n
e
s
e
r
p
e
r

y
n
a
p
m
o
c

2

–
r
o
t
c
e
s
n
o

i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
c

y
m
g
n
i
t
n
e
s
e
r
p
e
r

t
o
n

y
n
a
p
m
o
c

1

l
a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
t
n
I

n
o

i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o

6

5

s
s
e
n
i
s
u
b
/
y
r
t
s
u
d
n
I

i

e
d
w
-
U
E
n
o
i
t
a
i
c
o
s
s
a

s
s
e
n
i
s
u
b
/
y
r
t
s
u
d
n
I

r
e
b
m
e
M
n
o
i
t
a
i
c
o
s
s
a

s
e
t
a
t
S

3

l
a
t
n
e
m
n
r
e
v
o
g
-
n
o
N

)
O
G
N
(
n
o

i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o

1

y
c
n
a
t
l
u
s
n
o
C

2

p
u
o
r
g
t
s
e
r
e
t
n

i

r
e
h
t
O

i
t
a
i
c
o
s
s
a
/
n
o

i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o

n
o

4

r
e
h
t
O

e
h
t
n

i
e
e
y
o
p
m
E

l

Most of the professionals (20 of 37) classified their company either as an industry / business 
association  or  as  an  organization/association  and  trade  union  (see  Exhibit  2.3).  Seven 
professionals provided precise information about the size of their company as a micro-enterprise 
(two), a small enterprise (two), a medium enterprise (one), or a large enterprise (two).  

246 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

2.2 Indicative familiarity of the respondents with the pieces of EU legislation covered  

One  question  in  the  coherence  section  asked  respondents  about  their  perceived  degree  of 
familiarity  with  the  nine  pieces  of  EU  legislation  covered  by  the  study.  Respondents  could 
answer: very familiar, somewhat familiar, or not familiar to each EU instrument. 

Responses - Statistical methodology 

Respondents who did not provide an answer were considered ‘not familiar’ for the purposes of 
the analysis.  

Overview of responses 

As shown in Exhibit 2.4 below, the majority of respondents (46% representing 228 answers out 
of 495 over the nine EU legislation considered) indicated that they were not familiar with the 
instruments included. More than one-third of respondents, however, stated that they were very 
familiar  with  the  different  instruments,  with  a  further  95  respondents  somewhat  familiar. 
Overall,  therefore,  54%  of  the  respondents  (297  answers  out  of  495)  claimed  to  have  some 
familiarity with the nine pieces of legislation under analysis. 

Thirty-three respondents answered that they had no familiarity with the LPD, making this piece 
of legislation the least well-known among the different instruments covered. This covered a wide 
variety  of  respondents  from  the  Professionals’  Questionnaire,  including  freelancer,  former 
professionals, micro-enterprise, as well as national and EU business federations and professional 
bodies. The CPR and the EED appear to be the instruments that stakeholders were most familiar 
with, with 36 respondents each. Concerning respondents to the Professionals' Questionnaire on 
the  CPR,  only  one  micro-enterprise  acknowledged  some  familiarity,  the  rest  of  respondents 
being either national or EU business federations and professional bodies. The situation is similar 
in the case of the EED, albeit with more national smaller sized companies. In both the CPR and 
the  EED,  the  background  of  these  companies  is  however  wide  and  not  exclusive  to  the 
construction  products  industry  or  professionals  from  the  energy  sector,  encompassing  e.g. 
architects,  engineers,  producer  of  construction  materials,  and  construction  firms.  Thirty 
respondents stated that they were very familiar with the CPR, making it the most well-known 
among the different instruments covered. 

Exhibit 2.4  Indicative familiarity of the respondents with the pieces of EU legislation 

covered (Number of respondents) 

Very familiar 

Somewhat 
familiar 

Not familiar 

Construction Product Regulation  

Professional Qualifications Directive  

Services Directive  

Late Payments Directive  

Energy Efficiency Directive  

Energy Performance of Buildings 
Directive  

Ecodesign Directive 

Energy Labelling Directive 

Renewable Energy Sources Directive 

30 

16 

16 

14 

25 

27 

14 

17 

13 

6 

11 

12 

8 

11 

7 

15 

12 

13 

19 

28 

27 

33 

19 

21 

26 

26 

29 

247 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Block of legislation providing requirements for construction products 

In the case of the block of legislation providing requirements for construction products, either 
as product requirements or as labelling requirements, respondents indicated that they were, on 
average,  slightly  more  knowledgeable  across  the  nine  pieces  of  legislation.  However,  the 
answers on the EDD and the ELD were very balanced. 

Exhibit 2.5  Indicative familiarity with the block of legislation providing requirements 

for construction products (Number of respondents) 

Very familiar 

Construction Product Regulation  

Ecodesign Directive 

Energy Labelling Directive 

30 

14 

17 

Block of energy efficiency legislation 

Somewhat 
familiar 
6 

15 

12 

Not familiar 

19 

26 

26 

In  the  case  of  the  block  of  energy  efficiency  legislation  applicable  to  the  construction  sector, 
respondents indicated that they were slightly more knowledgeable, on average, across the nine 
pieces of legislation. 42% of respondents stated that they were very familiar with the three acts, 
making this block the most well-known of the three.  

Exhibit 2.6  Indicative  familiarity  with  the  block  of  energy  efficiency  legislation 

applicable to the construction sector (Number of respondents)  

Very familiar 

Somewhat 
familiar 

Not familiar 

Energy Efficiency Directive  

Energy Performance of Buildings 
Directive  

Energy Labelling Directive 

25 

27 

17 

11 

7 

12 

19 

21 

26 

Block of legislation applicable to the provision of services 

In the case of the block of legislation applicable to the provision of services in the construction 
sector, respondents indicated that they were not familiar with the legislation in more than half 
of cases, making this block the least well-known of the three.  

Exhibit 2.7   Indicative  familiarity  with  the  block  of  legislation  applicable  to  the 
provision of services in the construction sector (Number of respondents) 

Very familiar 

Somewhat 
familiar 

Not familiar 

Late Payments Directive  

Professional Qualifications Directive  

Services Directive  

14 

16 

16 

8 

11 

12 

33 

28 

27 

248 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

2.3 Overall summary of responses 

Few respondents had been actively involved in permitting procedures, and the results do not 
give a view on whether procedures have grown more or less complex. Permits for new buildings 
and for use permits (e.g. a permit necessary upon completion of construction works)548 were 
particularly subject to mixed impressions, with an equal number of respondents finding these 
procedures either simplified or more complex.  

On  cross-border  issues,  three  of  the  respondents  were  enterprises,  including  two  large 
companies  and  one  micro-enterprise.  Overall,  respondents  found  that  procedures  for  the 
recognition  of  qualifications  and  provisions  of  services  in  cross-border  situations  had  been 
simplified.  However,  taken  together,  a  larger  number  stated  that  these  procedures  had  not 
changed,  or had become more  complex. A large majority of the  respondents here were from 
countries  which  share  borders,  in  particular  Belgium,  France,  Germany,  and  Luxembourg.  A 
large  majority  also  indicated  that  they  felt  an  increased  presence  of  companies  from  other 
Member States in their home markets. 

Overall, respondents found that timing for payments had decreased. 

Respondents were asked whether the changes experienced in cross-border working had an effect 
such as stimulating favourable investment, facilitating free circulation of products, or facilitating 
establishment.  While  a  large  number  of  respondents  gave  no  answer,  almost  one-third 
responded  positively, indicating that,  on  the  matter  of  cross-border  operations  related  to  the 
activity  of  construction  businesses  and  professionals,  the  EU  legislation  may  be  achieving  its 
aims.  

Asked  whether  inspection/installation  of  energy-related  systems  is  carried  out  by  visibly 
qualified and/or accredited experts, over half of the respondents replied in the affirmative, with 
a majority believing that a list of such experts was publicly available, even if they are not used 
by  the  public.  A  majority  of  respondents  indicated  that  inspection,  provision  of  advice,  or 
installation  of  renewable  energy  sources  had  become  more  frequent.  However,  one-third  of 
respondents found these services unchanged.  

Respondents were asked whether the changes they had observed in relation to energy efficiency 
had effects such as improving the energy performance of construction products or efficiency of 
buildings, or stimulating the construction or renovation of buildings. A majority of respondents 
–  often  a  significant  majority  –  answered  positively.  The  stimulation  of  construction  of  new 
buildings is the only issue about which the majority of respondents felt negatively.  

Asked  whether  they  had  noticed  an  increased  use  of  energy  efficiency  criteria  in  the  public 
tenders of the central, local and regional governments, almost half of the respondents answered 
‘yes’ at all three levels of governance. 

Twenty-seven respondents out of 37 of respondents felt that the information provided through 
the  DOP  and  CE  marking  is  important  for  successful  functioning  of  the  internal  market.  A 
majority  of  respondents  answered  that  the  DOP  and  CE  marking  procedures  for  construction 
products  had  not  been  changed  according  to  policies  in  energy  efficiency  in  buildings, 
environmental protection, public health and safety, and health and safety at work. However, 22 
out of 37 respondents felt that the ecodesign framework appreciably affects the credibility of 
the CE marking of construction products. 

548  Use  permits  include  all  procedures  and  checks  that  are  carried  out  on  a  completed  (or  close  to 
completion) building and/or in case of other completed (or close to completion) construction works, so that 
the building or other construction work can be deemed legally completed and/or can be used for zresidential 
and non-residential purposes. 

249 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

3 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO SECTION II ON THE INTERNAL MARKET AND 
ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

3.1 Questions on EU legislation related to the activity of construction businesses and 
professionals 

3.1.1. Simplification of administrative procedures (Section II.1.a. of the OPC) 

3.1.1.1 Respondents’ involvement in procedures for a permit for construction works and/or 
the provision of services related to construction works in the period 2004-2014  

Wording and differences among the three questionnaires 

The Professionals’ Questionnaire and Citizens’ Questionnaire both asked if the respondents had 
sought a permit for construction works and/or the provision of services related to construction 
works in the period 2004-2014. The Authorities’ Questionnaire asked whether the respondents 
had granted such a permit or provision of services. 

The answers proposed followed the same distinction: a) whether the respondent had sought or 
granted one or more permits for construction works and/or the provision of services related to 
the construction works, b) whether the respondent had acted as a representative in the permit 
process, or c) no. 

Responses 

Exhibit 3.1  Respondents’  involvement  in  procedures  for  a  permit  for  construction 
works and/or the provision of services related to construction works in 
the period 2004-2014 (Number of respondents) 

Professionals 

Public 
authorities 

Citizens  Total 

Had sought or granted one or more 
permits for construction works 
and/or the provision of services 
related to the construction works 

Had acted as a representative in the 
permit process 

No 

No information 

Total 

5 

2 

29 

1 

37 

3 

1 

9 

0 

13 

1 

1 

3 

0 

5 

9 

4 

41 

1 

55 

Overall, 13 respondents were involved in the permitting or provision of services, seven of whom 
were professionals. 

The majority of respondents to all three questionnaires answered negatively. 

3.1.1.2 Perceived changes in administrative procedures and factors for this change  

The  respondents  were  asked  if  they  had  noted  any  changes  to  four  procedures,  namely 
permitting for new construction or renovation works and for operation or use. They could choose 
between  more  complexity,  no  change,  simplification  and  no  opinion.  If  changes  had  been 
observed, the respondents were then asked whether the changes involved modifications to the 
duration of the processes, requirements applicable to the processes, cost of the processes, or, 
again, they could give no opinion. 

250 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

A total of 17 respondents  out of 55  chose to answer these questions  (ten professionals, four 
public authorities and three citizens). The rest of respondents chose to opt-out of answering. 

Box 3.1 below shows the question from the Professionals’ Questionnaire for illustrative purposes. 

Box 3.1: Professionals’ Questionnaire - Perceived changes in administrative procedures and 
factors for this change (Q12/14P) 

Responses 

Overview of the four procedures 

Overall,  respondents  described  procedures  as  more  complex  23  times  and  simpler  23  times, 
while  12  respondents  noted  no  changes  and  seven  gave  no  opinion.  These  results  do  not, 
therefore, allow a view on whether procedures have grown more or less complex.  

The permits for new buildings and for use permits (e.g. a permit necessary upon completion of 
construction  works)  were  particularly  subject  to  mixed  impressions  with  an  equal  number  of 
respondents finding these procedures either more complex or more simple.  

251 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Permit for new building 

Exhibit 3.2  Permit for new building (Number of respondents) 

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

2

1

5

1

3

4

1

More
complexity

No change

Simplification

No opinion

Citizens

Public Authorities

Professionals

In the case of the permitting procedure for new buildings, 5 respondents to the Professionals’ 
Questionnaire  found  that  processes  had  become  more  complex.  This  included  three  national 
business federations from northern Europe and architects from countries in the Mediterranean 
basin. It cannot, however, be taken as clear-cut, as one architect (also from the Mediterranean 
basin),  one  large  company  (based  in  a  similar  Member  State  to  one  of  the  national  business 
federations),  one  national  professional  body  representing  engineers,  and  another  significant 
business  federation  all  reported  that  the  permitting  procedure  for  new  buildings  had  been 
simplified. Duration and requirements were the factors most frequently cited as responsible for 
either the increased complexity or simplification of permitting processes. One professional body 
noted no change in procedures, nor did it express an opinion on the reason for this.  

This mixed perception is in contrast to the views of public authorities, who  out of a total of 4 
respondents, 3 found that the permitting processes for new buildings had been simplified. Two 
of these authorities are Ministries based in Member States that acceded to the EU after 2005, 
while  the  third  is  a  grouping  of  municipalities.  All  three  cited  duration  and  requirements  as 
reasons  for  this  simplification.  The  public  authority  that  indicated  increased  complexity  in 
permitting requirements is a national Ministry.  

Two citizens stated that the procedures had grown more  complex, with one individual noting 
some simplification. 

252 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Permit for renovation works 

Exhibit 3.3  Permit for renovation works (Number of respondents) 

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

2

1

4

1

3

1

2

2

More
complexity

No change

Simplification

No opinion

1

Citizens

Public Authorities

Professionals

In the case of permitting renovation works, seven respondents stated that the procedures had 
become  more  complex,  five  believed  that  they  had  been  simplified,  four  that  they  had  not 
changed, and one expressed no opinion. 

Among the respondents to the Professionals’ Questionnaire, the majority found procedures to 
be more complex, including a business federation whose main business area is renovation. These 
four respondents systematically cited the requirements applicable to processes as a factor in the 
increased  complexity. Both respondents who noted simplification, by contrast,  cited duration. 
Three  respondents  found  that  no  changes  had  occurred,  including  two  national  professional 
bodies and a business federation. 

Two public authorities, including a national Ministry and a grouping of municipalities, believed 
that procedures had been simplified, indicating both requirements and duration as factors. One 
national  Ministry,  by  contrast,  found  that  processes  had  become  more  complex  due  to 
requirements, while another Ministry found that processes had not changed. 

Two citizens indicated that the procedures had grown more complex, while one individual had 
perceived some simplification. 

253 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Operational permit 

Exhibit 3.4  Operational permit (Number of respondents) 

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

2

More
complexity

2

2

3

Citizens

Public Authorities

Professionals

1

3

1

1

2

No change

Simplification

No opinion

With respect to operational permits (for instance a permit for scaffolding), only two respondents 
to  the  Professionals’  Questionnaire  highlighted  increased  complexity,  namely  an  architect’s 
micro-enterprise  that  identified  duration  and  requirements  as  the  factors  in  the  increased 
complexity, and an international business federation that identified no specific factors. On the 
other  hand,  one  Member  State’s  national  body  of  architects  and  two  national  business 
federations  noticed  no  change,  while  another  architect’s  micro-enterprise,  together  with  a 
national  professional  body,  stated  that  these  processes  had  been  simplified.  Only  the  latter 
identified factors for change as duration and cost. 

One  respondent  to  the  Authorities’  Questionnaire  (a  grouping  of  municipalities)  found  the 
processes had been simplified, identifying duration and requirements as the change factors. One 
national  Ministry  noticed  no  change,  yet  cited  process  requirements  as  a  factor.  No  citizens 
expressed an opinion on operational permits. 

254 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Use permit (e.g. a permit necessary upon completion of construction works) 

Exhibit 3.5  Use permit (Number of respondents) 

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

1

1

4

1

2

3

1

2

Citizens

Public Authorities

Professionals

1

0

1

More
complexity

No change

Simplification

No opinion

Finally,  in  relation  to  use  permits  (e.g.  a  permit  necessary  upon  completion  of  construction 
works), of the six respondents who stated that the processes were more complex, four responses 
came  from  the  Professionals’  Questionnaire  (one  architect’s  micro-enterprise,  two  national 
business federations, and one international business federation). They all identified duration and 
requirements, with two also indicated cost. One citizen found that duration and requirements 
had made the processes more complex, and one public body indicated that requirements had 
complicated the permitting process for use permits. 

A national body of architects, a large company, and a Member State’s Ministry did not, however, 
notice any changes in procedures. 

One architect’s micro-enterprise, one business federation from the same country, and a national 
professional body all felt the processes had been simplified, with the former identifying duration, 
and the latter duration and cost as the main factors in this change. A grouping of municipalities 
and a Ministry both stated that the processes had been simplified, for reasons of duration and 
requirements. 

One citizen indicated that the procedures had grown more complex, one indicated simplification, 
and one gave no opinion. 

3.1.2 Cross-border operations (Section II.1.b. of the OPC) 

3.1.2.1 Professional respondents and carrying out cross-border activities in the EU. 

Only the Professionals’ Questionnaire addressed if, and where, the respondents had carried out 
cross-border activities in the EU.  

255 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Responses 
Twelve respondents answered positively, indicating that they, or their organisation, had carried 
out cross-border activities in the EU. Of these 12, three respondents indicated that the business 
in question was a micro enterprise, with two others being categorised as large. Also of these 
twelve  respondents,  four  were  chiefly  based  in  Germany,  three  in  Belgium,  and  one  each  in 
Spain, the UK, Denmark, Luxembourg and France. 

Twenty-three respondents answered in the negative, with seven from Belgium, and two each 
from Spain, Italy, Germany, Finland and France. The remaining five respondents who had not 
undertaken  cross-border  activities  in  the  EU-28  were  evenly  shared  among  the  UK,  Austria, 
Ireland, Luxembourg and Sweden. One respondent declined to answer this question. 

Of the 12 respondents who had undertaken cross-border activities, all but one listed the Member 
States in which those activities took place. Responses ranged from a single Member State to the 
whole EU, with an average of 11 Member States per respondent. Belgium was the Member State 
most frequently cited as a destination for cross-border activities, with eight respondents listing 
it.  France  followed  with  seven,  while  Italy  and  Germany  were  cited  by  six  respondents.  The 
Netherlands,  Luxembourg,  Spain  and  Denmark  were  each  listed  by  five  respondents,  while a 
total of four respondents answered that they had performed cross-border activities in the UK, 
Portugal, Poland and the Czech Republic. Three respondents stated that they had carried out 
cross-border activities in each of the EU-28 Member States. 

3.1.2.2  Perceived  changes  relating  to  the  recognition  of  professional  qualifications, 
freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment  

The three questionnaires contained the same wording, with each asking respondents if they had 
noted  or  perceived  any  changes  (more  complexity,  no  changes,  simplification,  no  opinion) in 
three procedures in the past years. These procedures related to:  

1.  The recognition of qualifications of professionals qualified in other EU Member States. 
2.  The authorisation to perform an activity in the construction sector in another EU Member 

States on a temporary basis (freedom to provide services). 

3.  The authorisation to perform an activity in the construction sector in another EU Member 

State on a permanent basis (freedom of establishment). 

256 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Box 3.2 below illustrates these questions from the Professionals’ Questionnaire.  

Box 3.2 Professionals’ Questionnaire - relating to the recognition of professional 
qualifications, freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment (Q20/21P) 

Responses 

A majority (24) of respondents found that the procedures had been simplified, while 12 noticed 
no change. 14 did not express an opinion, and seven found the procedures more complex. 

257 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 3.6  Perceived  changes  relating 

the  recognition  of  professional 
qualifications, freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment 
(Number of respondents) 

to 

More 
complexity 

No change  Simplification 

No 
opinion 

3 

2 

3 

5 

9 

9 

4 

3 

2 

4 

6 

7 

Obtaining the recognition 
of qualifications of 
professionals qualified in 
other EU Member States 

Obtaining the authorisation 
to perform an activity in the 
construction sector in 
another EU Member State 
on a temporary basis 
(freedom to provide 
services) 

Obtaining the authorisation 
to perform an activity in the 
construction sector in 
another EU Member State 
on a permanent basis 
(freedom of establishment) 

Obtaining  the  recognition  of  qualifications  of  professionals  qualified  in  other  EU 
Member States 

Exhibit 3.7  Recognition of professional qualifications from other EU Member States 

(Number of respondents) 

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

1

1

7

Citizens

Authorities

Professionals

1

2

1

1

2

3

More
complexity

No change

Simplification

No opinion

In  relation  to  the  recognition  of  professional  qualifications  from  other  Member  States,  seven 
respondents  to  the  Professionals’  Questionnaire  had  noticed  simplification,  including  three 
business  federations  and  four  national  professional  bodies.  Five  of  these  identified  simplified 
requirements, and two indicated duration, as the simplifying factor. 

258 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Two respondents to the Professionals’ Questionnaire – one architect’s micro-enterprise and one 
national business federation – felt the process was more complex. Three respondents, including 
a large company and two national professional bodies, had noticed no change. 

One  Ministry  felt  the  processes  had  been  simplified  in  both  duration  and  requirements,  while 
another  believed  that  the  applicable  requirements  had  grown  more  complex.  Two  authorities 
expressed no opinion. 

One  citizen  identified  cost  as  a  main  reason  for  simplification.  Another  citizen  found  the 
processes  more  complex  without  indicating  a  factor  for  change,  and  was  counted  as  having 
answered ‘no opinion’. 

Obtaining the authorisation to perform an activity in the construction sector in another 
Member State on a temporary basis (freedom to provide services) 

Exhibit 3.8   Obtaining  the  authorisation  to  perform  an  activity  in  the  construction 
sector in another Member State on a temporary basis (freedom to provide 
services) (Number of respondents) 

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

2

More
complexity

1

2

6

1

4

Citizens

Authorities

Professionals

1

1

1

No change

Simplification

No opinion

No  respondents  to  the  Authorities’  Questionnaire  and  no  respondents  to  the  Citizens’ 
Questionnaire indicated more complexity in the freedom to provide services. Two respondents 
to  the  Professionals’  Questionnaire  (an  architect’s  micro-enterprise  and  a  national  business 
federation) indicated that the process had become longer.  

Four  respondents  to  the  Professionals’  Questionnaire  (a  large  enterprise  and  three  national 
professional bodies), as well as a regulatory body, had noticed no change. 

Nine respondents indicated that they, or their organisation, had perceived a simplification of the 
processes. Of these nine, six were national business federations and professional bodies, two 
were  Ministries  and  one  was  a  citizen.  Six  respondents  indicated  requirements  as  the 
simplification factor. One Ministry and one business federation noted duration, while one citizen 
indicated cost. Only one respondent (a public authority) did not express an  opinion. Three of 
the respondents who noted simplification came from Germany. 

259 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Obtaining the authorisation to perform an activity in the construction sector in another 
Member State on a permanent basis (freedom of establishment) 

Exhibit 3.9   Obtaining  the  authorisation  to  perform  an  activity  in  the  construction 
sector  in  another  Member  State  on  a  permanent  basis  (freedom  of 
establishment) (Number of respondents) 

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

2

2

2

1

1

5

1

1

4

Citizens

Authorities

Professionals

More complexity No change

Simplification

No opinion

Similarly, no respondents to either the Authorities’ Questionnaire or the Citizens’ Questionnaire 
indicated more complexity in freedom of establishment. Two respondents to the Professionals’ 
Questionnaire  (an  architect’s  micro-enterprise  and  a  national  business  federation)  indicated 
more complex processes due to requirements and duration. 

Two national professional bodies, one regulatory body and one Ministry, perceived no changes 
in the processes. 

Two national professional bodies, two business federations, one Ministry, and one citizen noted 
simplification.  The  factors  given  were  requirements  (three  respondents),  duration  (two 
respondents), cost (one respondent). One respondent did not identify a factor. Again, three of 
the  respondents  to  the  Professionals’  Questionnaire  who  noted  simplification  came  from 
Germany. 

3.1.2.3 Perception of a stronger presence of constructions firms from other EU countries 
in the respondents’ home markets in the period 2009-2014  

The three questionnaires contained the same wording, asking respondents if they had perceived 
any increased presence of construction firms from other EU  countries in their home markets. 
The respondents could choose either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. 

260 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Responses 

Thirty of the 55 respondents answered ‘Yes’ (25 professionals, four public authorities, and one 
citizen).  Approximately  one-third  (18)  responded  ‘No’  –  eight  professionals,  nine  public 
authorities  and  one  citizen.  Seven  did  not  answer  this  question  at  all  (four  professionals  and 
three citizens). Of the 30 ‘Yes’ responses, five were based in Belgium, four in Germany, three 
in France and the UK,  and two each in Finland,  Italy, Luxembourg and Spain. The  remaining 
seven  were  based  in  Croatia,  Malta,  Czech  Republic,  the  Netherlands,  Austria,  Denmark  and 
Sweden549.  Most  of  the  respondents  (11)  who  answered  ‘No’  were  based  in  Belgium  (four), 
Germany  (three)  and  Finland  and  Non-EU  countries  (two  each).  The  remaining  respondents 
were from Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, Spain and Sweden550.  

3.1.2.4 Perception on the result of the changes identified in the above questions on cross-
border operations 

The respondents were asked whether the changes identified in the previous questions on cross-
border  operations had resulted in improvements to  six listed items relevant to the activity of 
construction businesses and professionals. 

Box 3.3 below illustrates the question from the Professionals’ Questionnaire.  

Box 3.3 Professionals’ Questionnaire - Perception on the result of the changes identified in 
the above questions on cross-border operations (Q25P) 

549 One respondent did not provide information about the country. 

550 One professional did not report the location of his organisation. 

261 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Responses 

Overview of the seven statements 

As  the  question  asked  respondents  to  comment  on  the  changes  they  had  identified,  the  four 
respondents  to  the  Professionals’  Questionnaire  and  three  respondents  to  the  Citizens’ 
Questionnaire who had not answered previous questions on perceived changes (sections 3.1.2.3 
and 3.2.1.4), nor replied to this question, were not taken into consideration551. For the purpose 
of statistical analysis, this brings the total number of responses considered to 48, of which over 
two-thirds responded to the Professionals’ Questionnaire. In addition, three respondents to the 
Professionals’  Questionnaire  and  four  respondents  to  the  Authorities’  Questionnaire  answered 
either on the questions of perceived changes (sections 3.1.2.3 and 3.2.1.4), or both, but failed 
to provide any answer to the perceived results of these changes. For the purposes of statistical 
analysis, these respondents were considered to have answered ‘no opinion’. 

Every written contribution was considered, irrespective of previous answers. 

Exhibit 3.10  Percentage  for  each  answer  by  category  of  respondents  to  the  seven 

rows of Q25P-Q20A-Q17C (Number of respondents) 

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

7

19

84

YES

3
5

63

NO

4

67

84

No opinion / No
answer

Citizens

Public
Authorities

Professionals

Overview of the responses across the seven rows 

As shown in Exhibit 3.10 above, over the seven statements considered, most stakeholders (155 
out of 336 answers over the seven rows)) did not express an opinion. This could be interpreted 
as  suggesting,  inter  alia,  that  most  of  the  stakeholders  participating  in  the  OPC  had  little 
knowledge  of  EU  law  and  the  possibilities  that  it  offers  them  with  regard  to  cross-border 
operations,  or  that  they  could  not  differentiate  between  the  benefits  of  EU  law  compared  to 
other legislation or policies (or indeed a baseline scenario with no legislation and policy). 

551 This includes the citizen who, having opted out of Section II.1.b, subsequently indicated that the processes in relation 
to the recognition of qualifications of professionals qualified in other Member States was more complex yet did not 
indicate a factor for change, and did not answer any other question in this section. 

262 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Almost one-third of answers (110) were positive, with 84 answers, one-quarter over all answers, 
stemming  from  respondents  to  the  Professionals’  Questionnaire.  Seventy-one  answered 
negatively, suggesting that on the matter of cross-border operations related to the activity of 
construction businesses and professionals, EU legislation may be achieving its aims. 

Finally,  in  contrast  to  Section  II.1.a.,  which  was  answered  by  a  wide  variety  of  professional 
stakeholders,  most  of  the  respondents  to  Section  II.1.b.  were  business  federations,  some  of 
which appear to have composed and agreed their answers (in several cases the text used was 
exactly or almost the same). 

Stimulated favourable investment conditions within your sector 

As  indicated  in  Exhibit  3.11  below,  9  out  of  48  respondents  answered  that  the  changes  they 
identified in previous questions had indeed stimulated favourable investment conditions within 
their  sector.  One-third  of  respondents,  however,  had  not  experienced  this  stimulation  within 
their sector (16), fifteen of whom responded to the Professionals’ Questionnaire (accounting for 
half of this category). Almost half of the stakeholders considered (23 out of 48) expressed no 
opinion. 

Exhibit 3.11  ‘Stimulated  favourable  investment  conditions  within  your  sector’  by 

category (Number of respondents) 

25

20

15

10

5

0

1

15

1
1

7

1

11

11

Citizens

Public
Authorities

Professionals

YES

NO

No opinion / No
answer

Analysis of the stakeholders’ written contributions 

Among  the  respondents  to  the  Professionals’  Questionnaire  which  gave  written  contributions, 
one business federation complained about the small number of companies from other Member 
States in its home country, while a national professional body for crafts and small businesses 
argued that existing requirements for recognition of professional qualifications have no relevant 
influence on the investment decisions of companies in the building and construction sector.  

Most  respondents,  mainly  a  European  business  federation  and  national  business  federations, 
highlighted  the  impact  of  the  crisis  and  austerity  policies  on  the  sector,  stating  that  this  had 
dramatically  changed  the  investment  conditions  for  the  construction  sector  by  decreasing 
consumers' ability to buy or repair houses and flats, as well as pushing governments to reduce 
public  infrastructure  building  spending.  As  a  result,  companies  sought  cheaper  costs,  which, 
they  stated,  includes  ‘shopping  in  different  Member  States  for  cheap  labour’,  as  well  as  long 

263 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

chains  of  sub-contractors  with  limited  knowledge  and  control,  and  low  quality  products  and 
services, which these stakeholders emphasised had been fostered by the internal market. As a 
result,  market  competition  was  described  as  having  settled  at  the  lower  end  for  working 
conditions and safety, including the non-payment of social security contributions. As explained 
above, the answers of these stakeholders appeared to have been agreed statements.  

One citizen took the opportunity to offer written contributions highlighting the effectiveness of 
the single market in creating favourable investment conditions, in particular the presence of the 
euro as a single currency in many Member States. 

Public authorities did not provide written contributions to this row. 

Facilitated the free circulation of construction products 

Exhibit 3.12 below shows the results gathered by the OPC on the facilitation of free circulation 
of construction products. Twenty-one respondents expressed no opinion, while 15 indicated that 
the changes they identified in previous questions had not led to the facilitation of free circulation 
of construction products. None of these respondents were public authorities. By contrast, one-
quarter of the respondents (12) took the opposite view.  

Exhibit 3.12  ‘Facilitated  the  free  circulation  of  construction  products’  by  category 

(Number of respondents) 

25

20

15

10

5

0

1

5

6

1

14

8

13

Citizens

Public
Authorities
Professionals

YES

NO

No opinion / No
answer

264 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Analysis of the stakeholders’ written contributions 

A national authority, in its written contribution, indicated that the DOP and CE marking  under 
the  CPR  (an  instrument  not  explicitly  covered  by  this  section  of  the  OPC)  allow  construction 
products to move across borders without any technical barriers to trade. A Ministry from another 
country,  however,  stated  that  the  single  market  provides  for  higher  quality  construction 
products.  These  two  statements  offer  a  sharp  contrast  to  the  comments  received  from 
respondents to the Professionals’ Questionnaire detailed below. 

Here again, a number of stakeholders, mainly a European business federation and other national 
business federations, appeared to have agreed their answers to this section, indicating that as 
houses are built ‘where they should be built’, i.e. that construction projects cannot be moved 
from  place  to  place,  the  free  circulation  of  products  is  not  an  issue  for  the  sector.  These 
stakeholders  believe  that  the  construction  industry  is  characterised  by  a  low  degree  of  free 
movement  of  goods.  Another  national  business  federation  indicated  the  belief  that,  since  the 
applicable  rules  for  the  recognition  of  professional  qualifications  already  rely  on  automatic 
recognition,  existing  requirements  have  no  adverse  effect  on  free  circulation  of  construction 
products.  Yet  another  national  business  federation  focused  on  the  CPR  (an  instrument  not 
explicitly covered by this section of the OPC), mentioning that it had created new procedures, 
but had not significantly improved free circulation of construction products. 

One  citizen  who  commented  stated  that  CE  marking  does  not  play  a  role,  as  construction 
products  are  chosen  by  entrepreneurs  and  architects  according  to  their  personal  experience. 
Another citizen held the opposite view, stating that standardisation of construction products at 
a European level helped to open markets to companies. 

Facilitated establishment in a Member State 

This topic seems to have been the most complex for stakeholders, as  26 respondents (out of 
48) did not express an opinion, including almost half of the respondents to the Professionals’ 
Questionnaire (14 out of 33). 

More than one-third of the respondents, however, believed that the changes they identified in 
previous questions had facilitated establishment in a Member State, while 7 respondents did not 
believe so. 

Exhibit 3.13  ‘Facilitated  establishment  in  a  Member  State’  by  category  (Number  of 
respondents) 

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1
2

12

YES

1

11

14

Citizens

Public Authorities

Professionals

7

NO

No opinion / No
answer

265 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Analysis of the stakeholders’ written contributions 

One  national  business  federation  stated  that  the  provisions  of  the  PQD  have,  for  decades, 
ensured automatic recognition and thus flexible rules for freedom of establishment. Similarly, 
one  citizen  noted  that  the  SD  already  provides  a  very  efficient  framework  for  permanent  or 
temporary establishment in a Member State. Another national business federation stated that 
the  establishment  of  construction  companies  had  clearly  been  improved  by  the  PQD,  a  view 
backed  by  a  national  Ministry.  However,  the  former  professional  stakeholder  found  that  the 
openness  of  the  mutual  recognition  mechanism  for  the  occasional  provision  of  services  had 
created new parallel recognition mechanisms which are more expensive than the professional 
qualification  requirements.  One  stakeholder  believed  that  national  building  codes  and/or 
country-specific contract models hinder establishment. 

As above, a number of stakeholders – mainly a European business federation and other national 
business  federations  –  appeared  to  have  agreed  their  answers,  indicating  their  belief  that 
European legislation - particularly the SD - has facilitated the setting up of fake companies or 
so-called ‘letterbox companies’, which have no  real  economic activity in the  country in which 
they are registered. They are set up where social security contributions are low and where there 
are no checks on companies´ activities or social security payments, such as Bulgaria, Cyprus, 
Estonia,  Ireland  or  the  UK.  They  are  also  used  to  circumvent  collective  agreements.  In  such 
companies,  the  true  identity  of  the  owner  is  concealed  and  big  profits  are  enabled  by  poor 
treatment of workers and inadequate checks by the authorities. These stakeholders stated that 
EU law has created this situation, and also facilitates the fraudulent posting of workers.  

Facilitated the mobility of construction workers 

Twenty-three respondents answered this row positively, i.e. that the changes they identified in 
previous questions had facilitated the mobility of construction workers. This included one-third 
of respondents to the Professionals’ Questionnaire, representing half of this category. Over 20 
respondents  gave  no  opinion.  Only  respondents  to  the  Professionals’  Questionnaire  replied 
negatively, totaling 5 answers. 

Exhibit 3.14  ‘Facilitated the mobility of construction workers’ by category (Number of 

respondents) 

25

20

15

10

5

0

1

4

18

YES

1

9

10

Citizens

Public Authorities

Professionals

5

NO

No opinion / No
answer

266 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Analysis of the stakeholders’ written contributions 

Overall, stakeholders who responded to the Professionals Questionnaire, as well as one citizen, 
held  the  opinion  that  cross-border  mobility  had  been  facilitated  by  the  SD,  especially  for  the 
highly labour intensive construction sector. However, they also believed that legal loopholes and 
vague  legislation  (at  EU  and  national  level),  combined  with  limited  preventative,  control  and 
sanction  mechanisms,  had  simplified  the  creation  of  unofficial  circuits  endangering  fair 
competition  and  fair  working  conditions.  The  predominant  view  among  the  professional 
stakeholders  was  that  excessive  mobility  of  construction  workers  between  companies  and 
differences  between  social  security  systems  within  countries  facilitated  social  dumping.  In 
particular, many labour markets in the EU were perceived as characterised by undeclared work, 
absence  of  social  dialogue,  fake  self-employment,  and  a  lack  of  efficient  labour  market 
supervision.  The  stakeholders  saw  these  national  characteristics  as  ‘exportable’  within  the 
European  internal  market,  leading  to  major  labour  market  conflicts  in  the  country  of 
employment. Some stakeholders therefore advocated for the creation of a level playing field for 
fair work via regulatory means in the Member States contributing to these problems. In addition, 
host  countries  should  be  allowed  to  regulate  and  control  their  own  labour  markets  without 
hindrance from EU Internal Market rules. 

One Ministry had perceived the decrease of unemployment in its country. 

Facilitated the provision of cross-border construction services 

A  majority  of  stakeholders  (21)  answered  positively,  i.e.  that  the  changes  they  identified  in 
previous  questions  had  facilitated  the  provision  of  cross-border  construction  services.  This 
majority includes one-third of respondents to the Professionals’ Questionnaire (16), representing 
half of this category. However, over 20 respondents did not voice an opinion, while seven did 
not feel that the changes had facilitated the provision of cross-border construction services. 

Exhibit 3.15  ‘Facilitated  the  provision  of  cross-border  construction  services’  by 

category (Number of respondents) 

25

20

15

10

5

0

1

4

16

YES

Citizens

Public Authorities

Professionals

9

11

No opinion / No
answer

1

6

NO

Analysis of the stakeholders’ written contributions 

Similar issues were reiterated here, i.e. that automatic recognition for the cross-border provision 
of services is set by transparent and straightforward rules. However, the openness of the mutual 

267 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

recognition  mechanism  –  especially  for  the  occasional  provision  of  services  –  created  new 
parallel  recognition  mechanisms  that  are  more  expensive  than  the  professional  qualification 
requirements.  In  addition,  competent  authorities  do  not  have  efficient  instruments  to  ensure 
implementation of all rules and to avoid fraud. 

Stakeholders also indicated that most construction companies act on a local or regional level as 
there is, typically, limited demand for cross-border mobility. In addition, given that construction 
companies  can  either post their workers abroad temporarily, or set up a subsidiary company 
abroad, these business federations argued that there is no need for further action to facilitate 
the provision of cross-border construction services.    

One  Ministry  explained  that  their  national  companies  can  now  carry  out  more  significant 
contracts in the EU and get relevant references. 

Finally, a citizen indicated that the provision of cross-border construction services already works 
quite well and that major companies are thriving all over Europe. 

Fostered the global competitive position of EU construction enterprises 

Twenty-two of the respondents expressed no opinion about the global competitive position of 
EU  construction  companies,  including  10  public  authorities.  Half  of  the  respondents  to  the 
Professionals’ Questionnaire (a total of 18 respondents) assumed that the changes identified in 
previous  questions  had  indeed  allowed  for  EU  construction  enterprises  to  become  more 
competitive at a global level, leaving  8 respondents believing such changes did not have this 
effect. 

Exhibit 3.16  ‘Fostered the global competitive position of EU construction enterprises’ 

by category (Number of respondents) 

25

20

15

10

5

0

1
1

16

YES

1

10

11

No opinion / No
answer

2

6

NO

Citizens

Public Authorities

Professionals

Analysis of the stakeholders’ written contributions 

Most of the respondents to the Professionals’ Questionnaire who provided a written explanation 
answered negatively. One stakeholder stated that the regulatory burden forces construction to 
focus  on  complying  with  rules  and  regulations  rather  than  competitiveness,  while  another 
remarked that competitiveness did not improve for their nationals, given the income of foreign 
workers  from countries whose social security spending requirements are much lower. Finally, 
one stakeholder indicated that rules on recognition of professional qualifications are irrelevant 
for the global competitive position of EU construction enterprises. 

268 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

One Ministry expressed the opinion that higher competitiveness should result in higher quality 
in the construction industry sector. 

Finally, a citizen indicated that major EU companies are already quite successful abroad in Middle 
Eastern or African countries. 

Reduced administrative costs for the construction sector industry 

Twenty-three  respondents  gave  no  opinion  on  the  impact  of  legislation  on  reducing 
administrative costs for the construction industry. A large majority of public authorities (9 out 
of  13)  gave  no  opinion,  as  well  as  close  to  half  of  the  respondents  to  the  Professionals’ 
Questionnaire (14 out of 33). Approximately one-quarter of responses were negative (13 out of 
48), with almost the same number of positive responses (12), equally split among citizens and 
public authorities, and among respondents to the Professional’s Questionnaire.  

Exhibit 3.17  ‘Reduced  administrative  costs  for  the  construction  sector  industry’  by 

category (Number of respondents) 

25

20

15

10

5

0

1
2

9

YES

1
2

10

NO

9

14

Citizens

Public Authorities

Professionals

No opinion / No
answer

Analysis of the stakeholders’ written contributions 

Stakeholders’ written submissions reflect the clear division indicated above.  

While  some  stakeholders  explained  that  the  increased  regulatory  burden  is  tantamount  to 
increased  administrative  costs,  others  stated  that  the  administrative  costs  for  recognition  of 
professional  qualifications  are  marginal  and  effectively  negligible.  Finally,  the  remaining 
stakeholders  stated  that  reduced  administrative  burdens  stem  from  a  lack  of  regulatory 
measures to ensure a fair competition in the internal market with less social dumping and fraud. 
One trade union stakeholder took a negative view of SMEs pressing for special legal treatment, 
as most of the obligations seek to protect all stakeholders. Another stated that SMEs are pressing 
for an ‘extravagant legislative treatment’ despite the fact that, by its nature, the construction 
industry  should  be  well  regulated.  They  emphasised  the  importance  of  work  accidents  in  the 
sector, taking a strong view that the current EU policy to reduce administrative burdens must 
take  into  account  the  reality  of  the  construction  industry,  as  not  every  administrative 
requirement  is  a  burden  or  a  cost  factor.  A  national  business  federation  representing  small 
companies and craftsmen indicated that requirements linked to energy present a considerable 
burden for architects.   

One  national  authority  -  probably  referring  to  the  DOP  under  the  CPR  (an  instrument  not 
explicitly covered by this section of the OPC) - stated that a single conformity document allows 

269 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

manufacturers  of  construction  products  to  demonstrate  conformity  in  all  Member  States,  the 
EEA and Switzerland. 

Finally, while one citizen indicated that more paperwork had accompanied her/his construction 
project,  another  citizen  felt  that  the  goal  of  reduced  administrative  burden  had  already  been 
achieved and that no further action was necessary. 
3.1.3 Late payments (Section II.1.c. of the OPC) 

3.1.3.1 Changes in payment times in the years following the implementation of the Late 
Payments Directive  

A  total  of  21  respondents  answered  the  section  on  late  payments,  14  in  the  Professionals’ 
Questionnaire, four in the Authorities’ Questionnaire, and three in the Citizens’ Questionnaire. 
The rest of respondents opted-out of answering to these questions. 

Each  of  the  three  questionnaires  asked  the  respondents  if,  in  her/his  own  experience,  in  the 
years following the implementation of the Late Payments Directive (LPD), payment times from 
public  clients  to  public  clients,  and  from  private  clients  to  private  clients  had  changed. 
Respondents  could  choose  between  a  decrease  or  increase  of  payment  times,  no  change  in 
payment times, or no opinion.  

One  public  authority  answered  only  the  first  question  (payment  times  to  public  clients).  One 
citizen  answered  only  the  last  question  (payments  times  from  private  clients),  while  one 
respondent to the Professionals’ Questionnaire answered only the last two questions on private 
clients. The lack of answers from these respondents were deemed ‘no opinion’. 

Responses 

Exhibit 3.18  Changes in payment times in the years following the implementation of 

the LPD (Number of respondents) 

Decreased 

Remained 
the same 

Increased 

No 
opinion 

Payment times to public clients 

Payment times from public clients 

Payment times to private clients 

Payment times from private clients 

8 

6 

3 

5 

6 

5 

6 

9 

4 

2 

8 

3 

3 

8 

4 

4 

Payment times to public clients 

A total of eight respondents indicated that payment times to public clients had improved (i.e. 
decreased), including five respondents to the Professionals’ Questionnaire, two public authorities 
and  one  citizen.  These  were  from  Austria,  Belgium,  France,  Germany,  Ireland,  Malta,  the 
Netherlands, and the UK.  

Six respondents believed payment times to public clients had stayed the same, including five 
professionals and one public authority. These came from Belgium, Czech Republic, Italy, Spain, 
and the UK.  

Four  respondents  replied  that  payment  times  to  public  clients  had  worsened  (i.e.  increased), 
including two professionals and one citizen, from Belgium, Germany and Slovenia. 

270 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Payment times from public clients 

A total of six respondents indicated that payment times from public clients had improved (i.e. 
decreased), including four respondents to the Professionals’ Questionnaire, one public authority 
and one citizen. These respondents were from Belgium, France, Ireland, Malta and the UK.  

Five  respondents  believed  payment  times  from  public  clients  had  stayed  the  same,  including 
two professionals, two public authorities and one citizen, from Belgium, Czech Republic, Italy, 
Slovenia and Switzerland. 

Two professional respondents replied that payment times from public clients had worsened (i.e. 
increased). These respondents were from Germany and Spain. 

Payment times to private clients 

A total of three respondents indicated that payment times to private clients had improved (i.e. 
decreased), including two respondents to the Professionals’ Questionnaire, and one citizen, from 
Belgium, Germany and the UK.  

Six respondents believed payment times to private clients had stayed the same, including five 
professionals, and one public authority from Belgium, Italy, Malta, Spain and the UK.  

Eight respondents replied that payment times to private clients had worsened (i.e. increased), 
including six professionals, one public authority and one citizen. These respondents were from 
the Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Italy, Germany, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Spain. 

Payment times from private clients 

A total of five respondents indicated that payment times from private clients had improved (i.e. 
decreased), including three respondents to the Professionals’ Questionnaire, one public authority 
and one citizen. These respondents were from Belgium, Malta, Spain and the UK.  

Nine respondents believed payment times from private clients had stayed the same, including 
five  professionals,  two  public  authorities  and  two  citizens,  from  Belgium,  Czech  Republic, 
Ireland, Italy, Slovenia, Spain and Switzerland. 

Three professional respondents replied that payment times from private clients had worsened 
(i.e. increased). These respondents were from France, Germany and Italy. 

3.2 Questions on EU legislation related to energy efficiency in general and the use of 
renewable energy in the construction sector 

3.2.1 Inspection/Installation and accredited experts (Section II.2.a. of the OPC) 

A total of 23 respondents chose to answer the section on inspection/installation and accredited 
experts,  including  15  respondents  to  the  Professionals’  Questionnaire,  six  respondents  to  the 
Authorities’ Questionnaire, and two respondents to the Citizens’ Questionnaire. The rest opted-
out of answering to these questions 

3.2.1.1 Inspection carried out by qualified and/or accredited experts 

The three questionnaires asked if inspection/installation is carried out by visibly qualified and/or 
accredited experts (or in any case that such a qualification was brought up in the context of the 
inspection/installation).  The  question  was  directed  towards  specific  inspections,  namely  the 
inspection  of  heating  systems  and  air-conditioning  systems,  and  also  the  installation  of 
renewable energy systems specifically. Respondents could choose from three answers for each 
specific inspection/installation: yes, no and no opinion. 

271 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Responses 

One public authority that opted to answer questions on this section did not answer any of the 
three  specific  inspections/installation  questions.  One  citizen  only  answered  the  first  question. 
These were accounted for as ‘no opinion’. 

For all answers, over half of the respondents replied ‘Yes’.  

Exhibit 3.19  Inspection carried out by qualified and/or accredited experts (Number of 

respondents) 

Inspection of 
heating 
systems 

Inspection of 
air-conditioning 
systems 

Installation of 
renewable 
energy systems 

Yes 

No 

No opinion 

13 

5 

5 

14 

5 

4 

13 

5 

5 

Inspection of heating systems 

Most stakeholders (13) answered positively, with five negative answers and five stakeholders 
expressing no opinion. 

The respondents that answered ‘yes’ spanned seven Member States (Austria, Belgium, France, 
Germany, Hungary, Ireland and Spain), while those that answered ‘no’ covered four (Germany, 
Italy, Sweden and the UK), with Germany appearing in both categories. 

Inspection of air-conditioning systems 

Most stakeholders (14) answered positively, with five negative answers and four stakeholders 
expressing no opinion. 

The  respondents  that  answered  ‘yes’  spanned  10  Member  States  (Austria,  Belgium,  Czech 
Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden), while those 
that  answered  ‘no’  covered  four  (Belgium,  Germany,  Italy,  Spain  and  the  UK)  with  Belgium, 
Germany and Spain appearing in both categories. 

Installation of renewable energy systems 

Most stakeholders (13) answered positively, with five negative answers and five stakeholders 
expressing no opinion. 

The  respondents  that  answered  ‘yes’  spanned  10  Member  States  (Austria,  Belgium,  Czech 
Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden), while those that 
answered  ‘no’  covered  four  (Belgium,  Germany,  Hungary,  Spain  and  the  UK)  with  Belgium, 
Germany and Spain again appearing in both categories. 

3.2.1.2 Public availability and public use of lists of qualified or certified installers and/or 
inspectors 

The three questionnaires asked respondents whether, to their knowledge, a list of qualified or 
certified installers and/or inspectors is publicly available in their Member State. They were also 
asked if the general public would, in their experience, use such a list. Respondents could choose 
one of five options: publicly available, not publicly available, actively used by the general public, 
not actively used by the general public, no opinion. 

272 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Responses 

Answers to active and not-active use of the list were only considered from those respondents 
who had answered that a list was publicly available or who had not answered that question. This 
omitted one professional respondent who had stated that the lists were neither publicly available 
nor used by the general public. 

Exhibit 3.20  Public availability and public use of lists of qualified or certified installers 

and/or inspectors (Number of respondents) 

Publicly 
available 

Not 
publicly 
available 

Actively 
used by 
general 
public 

Not 
actively 
used by 
general 
public 

No 
opinion 

13 

13 

2 

2 

2 

2 

4 

3 

2 

4 

List of qualified and/or 
accredited experts for the 
inspection of heating and 
air-conditioning systems 
(relevant under the EPBD) 

List of qualified and/or 
certified installers of 
renewable energy systems 
(relevant under the RESD) 

List  of  qualified  and/or  accredited  experts  for  the  inspection  of  heating  and  air-
conditioning systems (relevant under the EPBD) 

This question was answered by a total of 21 respondents, including 14 professionals, five public 
authorities and two citizens. 

A majority of respondents (13) indicated that, to their knowledge, the list of qualified and/or 
accredited  experts  for  the  inspection  of  heating  and  air-conditioning  systems  was  publicly 
available  in  their  Member  State.  Of  these  13,  however,  only  two  believed  that  the  list  was 
actively used by the general public, and the remaining 11 expressed no opinion on the issue. 
The home Member States of the 13 respondents were: Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, 
Germany, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden; with France and Hungary being the 
Member States where these lists seem to be used by the public. In addition, two respondents 
from Belgium and Germany did not provide an answer on the public availability of the list but 
indicated that the list was not used by the general public. A citizen in Belgium confirmed this, 
while another citizen indicated that such a list was not used by the general public in the UK.  

Two respondents to the Professionals’ Questionnaire from Spain were unaware of such a list. 

List  of  qualified  and/or  certified  installers  of  renewable  energy  systems  (relevant 
under the RESD) 

This question was answered by 22 respondents, including 14 professionals, six public authorities 
and two citizens. 

A majority of respondents (13) indicated that, to their knowledge, the list of qualified and/or 
accredited installers of renewable energy systems was publicly available in their Member State. 
Of these 13, however, two had observed the list being actively used by the general public. The 
home Member States of the 13 respondents were: Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, 
Ireland, Italy, France, Malta, the Netherlands and Sweden, with France being the Member State 
where these lists seem to be used by the public. In addition, two respondents from Belgium and 

273 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Germany  did  not  provide  an  answer  on  the  public  availability  of  the  list,  although  they  did 
indicate that such a list was not used by the general public. One citizen also indicated that this 
list  was  not  used  by  the  general  public  in  the  UK.  Two  respondents  to  the  Professionals’ 
Questionnaire from Spain were unaware of such a list. 

3.2.1.3 Public availability and public use of lists of qualified or certified installers and/or 
inspectors  

The three questionnaires asked respondents whether they had noted or perceived any changes 
related  to  the  frequency  of  inspections  of  heating  and  air-conditioning  systems  and  the 
installations  of  renewable  energy  systems.  The  question  distinguished  between  five  systems, 
asking about the inspection, reception of advice or installation, as relevant. Respondents could 
choose  any  of  the  four  following  options:  more  frequent,  no  change,  less  frequent,  and  no 
opinion. 

Responses 

A  total  of  21  respondents  answered  each  row,  including  14  respondents  to  the  Professionals’ 
Questionnaire, five respondents to the Authorities’ Questionnaire, and two respondents to the 
Citizens’ Questionnaire. 

Exhibit 3.21  Public availability and public use of lists of qualified or certified installers 

and/or inspectors (Number of respondents) 

More 
frequent 

No 
change 

Less 
frequent 

No 
opinion 

Total 

Inspection of heating systems 

Inspection of air-conditioning 
systems 

Receiving advice on the efficiency 
of the boiler 

Receiving advice on the efficiency 
of the air-conditioning system 

Installation of renewable energy 
systems 

7 

6 

11 

9 

10 

8 

8 

6 

7 

6 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

5 

6 

4 

5 

4 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

Inspection of heating systems 

Seven  respondents,  all  professionals,  stated  that  the  inspection  of  heating  systems  had 
increased in frequency, while eight (four professionals, two authorities and two citizens) stated 
that the frequency had remained the same. One respondent to the Professionals’ Questionnaire 
felt the frequency had diminished, however, and the remaining five respondents expressed no 
opinion. 

Inspection of air-conditioning systems 

Six respondents -  five  professionals and one public authority  - believed the inspection of air-
conditioning systems to have increased in frequency, while eight respondents - six professionals, 
one authority and one citizen – stated that the frequency of such inspections had remained the 
same.  One  respondent  to  the  Professionals’  Questionnaire  felt  the  frequency  had  diminished, 
however, and the remaining six respondents expressed no opinion. 

274 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Receiving advice on the efficiency of the boiler 

Eleven respondents, including ten professionals and one public authority, found that advice on 
the  efficiency  of  boilers  was  given  more  frequently,  while  six  respondents,  including  three 
professionals, one authority and two citizens, found the frequency had remained the same. No 
respondent felt the frequency had diminished and the remaining four respondents expressed no 
opinion. 

Receiving advice on the efficiency of the air-conditioning system 

Nine respondents - seven professionals and two public authorities  - stated that advice on the 
efficiency of air-conditioning systems was given more frequently, while seven respondents - six 
professionals and one citizen - found that the frequency had remained the same. No respondent 
felt the frequency had diminished and the remaining five respondents expressed no opinion. 

Installation of renewable energy systems 

Ten  respondents  (seven  professionals,  two  public  authorities  and  one  citizen)  found  that  the 
installation of renewable energy systems had grown more frequent, while six respondents (five 
professionals and one authority) found the frequency had remained the same. One respondent 
to the Professionals’ Questionnaire felt the frequency had rather diminished and the remaining 
four respondents expressed no opinion. 

3.2.1.4  Perception  on  the  result  of  the  changes  identified  in  the  above  questions  on 
inspection/installation and accredited experts  

The  three  questionnaires  asked  respondents,  who  had  answered  ‘more  frequent’  or  ‘less 
frequent’ to any of the rows of the previous question, whether the changes they had identified 
had resulted in the improvement, reduction or stimulation of six listed items relevant to energy 
efficiency in the construction sector. 

Responses 

Of  the  21  respondents  above,  two  professionals,  three  public  authorities  and  one  citizen  had 
answered no change or no opinion to all rows and were therefore excluded from the statistical 
analysis,  bringing  the  total  respondents  to  15,  12  respondents  to  the  Professionals’ 
Questionnaire, two to the Authorities’ Questionnaire, and one citizen. 

Every written contribution was considered, irrespective of previous answers. 

The respondents to this question were residents of Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, 
Italy, the Netherlands and Spain. 

275 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Overview of the responses  

Exhibit 3.22  Perception of the result of the changes identified in the above questions 
inspection/installation  and  accredited  experts  (Number  of 

on 
respondents) 

Improved 
the energy 
performance 
of 
construction 
products 

Improved 
the 
energy 
efficiency 
of 
buildings 

Reduced the 
environmental 
footprint of 
buildings 

Stimulated 
the 
construction 
of new 
buildings 

Stimulated 
the 
renovation 
of buildings 

Stimulated 
the 
installation 
of RES 

Yes 

No 

No 
opinion 

9 

3 

3 

10 

3 

2 

8 

5 

2 

4 

7 

4 

9 

3 

3 

11 

1 

3 

Over the six rows, a majority of respondents (51answered positively. This suggests that, on the 
matter of energy efficiency in the construction sector, the EU legislation may be achieving its 
aims. All 22 negative responses stemmed from respondents to the Professionals’ Questionnaire. 
Seventeen respondents expressed no opinion on the different rows. 

Strong  positive  majorities  can  be  noted  for  the  improvement  of  energy  performance  of 
construction  products  and  the  energy  efficiency  of  buildings,  as  well  as  increased  building 
renovation and the installation of renewable energy systems, with the latter being the strongest 
change observed by stakeholders.   

The  stimulated  construction  of  new  buildings  is  the  only  issue  about  which  the  majority  of 
respondents  felt  negatively,  with  seven  respondents  to  the  Professionals’  Questionnaire 
answering  ‘no’,  three  answering  ‘yes’,  and  two  answering  ‘no  opinion’.  The  countries  with 
negative  responses  were  Belgium,  France,  Germany,  Italy  and  Spain.  In  the  case  of  Belgium 
and  Germany,  the  reaction  was  mixed,  as  two  other  professional  stakeholders  answered 
positively. 

Analysis of the stakeholders’ written contributions 

Few stakeholders explained their answers and position. Public authorities commented on only 
three occasions, while the respondents to the Citizens’ Questionnaire made no comment at all. 
Many comments were repetitive and short, and lacked detail.   

One stakeholder believed that the energy performance of construction products improved as a 
result  of  the  increased  quality  of  building  products  and  materials.  A  German  professional 
indicated that Germany’s requirements exceeded European ones, and that there was a drop in 
particular in new construction in Germany, while a Belgian professional body highlighted that 
criteria ought not to be reinforced as they already are at an optimum level. According to this 
latter  respondent,  stricter  criteria  would  act  as  a  deterrent  by  increasing  the  return  on 
investment timeframe. A Dutch Ministry indicated that part of the inspection report delivered in 
their Member State includes recommendations to improve building energy efficiency. They also 
stated  that  their  experience  with  the  mandatory  scheme  for  shallow  geothermal  and  ground 
source  heat  pumps  had  caused  a  decrease  in  the  market  growth  of  these  renewable  energy 
sources  installations,  and  it  therefore  advocated  for  non-mandatory  qualification/certification 
schemes to stimulate the installation of renewable energy systems. 

One  stakeholder  held  the  strong  view  that  experts  were  badly  qualified  and  that  the  advice 
provided was sales-driven. Another stakeholder highlighted the lack of sanctions for construction 
products, energy efficiency in buildings and environmental footprints. 

276 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Finally, an Estonian Ministry submitted a written contribution but did not answer the questions. 
It explained Estonia’s situation as a Member State who used the options provided the Directives, 
i.e.  Estonia  elected  to  implement  measures  instead  of  the  mandatory  inspection  of  heating 
systems and air-conditioning systems. The Ministry declared that the reason behind this choice 
was the lack of justification for such mandatory measures, stating that regular inspection of the 
heating/climate systems in Estonia is achieved through alternative means and the stimulus to 
update a heating/cooling system is based on the capacity to invest. 

3.2.2 Public procurement (Section II.2.b. of the OPC) 

3.2.2.1  Perception  on  the  result  of  the  changes  identified  in  the  above  questions  on 
inspection/installation and accredited experts  

The three questionnaires asked if respondents had noticed an increased use of energy efficiency 
criteria in the public tenders of central, local and regional governments. The respondents could 
answer yes, no, or no opinion in three rows corresponding to the headings of national, local and 
regional governments. 

Responses 

All 55 respondents were considered in the analysis. Only one respondent to the Professionals’ 
Questionnaire  and  one  respondent  to  the  Citizens’  Questionnaire  did  not  answer  and  were 
counted as ‘no opinion’. 

As  indicated  in  Exhibit  3.23  below,  a  majority  of  respondents  expressed  no  opinion  in  72 
answers. However, the number of positive responses outweighs the number of negatives, and, 
in  the  case  of  national  governments,  24  respondents  noticed  an  increased  use  of  energy 
efficiency criteria in tenders, against nine who had not and 22 who expressed no opinion. 

Exhibit 3.23  Perception of the result of the changes identified in the above questions 
inspection/installation  and  accredited  experts  (Number  of 

on 
respondents) 

National 
governments 

Local 
governments 

Regional 
governments 

Yes 

No 

No opinion 

24 

9 

22 

23 

7 

25 

21 

9 

25 

3.3 Questions on EU legislation related to products used in construction 

3.3.1 CE marking and Declaration of Performance (Section II.3.a. of the OPC) 

3.3.1.1 Importance of the CE marking and DOP in accessing other Member States’ market 

A total of 37 respondents out of 55 chose to answer the questions on the CE marking and DOP 
of the CPR (25 professionals, nine public authorities and three citizens). 

The  three  questionnaires  asked  respondents  to  gauge  the  importance  of  the  information 
provided  through  the  DOP  and  CE  marking  in  accessing  other  Member  States’  markets.  The 
respondents could choose from five possible answers: not at all, to a limited extent, to some 
extent, to a high extent, and no opinion. 

277 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Responses 

As shown in Exhibit 3.24 below, 14 respondents felt that the information provided through the 
DOP and CE marking was highly important to access other Member States’ markets. In addition, 
13respondents also believed it was important ‘to some extent’. Thus, almost three quarters of 
respondents, totaling 27 answers, believed such information to be important for the successful 
functioning of the internal market. Less than  a fifth of the  respondents, therefore, found this 
information of only marginal importance (one respondent answered ‘not at all’ and 6 answered 
‘limited extent’). 

Exhibit 3.24  Importance of the CE marking and DOP in accessing other Member States’ 

markets (Number of respondents) 

Professionals 

Authorities 

Citizens 

Not at all 

To a limited extent 

To some extent 

To a high extent  

No opinion 

1 

6 

9 

7 

2 

0 

0 

1 

7 

1 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

3.3.1.2 Changes to the CE marking and DOP procedures according to different policy areas  

The three questionnaires asked respondents whether the DOP and CE marking procedures for 
construction products had been changed by policies in any one of four areas: energy efficiency 
in buildings, environmental protection, public health and safety, and health & safety at work. 
Respondents could answer with yes, no, or no opinion. 

Respondents were also invited to provide explanations of these effects, e.g. their cost or duration 
of the procedures. 

Responses 

Overview of the responses 

Overall, a majority of respondents (63) answered that the DOP and CE marking procedures for 
construction products had not been changed by policies in the four areas under consideration. 
One-third  of  the  respondents  (49)  expressed  no  opinion  on  the  issue,  while  one-quarter  of 
respondents (36) answered ‘yes’. 

In each of the four areas, most respondents answered ‘no’. 

Exhibit 3.25  Changes  to  the  CE  marking  and  DOP  procedures  according  to  different 

policy areas (Number of respondents) 

Energy 
efficiency in 
buildings 

Environment
al protection 

Public health 
and safety 

Yes 

No 

No opinion 

9 

15 

13 

10 

15 

12 

9 

17 

11 

Health & 
safety at 
work 

8 

16 

13 

278 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Analysis of the stakeholders’ written contributions 

Only six of the 37 who answered this section provided written explanations on the effects of the 
changes to the DOP and CE marking procedures for construction products according to policies 
in the four areas given.  

One  medium-sized  enterprise  from  the  UK  indicated  that  the  whole  CE  marking  system  for 
construction  products  had  added  additional  cost  for  its  organisation,  adding  that,  due  to  the 
geological nature of their products, they were exposed to greater risk.  

An architects’ business body stated that a European internal market for construction products 
required fully harmonised European standards for construction products in order to secure the 
availability of construction products and the basic requirements for construction listed in Annex 
I  to  the  CPR.  They  felt,  however,  that  CE-marked  construction  products  currently  cannot 
demonstrate compliance with the basic requirements for construction set in Annex I to the CPR. 
Thus,  Article  6  and  Annex  III  of  the  CPR  on  the  content  of  the  DOP  is  not  a  fit  basis  for 
standardisation at EU level. The  essential performance classes must  be defined to  reflect the 
different protection needs, climatic conditions and construction methods in the different Member 
States. This stakeholder in particular referred to Basic Requirements 1 (‘Mechanical resistance 
and  stability’),  2  (‘Safety  in  case  of  fire’),  and  3  (‘Hygiene,  health  and  the  environment’).  A 
business federation representing engineers, from the same country, indicated that there were 
inconsistencies and critical gaps between harmonised construction products and the Eurocodes, 
which affect the structural safety and fire protection Basic Requirements of the CPR. 

One stakeholder from the cement industry stated that the standards for these materials already 
provided the performances required by the DOP and CE marking. 

A Ministry pointed out that other horizontal legislation, such as implementing Regulations under 
the EDD, may require additional conformity procedures with products covered by a harmonised 
European standard (thereafter ‘hEN’). Requirements stemming from these instruments should 
be implemented in the essential requirements declared in the DOP. 

Finally, one citizen indicated that more paperwork was required with regard to energy efficiency, 
which meant that additional experts have to be paid for their consultancy and/or certificates, 
increasing costs. 

3.3.1.3  Impact  of  the  Ecodesign  framework  on  the  credibility  of  the  CE  marking  of 
construction products 

The three questionnaires asked respondents if the EDD framework affects the credibility of the 
CE  marking  of  construction  products.  The  respondents  could  answer:  not  at  all,  to  a  limited 
extent, to some extent, to a high extent, or no opinion. 

Responses 

As  shown  in  Exhibit  3.26  below,  14  out  of  the  37  respondents  felt  that  the  EDD  framework 
affected the credibility of the CE marking of construction products to some extent, with a further 
8 respondents rating this effect highly. Thus, 22 respondents felt that the Ecodesign framework 
appreciably affects the credibility of the CE marking of construction products. Less than a quarter 
of respondents believed the effect of the Ecodesign framework to be marginal (four ‘not at all’ 
and five ‘limited extent’). 

279 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Exhibit 3.26  Impact of the Ecodesign framework on the credibility of the CE marking 

of construction products (Number of respondents) 

Professionals  Authorities 

Citizens 

Total 

Not at all 

To a limited extent 

To some extent 

To a high extent  

No opinion 

4 

3 

8 

6 

4 

0 

0 

5 

2 

2 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

4 

5 

14 

8 

6 

3.4 Coherence questions (section II.4. of the OPC) 

3.4.1 Main coherence question 

Wording and differences among the three questionnaires 

Forty out of the 55 respondents answered the questions on coherence (29 professionals, nine 
public authorities and two citizens). 

Each  of  the  three  questionnaires  asked  the  respondents  if  they  had  experienced  a  range  of 
different issues related to coherence among the nine pieces of EU legislation in question. The 
respondents could answer with yes, no, or no opinion. 

Respondents were also invited to explain their answers, and asked to clearly indicate whether 
their explanation related to EU or national legislation. 

Box 3.4 below shows the question from the Professionals’ Questionnaire.  

Box 3.4: Professionals’ Questionnaire – Main coherence question (Q42P) 

280 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Responses 

Respondents who had answered yes to the opt-out question on the section on coherence, but 
who failed to answer in any of the rows below were counted as ‘no opinion’. 

Benefitted from the harmonisation of reporting requirements 

Exhibit 3.27  Benefitted from the harmonisation of reporting requirements (Number of 

respondents) 

14

11

15

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

YES

NO

No opinion / No
answer

A majority of respondents (15) gave no opinion on the issue, while 14 of respondents (including  
11 respondents to the Professionals’ Questionnaire) answered that they had benefitted from the 
harmonisation of reporting requirements, and  11 respondents (including eight respondents to 
the Professionals’ Questionnaire) answered negatively. 

Analysis of the stakeholders’ written contributions 

A number of respondents who had answered favourably indicated that construction companies 
have benefitted from the hamonisation of performance calculation standards from the EPBD, or 
that the CPR and the reference to hEN harmonises the rules for placing products on the market 
across  Europe.  One  respondent  also  expressed  a  strong  preference  for  harmonisation  over 
mutual recognition, as the former provides a clear framework for companies, while the latter 
leaves many cases unanswered. 

Other respondents painted a more mixed picture, indicating for instance that while the CPR had 
permitted  the  creation  of  common  information  about  product  regulation,  it  had  not  delivered 
technical  product  information  which  could  be  useful  to  the  user  or  adapted  to  the  user’s 
geographical situation. Another statement concerned the EED, which was considered to favour 
reporting that allowed a better understanding of the evolutions of Nearly Zero Energy Building 
(NZEB) and renovations.  However, it stated that this improved reporting and implementation 
of the long term renovation strategies had not encouraged progress  on the ground, and that 
timeframes with long term objectives and milestones would improve matters. 

281 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Experienced easier access to European markets 

Exhibit 3.28  Experienced easier access to European markets (Number of respondents) 

18

14

8

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

YES

NO

No opinion / No
answer

A majority of respondents (18) gave no opinion on the issue, while 14 respondents (including 
10 respondents to the Professionals’ Questionnaire) answered that they had experienced easier 
access  to  European  Markets,  and  eight  respondents  (including  six  respondents  to  the 
Professionals’ Questionnaire) answered negatively. 

Analysis of the stakeholders’ written contributions 

Written contributions on this element were scarce. 

One  professional  respondent  indicated  that  while  its  company  had  indeed  experienced  easier 
access to European Markets, it also had experienced the opposite. Some national rules, such as 
the  German  ‘Bauregelliste’  or  the  French  ‘application  marks’,  which  require  additional  testing 
and documentation before a CE compliant product can be place on the market, create barriers 
by  adding  administrative  burdens,  and  therefore  impede  the  free  movement  of  construction 
products. Another respondent stated that easier access to European Markets was especially true 
in the case of individuals. Finally, one respondent indicated that harmonisation had helped by 
allowing similar products to be more easily obtained in all Member States. 

282 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Identified requirements where simplification has improved implementation 

Exhibit 3.29  Identified 

requirements  where 

simplification 

has 

improved 

implementation (Number of respondents) 

18

13

9

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

YES

NO

No opinion / No
answer

A majority of respondents (18) gave no opinion on the issue, while 13 respondents (including 
nine respondents to the Professionals’ Questionnaire) had not identified any requirements where 
simplification had improved implementation. Nine respondents (including eight respondents to 
the Professionals’ Questionnaire) answered positively. 

Analysis of the stakeholders’ written contributions 

Few respondents provided written contributions for this question.    

The  possible  use  of  electronic  DOP  (eDOP)  was  highlighted  as  a  positive  improvement  to 
implementation. One respondent also indicated that the concept of NZEB ‘zero energy buildings’ 
has had a positive impact in encouraging the development of holistic building design focusing 
on very low energy demand. This respondent expressed the opinion that the same should now 
happen with renovation, advocating for a common vision towards 2050.  

Other respondents highlighted that there are too many different qualifications for construction 
in the EU, and that simplified procedures under the CPR are not used, as national officials are 
unfamiliar with them and unsure of their implementation, effectively forfeiting their use by the 
industry. 

283 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Found requirements that are consistent with each other and complementary, offering 
a mutually supportive implementation 

Exhibit 3.30  Found  requirements  that  are  consistent  with  each  other  and 
complementary, offering a mutually supportive implementation (Number 
of respondents) 

16

15

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

9

YES

NO

No opinion / No
answer

A majority of respondents (16), including 11 respondents to the Professionals’ Questionnaire, 
did  not  find  requirements  that  are  complementary,  consistent  with  each  other,  and  mutually 
supportive in their implementation. Fifteen respondents gave no opinion on the issue, and nine 
respondents  (including  six  respondents  to  the  Professionals’  Questionnaire  and  four  public 
authorities) answered positively. 

Analysis of the stakeholders’ written contributions 

Few written contributions were provided for this question.   

Two respondents offered a positive perspective on the implementation of EU law, highlighting 
the common framework to draw up DOP under the CPR, and the complementarities between the 
EPBD  and  the  EED,  with  one  Directive  addressing  the  rate  of  renovation,  while  the  other 
addresses the depth of renovation.  

This respondent also commented on specific provisions of the EED, stating that Article 4 did not, 
in practice, facilitate national work to implement solid renovation programmes, and that Article 
5 resulted in inconsistencies. For example, deep renovation as an alternative at the same level 
as behavioural change effectively encourages little real effort on the ground. 

One public authority challenged the requirements of the CPR and of the EDD, stating that they 
lead to unnecessary burdens and do not result in mutually supportive implementation, creating 
a lot of difficulties for economic operators, the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) 
and market surveillance authorities. 

Finally,  one  individual  highlighted  the  importance  of  subsidiarity  as  a  possible  ‘best  way’  to 
achieve simplification. 

284 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Found inconsistencies or overlaps among various requirements 

Exhibit 3.31  Spotted 

inconsistencies  or  overlaps  among  various  requirements 

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

(Number of respondents) 

28

3

NO

YES

9

No opinion / No
answer

A  large  majority  of  respondents  (28),  including  20  respondents  to  the  Professionals 
Questionnaire and seven public authorities, had found inconsistencies or overlaps among various 
requirements. Nine respondents gave no opinion on the issue, and three respondents, including 
two  respondents  to  the  Professionals  Questionnaire,  indicated  they  had  noted  no  such 
inconsistencies or overlaps. 

Analysis of the stakeholders’ written contributions 

This statement generated the greatest number of written contributions. 

General issues in the construction sector 

CEN provided general comments on the construction sector, highlighting that the construction 
sector  is  governed  by  a  large  number  of  regulations,  which,  coupled  with  the  predominantly 
local  business  structure,  leads  to  considerable  administrative  burden  and  to  a  possibly  high 
fragmentation of the sustainable construction market. Manufacturers of construction materials 
must  meet  requirements  for  energy  performance,  environmental impact,  safety,  health,  etc., 
stemming  from  various  pieces  of  regulations  that  sometimes  overlap.  As  a  consequence, 
manufacturers experience two major challenges when trying to comply with the legislation, i.e. 
the  calculation  and  documentation  of  the  same  characteristics  several  times  using  different 
methods. These overlaps are also reflected in the requests for European harmonised standards 
in support of these pieces of legislation. 

Finally, CEN and CENELEC referred to the 2013 EESC Opinion on Construction products which 
asked that harmonised standards under the CPR be voluntary, that requirements of the EDD, 
EPBD, EED, and CPR be addressed through a single declaration, that EC guidance and opinions 
of the CPR would include the definition of legal status, and that hENs for construction products 
would include all relevant information (not only addressing legal requirements) necessary for 
construction product users.  

285 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

CPR and EDD 

In terms of inconsistencies, CEN & CENELEC explained that heating appliances burning solid fuel 
are  within  the  scope  of  both  the  CPR  and  the  EDD,  each  with  different  requirements  and 
conformity  assessment  procedures.  Three  methods  are  used  to  measure  the  particulate 
emissions from solid fuel local space heaters. 

Another stakeholder explained that setting requirements in the form of minimum performance 
levels or generic information requirements under the EDD is not necessary, as these could be 
put in place by implementing existing provisions of the CPR, in particular Article 3, point 3 and 
Annex  I  on  Basic  Requirements  for  Construction  Works  BR3  (‘Hygiene,  health  and  the 
environment’) as well as BR 7 (‘Sustainable use of natural resources’). 

A  large  company  based  in  France  stated  that  the  EDD  and  the  CPR  have  similar  scope  and 
implementation rules, but that consideration of construction products as independent entities is 
not meaningful because the benefits delivered to the performance of the building are evaluated 
by  the  overall  contribution  to  the  life  cycle.  This  stakeholder  advocated  for  the  exclusive 
regulation of construction products under the CPR. 

One public authority expressed its concern that overlap of the CPR with various Directives (such 
as the EDD and the Machinery Directive) creates a need to CE mark several times instead of 
declaring everything only once. 

Another authority pointed to some inconsistencies between CPR and eco-design requirements, 
which contribute to confusion and delays in drafting and implementing European legislation via 
standardisation. The respondent believed that this has a negative impact on the single market. 

CPR, EDD, ELD and EPBD 

One  professional  body  felt  that  a  holistic  optimisation  of  complete  buildings  would  be  more 
beneficial  in  terms  of  energy  and  environmental  savings  than  a  component-by-component 
approach  that  presents  the  risk  of  sub-optimisation.  Construction  products  are  intermediate 
products  for  which  the  usefulness  of  implementing  acts  under  the  EDD  and  ELD  are  highly 
questionable. 

This stakeholder further explained that several construction products are already submitted to 
minimum energy performance requirements under the EPBD. In particular, those that fall under 
the  definition  of  ‘building  elements’  and  those  that  form  part  of  building  envelopes  for  which 
EPBD’s Article 1(2)(c)(ii) and Article 4(1)2nd paragraph, ask Members States to set minimum 
energy performance requirements when replaced or retrofitted. As the EPBD leads to a holistic 
optimisation of complete buildings in the case of new constructions and major renovations, the 
added  value  of  energy  labelling  measures  under  the  ELD  would  be  limited  to  small  scale 
residential renovations, where the customer is not supported by a qualified adviser who could 
assist  him/her.  Providing  an  example  of  this  situation,  the  stakeholder  pointed  to  the  recent 
ecodesign  preparatory  study  on  window  products,  which  showed  the  high  dependency  of 
windows’ energy performance on site-specific parameters which cannot be taken properly into 
account in a generic EU-wide energy label.  

A  significant  business  federation  based  in  France  expressed  the  opinion  that  CPR,  energy 
labelling  and  ecodesign  Directives  do  not  apply  to  the  same  requirements,  making  the 
information  deceptive  for  users  (e.g.  for  boilers  and  windows).  Due  to  the  labelling,  the 
contractor’s  expertise  may  be  called  into  question,  although  he  has  adapted  its  offer  to  the 
project,  its  context  and  environment.  On  the  other  hand,  a  product  can  be  considered  high 
performing even when it is not. The CPR forbids quality marks while other Directives,  such as 
the Machinery Directive, allow them. 

A national authority asked for requirements to be set for building envelope elements.  

286 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

EPBD 

One Belgian respondent explained that minimum energy requirements related to the EPBD vary 
across regions, imposing additional costs on contractors. 

EED and EPBD 

A number of Swedish professionals and one public authority indicated an overlap between the 
EED  energy  audits  and  the  EPBD  EPCs.  According  to  these  stakeholders,  the  relationship 
between demands for the energy audit in EED Article 8 and other EU legislation, such as energy 
certificates of EPBD, should be clarified.  

Several stakeholders asked for the alignment of the different concepts of renovation.  

Finally,  a  European  federation  that  deals  with  fire  indicated  that  the  EPBD  and  EED  lead  to 
changes in buildings and construction products which can significantly influence safety in case 
of  fire.  According  to  this  stakeholder,  the  issue  of  fire  safety  is  not  addressed  in  these  two 
Directives, and the test methods for fire performance under the CPR are not reviewed to consider 
these changes. 

EPBD, EED, RESD 

A number of Swedish professionals and one authority pointed to overlaps and inconsistencies 
between the EPBD, EED and the RESD in respect of the promotion of district heating and cooling. 
According to these respondents, the Directives promote different forms and sources of energy: 
1.  The  RESD  promotes  co-generation  and  district  heating  using  a  significant  proportion  of 

renewable energy through the building regulations. 

2.  The EED promotes co-generation and district heating that does not have to be renewable. 
3.  The EPBD promotes decentralised energy production from renewable energy in the building 
regulations  and  says  that  positive  influence  from  district  heating  and  co-generation  that 
does not have to be renewable should be taken into account. 

The  respondents  believed  that  when  these  different  provisions  are  implemented  in  national 
regulations, the inconsistencies will become apparent and need to be addressed by the EU. 

Market surveillance 

One professional body called for the harmonisation of market surveillance, stating that Member 
States  often  apply  different  rules  for  market  surveillance  that  add  administrative  burden  for 
companies operating in several markets. Instead, this respondent believed that a common EU 
market surveillance system would be preferable. 

Other EU legislation 

One Dutch public authority highlighted a problem that they are facing in relation to the CPR and 
the End of Waste legislation. In the Netherlands it is customary to reuse a lot of waste as building 
material. Both the CPR and the End of Waste legislation uses certification, which, in the case of 
the End of Waste legislation, guarantees the environmentally safe reuse of waste materials. This 
respondent indicated that if this waste material also qualifies as building material under the CPR, 
then the use of certification is not allowed, preventing the use of CE-marking. The respondent 
felt that this situation hinders a cost-effective and environmentally safe reuse of waste material, 
and is also in conflict with the Circular Economy Package. 

287 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Found concepts, notions, and definitions that are unclear and for which interpretation 
is difficult 

Exhibit 3.32  Found concepts, notions, and definitions that are unclear and for which 

interpretation is difficult (Number of respondents) 

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

25

YES

5

NO

10

No opinion / No
answer

A  large  majority  of  respondents  (25),  including  16  respondents  to  the  Professionals’ 
Questionnaire and eight public authorities, found concepts, notions, and definitions that were 
unclear and whose interpretation is difficult. Ten respondents gave no opinion on the issue, and 
five  respondents,  including  four  respondents  to  the  Professionals’  Questionnaire,  had  not 
experienced issues with the clarity and interpretation of concepts, notions, and definitions. 

Analysis of the stakeholders’ written contributions 

Different concepts, notions and definitions were indicated as unclear by the stakeholders. 

In respect of the CPR, one stakeholder simply referred to ‘unitary product’ without further detail. 
Another indicated that the cost for testing and documentation is very high, particularly for SMEs, 
contrary to the intended goal of the regulation. A third  professional wrote that CE marking is 
often  considered  as  a  quality  mark  and  ‘fit-for-use’,  although  this  is  not  the  case.  This 
respondent  added  that  the  exemption  of  CE  marking  for  contractors  who  manufacture  and 
implement  construction  products  which  are  not  placed  in  the  market  is  unclear  and  leads  to 
misinterpretation. The professional finally asked that the DOP should be exclusively transmitted 
to the contractor, as a professional user, and not to the final client. Finally, one national authority 
indicated that the definition of ‘construction product’ is, in itself, challenging.  

On the EPBD, one stakeholder stated that guidance on the provisions on renovation was needed, 
in particular with regard to NZEB. In a similar vein, another stakeholder felt that the different 
provisions of the EPBD and the EED to increase the rate of energy efficiency renovations (deep 
renovation, major renovation, renovation to NZEBs), create inconsistencies when implemented 
in Member States. The different concepts of renovation would be best if streamlined pursuant 
to Article 4 of the EED, i.e. stimulation to cost-efficient energy efficiency. 

288 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Identified obsolete requirements, i.e. requirements that are not aligned with current 
market reality and technical developments 

Exhibit 3.33  Identified obsolete requirements, i.e. requirements that are not aligned 
with  current  market  reality  and  technical  developments  (Number  of 
respondents) 

23

25

20

15

10

5

0

11

6

YES

NO

No opinion / No
answer

A  majority  of  respondents  (23),  including  15  respondents  to  the  Professionals’  Questionnaire 
and  seven  public  authorities,  identified  obsolete  requirements,  i.e.  requirements  that  are  not 
aligned  with  current  market  reality  and  technical  developments.  Eleven  respondents  gave  no 
opinion  on  the  issue,  and  six  respondents,  including  four  respondents  to  the  Professionals’ 
Questionnaire, had not identified any out-of-date requirements. 

Analysis of the stakeholders’ written contributions 

A number of respondents advocated for the amendment, if not complete removal, of a number 
of different elements: 

CPR 

One respondent, part of a significant European association, added that fire safety test methods 
within the CPR have not been revised since 2002 and are based on data from 1994 or earlier. 
Consequently,  they  are  profoundly  limited  in  their  ability  to  predict  real-world  fire  safety 
performance of modern buildings and systems used in constructions. 

One stakeholder pointed out that the standardisation mandate  of the  CPR does not take into 
account the technical needs of professional users. 

A public authority expressed the  concern that the Commission is not publishing all new hENs 
but  manufacturers  are,  however,  using  some  of  them.  Another  public  authority  believed  that 
the current system of the CPR could facilitate more innovative products being CE marked. One 
respondent, working specifically in this sector, stated that CE marking for windows and curtain 
walling was obsolete. 

289 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

EPBD 

A European business federation that deals with materials explained that, under the EPBD, the 
setting of minimum performance requirements for building elements forming part of the building 
envelope  that  are  retrofitted  or  replaced  are  not  always  optimised  to  reach  the  Directive’s 
objectives. Member State requirements are focused on insulation, while other aspects are just 
as  important,  e.g.  solar  gains,  natural  ventilation  cooling,  natural  light.  In  Member  States, 
minimum  performance  requirements  for  windows  are  exclusively  related  to  their  thermal 
transmittance  (‘U’  value),  while  other  thermal  characteristics  are  neglected,  which  is  not 
scientifically correct and risks increasing costs. 

One respondent, focusing on energy efficiency, highlighted that cost optimisation has been used 
in  all  Member  States  as  a  way  of  assessing  the  optimum  level  and  possible  gaps  in  building 
codes.  While  this  was  particularly  useful  for  those  Member  States  with  less  progressive 
requirements,  it  does  not  necessarily  trigger  development  towards  NZEBs.  This  stakeholder 
asked for benchmarks to be strengthened and reduced from 15% to 5%. 

A  public  authority  stated  that  Articles  14  and  15  of  the  Directive  are  obsolete,  but  gave  no 
further detail or explanation.  

Identified requirements that need to be simplified 

Exhibit 3.34  Identified  requirements  that  need  to  be  simplified  (Number  of 

25

20

15

10

5

0

respondents) 

23

5

NO

YES

12

No opinion / No
answer

A  majority  of  respondents  (23),  including  16  respondents  to  the  Professionals’  Questionnaire 
and six public authorities, identified requirements that need to be simplified. Twelve respondents 
gave  no  opinion  on  the  issue,  and  five  respondents,  including  four  respondents  to  the 
Professionals’ Questionnaire, had not identified any requirements for which simplification was 
needed.  

Analysis of the stakeholders’ written contributions 

A number of respondents advocated for the amendment – if not complete removal – of a number 
of different elements: 

290 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

CPR 

One  respondent  stated  that  the  DOP  needed  to  be  revised,  and  limited  only  to  the  material 
properties.  Otherwise,  the  issue  of  of  double  DOP  requirements  for  the  product  and  the 
construction  site  arises.  A  public  authority  also  stated  that  the  duplication  of  information 
between the DOP and CE marking could be simplified. 

CEN and CENELEC pointed out that the implementation of the CPR creates additional problems 
by  introducing  further  burdens  and  contradictions,  in  particular  with  Regulation  (EU)  Nº 
1025/2012  on  European  Standardisation,  regarding  the  voluntary  nature  of  European 
Standards. They described the procedure for drafting hEN as unnecessarily complex, with a long 
delay  before  they  can  be  used  by  the  construction  sector  due  to  a  heavy  and  insufficiently 
defined administrative process. One public authority further stated that mandatory CE marking 
creates  problems  relating  to  the  availability  of  hENs  and  their  translation,  and  there  is 
inconsistency among articles. 

On  the  other  hand,  CEN  and  CENELEC  described  the  procedures  for  introducing  classes  and 
thresholds  as  unnecessarily  burdensome,  leading  experts  to  choose  between  removing 
classification  and  thresholds  or  facing  a  long  bureaucratic  process  to  implement  technical 
agreements. Another respondent further asked for the deletion of the  obligation of delegated 
acts to determine thresholds and technical classes on products. 

One  stakeholder  held  the  strong  view  that  the  year  of  the  harmonised  technical  specification 
should not be required in the CE marking. Another respondent, working specifically in this sector, 
stated that CE marking for windows and curtain walling needs to be simplified. 

EPBD 

Two  national  business  federations  clearly  set  out  that  the  requirements  for  energy  efficiency 
improvement recommendations to be incorporated into Energy Performance Certificates (EPC) 
should be removed. They stated that consultants who draft EPCs are already struggling with the 
effort  to  furnish  a  more  or  less  precise  and  reliable  energy  performance  indicator  for  the 
certificate. In addition, no single consultant has the wide-ranging expertise needed to give useful 
recommendations on energy efficiency improvements. 

According to another national business federation, the EPBD’s unnecessarily high requirements 
for the renovation of buildings have a dampening effect on the renovation of existing buildings. 

291 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Identified  requirements  where  simplification  has  not  brought  an  improvement  to 
implementation 

Exhibit 3.35  Identified  requirements  where  simplification  has  not  brought  an 
improvement to implementation (Number of respondents) 

23

11

6

25

20

15

10

5

0

YES

NO

No opinion / No
answer

A majority of respondents (23), including 18 respondents to the Professionals’ Questionnaire, 
did  not  have  an  opinion  on  the  issue.  Eleven  respondents,  including  nine  respondents  to  the 
Professionals’  Questionnaire,  identified  requirements  where  simplification  had  not  improved 
implementation,  while  six  respondents  (including  two  respondents  to  the  Professionals’ 
Questionnaire)  had  not  identified  any  requirements  that  had  failed  to  bring  an  improvement 
through simplification. 

Analysis of the stakeholders’ written contributions 

One public authority pointed to Articles 5 and 37 of the CPR as requirements where simplification 
had not improved implementation. 

One respondent, working specifically in this sector, answered that CE marking for windows and 
curtain walling had not improved implementation.  

A national business federation working with concrete asked for simplification of the information 
provided under CE marking, explaining that not all categories that accompany the markings are 
relevant for the customer and that the repetition of information in the CE marking and the DOP 
is unnecessary and confusing for customers. In the end, this respondent stated, it only creates 
a bureaucratic burden for companies. 

A significant national business federation stated that the notion of simplified documentation is 
not a simplification. Taking the example of an SME, this respondent explained that it would be 
very difficult to prove the equivalence to a standard adapted to a major manufacturer’s quality 
system. This respondent asked for the simplification of the CPR to allow a direct reference to 
the Basic Requirements, allowing SMEs to bring indirect proofs (such as company qualification, 
laboratory test, use of cascading documents, etc.). 

Finally, two respondents - one large company and one European business federation - provided 
the same written submissions, stating that the use of hEN as a regulatory tool to comply with 
the CPR can slow the process of updating and publishing CEN standards. Here, the respondents 
expressed their concerns with this inefficiency, as the standards also provide information about 
a product that is useful to both manufacturer and client. 

292 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and 
energy efficiency legislation - Annexes 

Other aspects – please specify below 

A total of four respondents answered ‘yes’ to other aspects, including three respondents to the 
Professionals’ Questionnaire and one public authority. Three respondents answered ‘no’, with 33 
expressing no opinion. 

Analysis of the stakeholders’ written contributions 

A national construction federation explained that the administrative procedure for the publication 
in the Official Journal of the European Union of hENs, and the period covering both former and 
new  standards,  are  too  long.  This  respondent  also  indicated  that  the  hEN’s  statute 
(mandatory/voluntary) and access (free of charge/to pay) are not clear enough. 

One respondent, part of a significant European association, asked for principles for fire testing 
and classification systems to be formally incorporated into the CPR. Expanding on this point of 
view,  the  respondent  added  that  the  CPR  should  include  smoke  toxicity  in  its  harmonised 
standards  by  specifying  that  consideration  of  the  smoke  hazard  includes  the  consideration  of 
both opacity and toxicity. In addition, the CPR should have an additional clause after clause (18) 
clarifying that harmonised horizontal standards used to fulfil the requirements of the CPR must 
be  given  a  fitness  test  every  five  years  to  ensure  that  they  are  still  applicable  to  any  new 
construction products on the market. This respondent believed that these steps would preserve 
the established link between  small-scale tests  and product performance in relevant reference 
scenarios. 

The  same  respondent  added  comments  in  relation  to  the  EPBD,  explaining  that  existing 
provisions  do  not  take  fire  safety  planning  into  account,  in  particular  for  buildings  that 
accommodate  a  large  number  of  people  at  one  time,  and  host  people  with  reduced  escape 
capabilities  (e.g.  schools,  hospitals),  as  well  as  commercial  buildings  where  citizens  are  at  a 
higher risk in case of fire. 

One  respondent  stated  that  many  construction  sector  professionals  do  not  have  a  good 
knowledge of applicable laws, policies and regulations, and this challenge must be addressed by 
all stakeholders.  

Finally,  one  public  authority  stated  that  the  use  of  FAQs  creates  problems  by  allowing  for 
interpretation without providing further information.

293 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E
T
-
0
4
-
1
5
-
7
7
8
-
E
N
-
N

294