Cross-border trade for construction products : main report.
Date: 2018-03-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs
Subjects: EC conformity marking, European standard, building materials, construction policy, cross-border cooperation, harmonisation of standards, international trade, small and medium-sized enterprises

Cross-Border Trade For 
Construction Products 

Main Report 

Written  by  Emanuela  Sirtori  (CSIL),  Alessandra  Caputo 
(CSIL),  Francesco  Giffoni  (CSIL),  Alessandra  Tracogna 
(CSIL),  Antonella  Stemperini  (CRESME),  Antonio  Mura 
(CRESME) 

October – 2017 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 
Directorate C - Industrial Transformation and Advanced Value Chains 
Unit C1 – Clean Technologies and Products 

Contact: Manfred Fuchs 

E-mail:  grow-c1@ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Cross-Border Trade For 
Construction Products 

Main Report 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs  

2017 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

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, 2017 

ISBN 978-92-79-73908-8 
doi: 10.2873/452293 

© European Union, 2017 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

Printed in Belgium  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

TABLE OF CONTENT 

2. 

3. 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... 7 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 8 
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 14 
1. 
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................... 14 
1.2 Objectives ......................................................................................................... 14 
1.3 Methodology of analysis ................................................................................... 14 
1.4 Scope and structure of this report .................................................................... 15 
INVENTORY OF CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS AND SELECTED SAMPLE ............. 17 
2.1 Inventory.......................................................................................................... 17 
2.2 Selected sample ................................................................................................ 19 
DATA AND SOURCES ....................................................................................... 25 
3.1 Trade data ........................................................................................................ 25 
3.1.1  Data sources and types of data ...................................................................... 25 
Preliminary data treatment ............................................................................ 26 
3.1.2 
3.1.3 
Codes check ................................................................................................ 26 
3.1.4  Development of the final database ................................................................. 27 
3.1.5 
Caveats ...................................................................................................... 27 
3.2 Data on SMEs .................................................................................................... 29 
OVERVIEW OF CROSS-BORDER TRADE ........................................................... 31 
4.1 Aggregate analysis ........................................................................................... 31 
4.2 Analysis by product group ................................................................................ 37 
ANALYSIS OF FACTORS INFLUENCING CROSS-BORDER TRADE ...................... 41 
5.1 Drivers of cross-border trade............................................................................ 41 
5.2 Impact of the harmonised European standards and the CPR ............................ 47 
FOCUS ON SMES ............................................................................................. 60 
6.1 The role of SMEs in the construction products market ...................................... 60 
6.2 SMEs’ propensity and barriers to export ........................................................... 62 
6.3 Impact of the CPR and hENs on SMEs ............................................................... 63 
CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................ 67 

6. 

7. 

5. 

4. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS  

CEN  
CN 
CPD 
CPR  
EFTA 
ETA  
EU  
EUR 
hEN 
HS 
NACE 
SME 

European Committee for Standardisation  
Combined Nomenclature 
Construction Products Directive 
Construction Products Regulation  
European Free Trade Association  
European Technical Assessment  
European Union 
Euro 
Harmonised European standard 
Harmonized System 
Statistical classification of economic activities 
Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise 

7 

 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Objective and methodology 

The  present  study  aims  to  provide  the  European  Commission  with  a  comprehensive 
and  unbiased  understanding  of  the  trends  of  cross-border  trade  of  construction 
products  over  the  period  2003-2015  and  the  factors  influencing  these  trends.  The 
study  contributes  to  the  assessment  of  the  role  of  the  Construction  Products 
Regulation (CPR) (305/2011/EU) and of harmonised European technical specifications 
(hENs)  as  Internal  Market  instruments  to  facilitate  cross-border  trade  within  the 
European  Union  (EU).  The  role  of  Small  and  Medium  Enterprises  (SMEs)  in  cross-
border trade of construction products is object of specific investigation. 

The methodological approach is based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative 
analysis tools including:  

  desk  review  of  existing  studies  and  position  papers  of  business  representative 

associations; 

  historical  reconstruction  and  descriptive  analysis  of  production  and  trade  data 

for a sample of 25 construction products over the 2003-2015 period; 

  econometric  analysis  to  determine  the  factors  which  have  influenced  intra-EU 

 

trade for the sample of construction products; 
semi-structured  interviews  to  14  stakeholders,  including  national  business 
associations and certification bodies; 

  on-line survey to enterprises, which allowed to collect the opinion of 131 firms 
operating in the construction sector, including 61 SMEs (46% of the sample).  

Inventory of representative construction products 

The  construction  sector  is  characterised  by  a  large  number  of  diverse  typologies  of 
products.  They  could  be  distinguished  on  the  basis  of  their  use  in  the  construction 
process (from raw materials, products used for structural purposes, finished products, 
finishing products, plants and systems), or of the basic materials used and value chain 
to  which  they  belong  (including  metal,  plastic,  wood,  glass,  chemical,  ceramic 
products and others).  

The  construction  market  includes  not  only  new  construction  activities,  but  also 
recurrent  and  non-recurrent  repair,  demolition,  renovation  and  re-building  works. 
Such  variety  implies  large  variability  of  behaviours,  demand  and  supply  models, 
distribution  and  trade  processes,  as  well  as  actors  involved  (from  individual 
entrepreneurs  and  micro  enterprises,  to  medium-sized  enterprises  or  large  industrial 
groups involved in big contract projects).  

Construction  products  have  been  identified  by  analysing  the  PRODCOM  database. 
When excluding construction machineries, which are out of the scope of this study, a 
list  of  471  construction  products  can  be  identified.  A  sample  of  25  construction 
products  has  been  selected  out  of  it,  representing  5%  (25  out  of  471)  of  the  total 
number  of  construction  products  identified  and  17%  in  terms  of  average  production 
share in 2013-14. The sample covers a variety of products widely used and traded in 
the construction market. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

List of 25 products selected for in-depth analysis 

Group 

Product name 

Raw 
materials 

Products 
used 
for 
structural 
purposes 

Finished 
products 

Finishing 
products 

Plants 
and 
systems 

1.  Cement 
2.  Additives 
3.  Sands 
4.  Bricks 
5.  Aluminium bars 
6.  Copper tubes and pipes 
7.  Steel tubes and pipes 
8.  Wire rod 
9.  Concrete reinforcing bars 
10. Articles of asphalt 
11. Doors and windows in wood 
12. Doors and windows in plastic 
13. Prefabricated  buildings  of  plastics,  concrete  or 

aluminium  
14. Ceramic tiles 
15. Wood parquet flooring 
16. Textile flooring 
17. Plasterboards 
18. Insulating glass 
19. Insulating materials 
20. Roofing tiles 
21. Natural stone coating 
22. Clay flooring blocks 
23. Valves 
24. Optical fibre cables 
25. Electric systems 

by 

Covered 
hENs 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
Yes 
No 
Yes 
No 
No 

Overview and drivers of intra-EU cross border trade  

In the period 2003-2015, the value of intra-EU export of the 25 construction products 
increased  by  48%  (from  21  billion  EUR  in  2003  to  31  billion  EUR  in  2015)  while 
decreased by 1% in terms of volume (from 59 million ton in 2003 to 58 million ton in 
2015).  The  value  of  intra-EU  trade  as  a  share  of  production  of  the  selected  25 
construction products has increased over the years, moving from 24% in 2003 to 31% 
in 2015. 

The  world  financial  and  economic  crisis  in  2009  and  the  following  contraction  of  the 
real  estate  market  in  2012-2013  had  a  strong  negative  effect  on  production, 
consumption  and  trade  of  cross-border  products  across  the  board.  The  effect  of  the 
crisis was only partially counterbalanced by anti-cyclical policy measures introduced in 
some  European  countries  to  stimulate  the  new  construction  and  renovation  markets, 
and by the infrastructural investment process fuelled by EU funds especially in the new 
Member States. 

Out  of  the  total  sample  of  25  construction  products,  products  used  for  structural 
purposes (such as aluminium alloy bars, rods, profiles and hollow profiles, copper and 
steel  tubes  and  pipes)  and  finishing  products  (such  as  ceramic  tiles  and  textiles)  are 
associated  with  the  highest  value  of  export  in  2015.  Raw  materials  (such  as  cement 
and sands), although representing only 6% of the value of construction materials and 
products  considered,  cover  up  to  57%  of  the  total  volume  of  export  of  construction 
materials and products. 

9 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Share  of  intra-EU  export  by 
product  group  over  the  total 
value 
of 
construction products - 2015 

volume 

and 

Intra-EU  trade  for  the  25  construction 
products (2003-2015) 

Value of intra-EU export, extra-EU export and 
intra-EU  consumption 1  as  a  share  of 
production  of  25  construction  products 
(2003, 2009, 2015) 

Source: CSIL 

Germany is the leading trading country for the market of construction products, both 
in terms of value and volume of traded goods, especially raw materials, products used 
for  structural  purposes  and  plants  and  systems.  The  value  of  Italian  exports  are 
similar  to  the  German  ones,  but  their  volume  is  significantly  lower.  Italy  is  a  major 
trader  of  finishing  products,  such  as  ceramic  tiles,  but  also  some  structural  products 
such as steel tubes and pipes.  

Eastern  and  Central  European  countries  have  generally  recorded  higher  growth  rates 
in  trade  as  compared  to  Western  countries.  The  accession  to  the  EU  market  has 
greatly stimulated intra-EU trade from/to Central-Eastern European countries. Indeed, 
according to the econometric analysis, the accession to the EU of Eastern and Central 
European countries (in 2004, 2007 and 2013) is associated  with an average increase 
in the value of intra-EU trade by 0.4 percentage points. 

1 Defined as production used for internal use. 

10 

505560657075808515,00025,00035,00045,00055,00065,00075,000Export, Million KgExport, Million EURIntra-EU Export (EUR)Intra-EU Export (Kg)CPRCPRCPRCPRFinishing products41%Finishing products26%Products for structural purp. 29%Products for structural purp. 14%Finished products 13%Finished products 2%Plants & Systems 10%Plants & Systems 1%Raw materials 6%Raw materials 57%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%ValueVolume24%25%31%11%13%17%66%62%52%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%200320092015Intra-EU exportExtra-EU exportIntra-EU consumption 
 
 
 
                                           
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

The  Polish  market  and  trade  of  construction  products  significantly  expanded  in  the 
past  years.  In  2015  Poland  has  become  the  third  largest  exporter  in  the  EU, 
representing over 40% of the total value of export of all New Member States (Central 
and  Eastern  Europe)  and  nearly  30%  of  the  total  volume  of  export  in  the  same 
countries.  The  growth  of  Polish  export  is  visible  especially  as  far  as  the  finished 
products is concerned.  

Slightly less than 50% of intra-EU trade takes place between neighbouring countries, 
the  remainder  being  between  more  distant  countries.  Trade  between  neighbouring 
new and old Member States (such as the group of Scandinavian and Baltic countries, 
or  Central  European  countries)  has  significantly  grown  as  an  effect  of  the  EU 
enlargement process. Indeed, physical proximity, strengths of logistic connections and 
the  use  of  the  same  official  language  are  factors  which  facilitate  cross-border  trade. 
The high level of exchanges between Belgium and the Netherlands and other countries 
is  also  determined  by  the  existence  of  international  port  hubs  in  these  countries, 
where  large  quantities  of  goods  coming  from  different  Member  States  are  shipped  to 
their ultimate destination place. 

Impact of the CPR and hENs on cross-border trade 

The  size  of  the  origin  and  destination  markets  as  reflected  in  the  GDP  and  fixed 
investment in construction, membership in the EU and/or the Eurozone, the distance 
between countries, the use of a common official language and the currency exchange 
rate  are  strong  determinants  of  the  level  of  cross-border  trade  across  all  EU-28 
Member  States  and  construction  products  considered.  By  contrast,  the  analysis 
indicates that the CPR had a highly diversified effect on cross-border trade.  

After  controlling  for  other  influencing  factors,  the  introduction  of  the  CPR  in  2013  in 
replacement of the Construction Products Directive (89/106/EEC), had a negative and 
statistically significant effect on the value of trade  in some older  Member States (i.e. 
Germany,  the  UK,  France,  Denmark  and  Sweden).  The  effect  of  the  CPR  seems 
positive  for  a  set  of  New  Member  States  (Poland,  Bulgaria,  Estonia,  Lithuania  and 
Slovenia), the effect of the CPR is more positive) and Portugal. In terms of products, 
the  CPR  is  associated  with  an  increase  in  intra-EU  trade  for  the  additives,  insulating 
glass  and  optical  fibre  cables.  A  negative  effect  is  found  for  five  products  used  for 
structural  purposes  (copper  and  steel  tubes  and  pipes,  wire  rod,  concrete  reinforcing 
bars and articles of asphalt), and for two finishing products (roofing tiles and natural 
stone  coating).  The  effect  of  the  CPR  is  not  statistically  significant  in  the  remaining 
markets.  

Interviewees  believe  that  the  introduction  of  new  harmonised  product  standards  can 
be  a  strong  stimulus  to  the  trade  of  construction  products.  Yet,  the  econometric 
analysis at product level, which looks specifically at the impact of individual standards 
on  the  exports  of  a  particular  product,  shows  a  diversified  scenario,  with  some 
standards  being  positively  correlated  with  export  (e.g.  EN1326-1  for  trade  of 
additives, or EN14251-1 for doors and windows in plastic), and others negatively (e.g. 
EN13915 for plasterboards).  

Even  if  the  impact  of  the  CPR  on  the  level  of  trade  is  generally  not  significant  with 
exceptions  for  some  countries  or  products,  all  stakeholders  consulted  agree  that  the 
CPR brought other sorts of benefits to firms. The main benefit is in terms of increased 
clarity  of  rules,  which,  according  to  around  50%  of  surveyed  firms,  may  in  fact 
facilitate  the  movement  of  goods  in  the  EU.  Moreover,  27%  of  firms  believes  that 
European specifications of essential characteristics of products could stimulate product 
innovation.  This  is  in  line  with  opinions  of  consulted  stakeholders  who  point  to  a 
positive  effect  of  the  CPR  on  product  quality,  which  can  translate  in  an  increased 
competitive advantage for European firms as compared to non-EU competitors. 

11 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Barriers to cross-border trade 

Since  the  introduction  of  the  Construction  Products  Directive  in  1989  (89/106/EEC), 
the  creation  of  the  Single  European  Market  in  1993  and  development  of  harmonised 
European  standards  over  the  years,  major  restrictions  on  the  free  movement  of 
construction products have been removed and the EU internal market of construction 
products has developed.  

Nevertheless,  both  firms  consulted  through  the  on-line  survey  and  national  business 
associations  interviewed  highlight  that  some  barriers  are  still  in  place,  constraining 
cross-border  trade  among  European  countries.  To  some  extent,  national  preferences 
and different traditions  and tastes in the kind  of construction products used limit the 
movement of construction products across the whole EU. However, the major obstacle 
to  trade  derives  from  national  quality  marks.  Despite  the  effort  to  replace  national 
rules with harmonised European ones, national product requirements  among Member 
States are still existing and have limited  so far the potential effectiveness of the CPR 
and the hENs.  

Different  interpretation  of  some  requirements  of  the  CPR,  not  fully  uniform  testing 
criteria used by certification bodies across different countries, and the lack of effective 
market  surveillance  are  seen  as  further  obstacles  to  the  circulation  of  harmonised 
construction products. 

The role of SMEs 

The  production  and,  even  more  considerably,  trade  of  several  construction  products 
are dominated by medium or large size companies, including multinationals. The more 
concentrated  the  market  and  smaller  the  country,  the  more  trade  data  recorded  at 
national  level  are  driven  by  the  production  and  export  behaviour  of  few  but  larger 
companies.  When  considering  product  variation,  SMEs  are  relatively  less  involved  in 
the  production  of  raw  materials  (cement,  glass,  metals)  and  semi-finished  products, 
especially those used for structural purposes (such as steel and copper tubes, wire rod 
and aluminium bars), which require big investment costs and large plants. SMEs have 
a  larger  role  to  play  in  the  production  and  trade  of  finished  and  finishing  products, 
such  as  doors  and  windows,  as  well  as  flooring  products  (textile,  wood-made  or 
natural stones).  

Regulation  and  administrative  costs  are  the  main  barriers  that  hinder  smaller 
enterprises, especially micro-size firms, from trading. SMEs struggle to understand the 
terms  and  requirements  imposed  by  legislation.  While  the  CPR  has  increased  clarity 
and  legal  certainty,  the  existence  of  national  different  marking  systems  and 
requirements raise confusion and uncertainty especially among smaller firms.  

The distribution systems of the construction products is relevant to explain the degree 
of  involvement  of  SMEs  in  cross-border  trade.  Some  products,  in  spite  of  being 
characterised  by  a  concentrated  production,  have  a  highly  fragmented  distribution 
chain  (including  transporting,  storing  and  selling  activities)  to  which  SMEs  could 
participate.  In countries where big retailers and low cost bricolage  retailers dominate 
the distribution system for a large set of finished products, trade by SMEs is likely to 
be  more  limited.  SMEs  located  nearby  the  borders  are  more  likely  to  cross-border 
trade  and  ensure  local  installation  and  post-sale  services,  thanks  to  lower  transport 
cost.  

The  implementation  of  simplified  procedures  for  micro  enterprises,  which  is  foreseen 
in  the  CPR,  has  been  positively  viewed  by  stakeholders.  Yet,  the  simplified 
requirements for smaller firms are unclear and as a consequence they are not yet fully 
applied.  The  benefits  generated  by  the  CPR  for  exporter  SMEs  could  increase  in  the 
future years as long as national barriers fall down, simplified rules are more effectively 
implemented  and  SMEs  better  organise  and  equip  themselves  to  go  abroad  (e.g.  by 

12 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

joining  export  consortia,  or  taking  advantage  from  available  public  grants  for 
internationalisation). 

13 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

1.  INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background 

The  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Internal  Market,  Industry, 
Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs,  awarded  CSIL  Centre  for  Industrial  Studies,  in 
partnership  with  CRESME  –  Economic  and  Social  Research  Center  of  Construction 
Market,  a  contract  to  carry  out  a  study  on  “Cross-border  trade  for  construction 
products”. The study is part of the assessment of the role of the Construction Products 
Regulation (CPR) (305/2011/EU) as an  Internal Market instrument to  facilitate cross-
border  trade  within  the  European  Union  (EU).  The  primary  aim  of  the  CPR  was  to 
remove  technical  barriers  to  the  trade  of  construction  products,  by  harmonizing  and 
clarifying the rules for affixing the CE marking. 

Since  when  the  CPR  was  introduced,  no  thorough  evaluation  has  been  initiated  to 
assess  its  effects  on  the  EU  internal  market.  Three  years  after  making  CE  marking 
rules  compulsory  to  all  construction  products  covered  by  a  harmonised  European 
standard (hEN) or European Technical Assessment (ETA), there is the need to assess 
whether previous barriers to cross-border trade have been resolved. At the same time, 
it is important to determine whether new issues and barriers to the free movement of 
goods have emerged and whether there is the need to introduce harmonised European 
standards  for  new  types  of  products.  Given  the  aim  of  the  CPR  to  stimulate  trade 
especially by Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs), particular attention should be put on 
assessing  the  extent  to  which  the  Regulation  has  improved  SMEs’  participation  in 
cross-border trade within the EU.  

This  study  is  meant  to  address  such  information  needs  and  inform  the  process  of 
review  of  the  CPR  that  is  expect  to  take  place  in  2018.  Thanks  to  the  amount  of 
evidence collected and analysed by the contractor, the Commission will have a clearer 
picture  of  the  long-term  trends  of  the  construction  products  trade  in  the  EU  and  the 
possible effects produced by the EU Regulation.  

1.2 Objectives 

This  study  aims  to  provide  the  European  Commission  with  a  comprehensive  and 
unbiased  understanding  of  the  trends  of  cross-border  trade  of  construction  products 
over  the  period  2003-2015  and  the  factors  influencing  these  trends.  Specific 
objectives of the study are:  

  To make an inventory of different types of construction products; 
  To  provide  estimates  of  the  value  and  volume  of  cross-border  trade  for  a 
sample of construction products/product groups within the EU market over the 
period 2003-2015;  

  To highlight the specific role of SMEs in the cross-border trade of the selected 

products; 

  To identify factors which influence the cross-border trade within the EU Internal 

market of construction products; 

  To assess whether and how the introduction of harmonised European technical 
specifications  and  the  CPR  has  affected  the  cross-border  trade  of  construction 
products within the EU. 

1.3 Methodology of analysis 

The methodological approach is based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative 
analysis  tools  that  investigate  specific  dimensions  of  the  cross-border  trade  of 
construction  products  and  the  effects  of  the  harmonised  European  technical 
specifications and the CPR. They include:  

14 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

  Review  of  existing  studies  and  position  papers  of  business  representative 

associations; 

  Historical  reconstruction  and  descriptive  analysis  of  production  and  trade  data 

for a sample of 25 construction products over the 2003-2015 period; 

  Econometric  analysis  to  determine  the  factors  which  have  influenced  intra-EU 

trade for the sample of construction products; 

  Semi-structured  interviews  to  14  stakeholders,  including  national  business 

associations and certification bodies; 

  On-line survey to enterprises, which allowed to collect the opinion of 131 firms, 

including SMEs.  

Figure 1. 

  Overview of study and methodological approach 

Our methodological approach is characterised by the following distinctive ingredients: 

Source: CSIL 

  The  study  is  built  on  a  solid  evidence-based  analysis  of  existing  data  and 
studies on the topic and in-depth understanding of the market dynamics of the 
EU construction industry; 

  Different  data  sources  have  been  considered  in  order  to  ensure  validity, 

completeness and depth of analysis; 

  The  analysis  produced  through  this  study  has  reached  a  higher  level  of  detail 
(in  terms  of  construction  products)  and  depth  (in  terms  of  range  of  products 
covered,  time  of  analysis  and  geographical  scope)  as  compared  to  any  other 
previous study on this topic;  

  Emphasis  throughout  the  whole  study  has  been  put  to  investigate  the  role  of 

SMEs in cross-border trade of construction products; 

  Dialogue with stakeholders, including enterprises, was important to analyse the 
factors  influencing  cross-border  trade  and  ensure  external  validation  of  the 
analysis;  

  Any methodological challenges and issues in data collection and analysis  have 
been  openly  explained,  and  all  underlying  assumptions  and  methodological 
choices have been justified.  

1.4 Scope and structure of this report 

This Final report sets out the key findings of the whole study. It is structured in three 
volumes, as presented in Table 1.  

15 

Work package 1: Scope ofproducts123Work package 2:Scope ofcross-bordertradeWork package 3: In-depthanalysisoffactorsleadingtochangesin cross-bordertradeMethods: desk documentaryanalysis, reviewof data sources, analysisof productdataMethods: data collection,statisticalanalysisof tradedata, benchmark with existingstudiesMethods: interviews, on-line survey, econometricanalysis, conceptualreasoningDelivery 1: List of proposedproductsDelivery 3: FinalreportTask 1: Identificationand selectionof productsor productgroups(incl. the SME production share)Task 2: Descriptivestatisticalanalysis(incl. an analysisof the roleof SMEs)Task 3: Stakeholder consultationTask 4: EconometricanalyisTask 5: Synthesisand finalreportingDelivery 2: Interim report 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Table 1.  

Structure of the report 

Volume and Section 
Volume I – Main report 

Content 

Section 1 – 
Introduction 

Section 2 – Inventory 
of construction 
products and selected 
sample 

Section 3 – Data and 
sources 

Section 4 – Overview 
of cross-border trade 

Section 5 – Analysis of 
factors determining 
cross-border trade 

included 

III  shows 

in  Volume 

The background, the methodology and the objectives of 
the  study  are  briefly  presented  in  this  introductory 
section. 
It contains the classification of construction products by 
groups  and  product  families.  The  list  of  25  products 
selected  for  the  analysis  is  presented  and  justification 
for their selection is briefly provided. Annex 1 included 
in  Volume  III  provides  more  details  on  the  selection 
process. 
This section lays down the data and sources considered 
to  analyse  cross-border  trade  and  the  role  of  SMEs. 
Existing  methodological  challenges  are  pointed  out. 
Annex  2 
the 
correspondence between product codes which has been 
adopted  by  the  contractor  to  build  a  coherent  dataset 
over the 2003-2015 period. 
The  results  of  the  descriptive  statistical  analysis  of 
trade  data  are  presented  in  this  section.  The  objective 
is to depict trends in cross-border trade over the 2003-
2015  period  at  aggregate  and  product  group  level. 
Volume  II  includes  short  product  fiches,  which  present 
information  and  data  related  to  each  product  of  the 
sample.  Annex  3  of  Volume  III  shows  the  bilateral 
trading  network  for  each  of  the  28  EU  Member  States 
at the beginning of our period of analysis (2003) and at 
the end (2015). 
By  observing  the  trade  flows,  descriptive  statistics, 
econometric  results  and  by  consulting  stakeholder  and 
firms,  the  drivers  of  cross-border  trade  are  identified 
and validated. This includes the impact of the CPR and 
of  the  hENs  as  well  as  the  role  of  SMEs  and  factors 
influencing this specific type of enterprises. This section 
is  accompanied  by  Annex  4,  Annex  5  and  Annex  6 
included in Volume III (see below). 

Section 6 – Conclusion  Synthesis  and  concluding  remarks  on  the  findings  are 

Volume II – Product 
fiches 

Volume III – Annexes 

presented in this section. 
It  includes  25  short  product  fiches,  one  for  each 
construction product included in the analysis. They are 
meant to summarise and structure in a common format 
the  main  set  of  information  related  to  the  selected 
products. 

-  Annex 1. Steps and criteria for product selection 
-  Annex  2.  PRODCOM  and  COMEXT  code  tracking 

across years 

-  Annex 3. Trading networks by country 
-  Annex 4. List of interviewees 
-  Annex  5.  Survey  on-line:  questionnaire  and 

results 

-  Annex  6.  Econometric  analysis:  models  and 

results 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

2.  INVENTORY  OF  CONSTRUCTION  PRODUCTS  AND  SELECTED 

SAMPLE 

2.1 Inventory 

The  construction  sector  is  characterised  by  a  large  number  of  diverse  typologies  of 
products, which can be classified according to different criteria. In this study we adopt 
two parallel classifications to define construction products: 

  Product groups defined by their use in the construction process: 

-  Raw materials (e.g. aggregates, cement, stones); 
-  Products  used  for  structural  purposes  (e.g.  structural  steel,  aluminium 

structures, wood cross-ties); 

-  Finished  products  (e.g.  doors,  windows,  prefabricated  buildings  of 

wood); 

-  Finishing products (e.g. flooring, wall covering products); 
-  Plants  and  systems  (e.g.  electric  equipment,  electrical  systems, 

plumbing, heating and cooling, telecommunication systems); 

-  Construction machineries. 

  Products  families,  identified  by  looking  at  the  materials  used  and  their 

market proximity and value chains. These families are: 

-  Metal products; 
-  Construction machineries and equipment; 
-  Plastic materials, excluding flooring; 
-  Electric materials and cables; 
-  Raw materials from mining; 
-  Flooring and other coatings; 
-  Cement and concrete; 
-  Heating and plumbing; 
-  Chemical products (paints and varnishes, synthetic adhesive, mastics); 
-  Bricks; 
-  Flooring  and  covering,  doors  and  windows  and  other  products  made  of 

wood; 

-  Ceramic products (tiles and sanitary wares); 
-  Glass products; 
-  Natural stone coatings; 
-  Other products.2 

Large variability exists also in the demand for construction products, which goes from 
the  micro  level  demand  for  current  repair  (like  tap  replacing),  to  the  macro-demand 
for  major  works,  like  big  infrastructures  or  urban  refurbishment  interventions.  The 
construction  market  covers  two  main  sectors:  i)  residential  and  non-residential 
building  and  ii)  civil  engineering.  The  construction  market  includes  not  only 
construction  activities,  but  also  recurrent  and  non-recurrent  repair,  demolition, 
renovation  and  re-building  works.  Such  variety  implies  very  large  variability  of 
behaviours,  demand  and  supply  models,  distribution  and  trade  processes  and  actors 

2 This  is  a  residual  group  including  for  instance  articles  of  asphalt,  bituminous  mixtures,  chandeliers  and 
other  electric  ceiling  or  wall  lighting  fittings  (excluding  those  used  for  lighting  public  open  spaces  or 
thoroughfares), or composite materials like boards, sheets, panels, tiles and similar articles of plaster faced 
or reinforced with paper or paperboard.  

17 

 
 
 
                                           
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

involved  (from  the  individual  entrepreneur  to  medium-sized  enterprises  or  large 
industrial groups involved in big contract projects).  

To the purpose of this study, construction products have been identified by analysing 
the PRODCOM database at its most disaggregated level (8 digit product codes). A list 
of  533  construction  products  has  been  produced.  The  list  provides  a  comprehensive 
picture of the variety of products used in the construction industry. It covers both civil 
engineering and building products (for residential, industrial, commercial, public office 
use),  products  for  new  construction  as  well  as  renovation  and  renewal  activity.  If 
excluding construction machineries, which are not covered by this study, the number 
of  construction  products  amounts  to  471.  The  average  value  of  production  between 
2013 and 2015 for these 471 products is 587 billion EUR. 

Figure 2. 

  Numbers of construction products 

Note: The distribution of the total output of the construction industry between new construction 
and renovation is based on CRESME estimates referring to 19 European countries which 
represent about 94% of the total market in 2015.  
Source: CSIL and CRESME 

18 

CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTSBy product groupBy product familyTypes of productsTypes of demandTOTAL OUTPUT       100%NEW      48%RENOVATION 52%Residential building 18.5%Non-residential building 16.8%Civil engineering 12.8%Residential building 27.5%Civil engineering 9.1%Non-residential building 15.4%24079775223Products used for structuralpurposesFinishing productsPlants and sytemsRaw materialsFinished products20149432724211919161614976Metal productsPlastic materials, excluding flooringElectric material and cablesOther productsRaw materials from miningFlooring and other coatingsCement and concreteHeating and plumbingChemical products (paints andvarnishes, synthetic adhesive, mastics)BricksFlooring and covering, doors andwindows and other wood productsCeramic productsGlass productsNatural stone coatings 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

2.2 Selected sample 

The  analysis  covers  a  list  of  25  construction  products.  Starting  from  the 
comprehensive  mapping  of  the  construction  sector  illustrated  above,  products  have 
been  selected  through  a  two-step  procedure,  illustrated  in  the  Figure  below  and 
explained in more details in Annex 1 of Vol. III.  

Figure 3. 

  Overview of the selection process 

In brief, products were selected so as to satisfy the following criteria: 

Source: CSIL and CRESME 

  Coverage  of  different  product  families,  defined  by  the  product  use, 
materials  and  market  proximity  (e.g.  metal  products,  electric  material,  bricks, 
ceramic products, etc.), with the exception of machineries, which are out of the 
scope of analysis according to the study’s Specifications; 

  Coverage  of  different  products  groups: raw materials, structural products, 

finished products, finishing, plants and building systems;  

  Relatively  high  level  of  import/export  movements within EU (relative to 

consumption levels and production) and European market size;  

  Relevance of the product for the construction industry (market share); 
  Relevance of SMEs, either in the production or distribution phase, or both; 
  Existence of an European Harmonized Standard covered by the CPR. For 
finished  products,  finishing  products  and  plants  and  systems,  examples  of 
products not covered by standards are also included in the sample  in order to 
allow for comparison with products covered by European standards.  

19 

Preliminary analysis of trade dataValue for downstream users114 PRODUCTSWith high level of cross border tradeSignificantly used in the construction sectorRole of SMEsIdentification of technical standards25 PRODUCTS Highly relevant for SMEsBoth covered and not by European technical specificationsCONSTRUCTION SECTOR  MAP533PRODUCTSMachinery excluded471 PRODUCTS 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

In  some  cases,  different  products,  as  defined  by  PRODCOM,  have  been  grouped 
together  and  taken  as  a  single  unit  of  analysis.  Two  or  more  products  have  been 
gathered together when i) they are covered by the same European standard(s) and ii) 
belong to a common market niche. 

The  sample  cannot  be  considered  statistically  representative  of  the  whole 
construction  products  market.  Products  included  in  the  sample  cover  5%  of  the 
total number of construction products identified (25/471) In terms of production,  the 
average  value  of  production  of  the  25  products  is  102  billion  EUR,  which  represents 
17%  of  the  value  of  production  of  all  the  471  construction  products  identified  (as 
mentioned  above,  equal  to  587  billion  EUR).  Indeed,  the  selection  process  was  not 
random,  but  aimed  to  pick  particularly  relevant  products  that  are  widely  used  in  the 
construction  sector,  without  any  attempt  to  ensure  statistical  representatives  of  the 
analysis and immediate generalisability of findings to the whole construction industry. 
Still, the variety of products selected allows us to get a valuable snapshot of the entire 
market, from raw materials to finishing products.  

Table 2.  

List of 25 products selected for in-depth analysis 

Group 

Product label 

PRODCOM name and code  

Raw 
materials 

1.  Cement 

2.  Additives 

Portland  cement,  Other  hydraulic 
cements (23.51.12(.10 + .90) 
Prepared  additives  for  cements, 
mortars 
concretes 
or 
(20.59.57.50) 

Products 
used 
for 
structural 
purposes 

3.  Sands 

4.  Bricks 

5.  Aluminium bars 

6.  Copper 

tubes 

and pipes 

7.  Steel  tubes  and 

pipes 

8.  Wire rod 

and 

tubes 

hollow 

Construction sands such as clayey 
sands;  kaolinic  sands;  feldspathic 
sands  (excluding  silica  sands, 
metal 
sands) 
bearing 
(08.12.11.90) 
Non-refractory clay building bricks 
(excluding of siliceous fossil meals 
or earths) (23.32.11.10) 
rods, 
Aluminium  alloy  bars, 
profiles 
and 
profiles 
(excluding 
rods  and  profiles 
prepared  for  use  in  structures) 
(24.42.22.50) 
Copper 
(24.44.26.30) 
Tubes and pipes, of circular cross-
section,  welded,  of  an  external 
diameter  ≤  406,4  mm,  of 
stainless steel (excluding line pipe 
of  a  kind  used  for  oil  or  gas 
pipelines,  and  casing  and  tubing 
used for oil or gas drilling); Tubes 
and  pipes,  of  circular  cross-
section,  hot-  or  cold-formed  and 
welded, of an external diameter ≤ 
406,4  mm,  of  steel  other  than 
stainless  steel  (24.20.33  (.10 
+.70)) 
Wire 
reinforcing 

for  concrete 
ribbed 

(mesh/cold 

rod  used 

pipes 

20 

European 
technical 
standards 
EN 197-1 
EN 413-1 
EN 934-2 
EN 934-3 
EN 934-4 
EN 934-5 
EN 13263 
EN 13139 
EN 12620 

EN 771-1 

EN 15088 
EN 1090-1 

EN 1057 

EN 1123-1 
EN 10312 

EN  10088-
5 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

bars) (24.10.61.30) 

9.  Concrete 

reinforcing bars 

10. Articles 
asphalt 

of 

Finished 
products 

11. Doors 

and 
windows in wood 

12. Doors 

windows 
plastic 

and 
in 

Prefabricated  buildings 
of  plastics,  concrete  or 
aluminium  

13. Ceramic tiles 

Finishing 
products 

14. Wood 

parquet 

flooring 

15. Textile flooring 

reinforcing 

Hot-rolled  concrete 
bars (24.10.62.10) 
Articles  of  asphalt  or  of  similar 
materials, e.g. petroleum bitumen 
or 
rolls 
tar  pitch, 
coal 
(23.99.12.55) 

in 

Windows,  French  windows  and 
their  frames,  of  wood;  Doors  and 
their  frames  and  thresholds,  of 
wood (16.23.11(.10 + .50) 
Plastic  doors,  windows  and  their 
frames  and  thresholds  for  doors 
(22.23.14.50) 

tiles  of 

stoneware 

Prefabricated  buildings  of  plastic, 
concrete 
aluminium 
or 
(39.99.0.00 z) 
Unglazed  ceramic  and  stoneware 
flags  and  paving,  hearth  or  wall 
tiles;  unglazed 
ceramic  and 
stoneware  mosaic  cubes  and  the 
like, whether or not on a backing; 
Glazed 
flags  and 
paving, hearth or wall tiles, with a 
face  of  >  90  cm2;  Glazed 
fine  pottery 
earthenware  or 
ceramic  flags  and  paving,  hearth 
or  wall  tiles,  with  a  face  of  >  90 
cm2;  Glazed  ceramic  flags  and 
tiles 
paving,  hearth  or  wall 
the 
excluding  double 
spaltplatten 
stoneware, 
type, 
earthenware or  fine pottery flags, 
paving  or  tiles  with  a  face  of  not 
>  90  cm2  (23.31.10(.50  +  .73  + 
.75 + .79) 
Assembled  parquet  panels  of 
floors; 
for  mosaic 
wood 
Assembled  parquet  panels  of 
wood  (excluding  those  for  mosaic 
floors); 
wood 
continuously  shaped  (including 
strips  and  friezes  for  parquet 
assembled) 
flooring, 
(16.22.10(+.60 
+ 
.30)+16.10.21.10) 
Knotted 
other 
carpets 
knotted  textile  floor  coverings; 
Woven  carpets  and  other  woven 
textile coverings (excluding tufted 
or  flocked;  Tufted  carpets  and 
other 
floor 
coverings;  Needlefelt  carpets  and 
floor 
other  needlefelt 

Coniferous 

textile 

textile 

tufted 

and 

not 

21 

EN  10025-
1 
EN 10025 

EN 13707 
EN 14695 
EN 13969 
EN 13970 
EN 14695 
EN 14967 
EN  14351-
1 
EN 16034 

EN  14351-
1 
EN 16034 
EN 13241 
Not 
available 

EN 14411 

EN 14342 

EN 14041 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

16. Plasterboards 

coverings  (excluding  tufted  or 
flocked);  Carpets  and  other 
textile  floor  coverings  (excluding 
knotted, 
tufted, 
woven, 
needlefelt)  (13.93(.11  +  .12  + 
.13. +.19) 
Boards,  sheets,  panels,  tiles  and 
similar  articles  of  plaster  or  of 
compositions  based  on  plaster, 
faced  or  reinforced  with  paper  or 
(excluding 
paperboard 
only 
articles 
with 
agglomerated 
ornamented) 
plaster, 
(23.62.10.50) 

EN 13915 
EN 13950 

17. Insulating glass  Multiple-walled  insulating  units  of 

EN 1279-5 

18. Insulating 
materials 

19. Roofing tiles 

20. Natural 
coating 

stone 

21. Clay 

flooring 

blocks 

Plants 
and 

22. Valves 

and 

and 

stone 

articles 

glass (23.12.13.30) 
Slag  wool,  rock  wool  and  similar 
mineral  wools  and  mixtures 
thereof,  in  bulk,  sheets  or  rolls; 
Mixtures 
of 
heat/sound-insulating  materials 
n.e.c. (23.99.19(.10 + .30)) 
Non-refractory  clay  roofing  tiles 
(23.32.12.50) 
Tiles, cubes and similar articles of 
natural  stone,  whether  or  not 
rectangular  (including  square), 
the  largest  surface  area  of  which 
is  capable  of  being  enclosed  in  a 
square  the  side  of  which  is  <  7 
cm;  artificially  coloured  granules, 
chippings  and  powder  of  natural 
stone;  Worked  monumental  or 
articles 
building 
thereof,  of  granite  (excluding 
tiles, cubes and similar articles, of 
which  the  largest  surface  area  is 
capable  of  being  enclosed  in  a 
square  the  side  of  which  is  <  7 
cm, 
and 
flagstones);  Worked  monumental 
or  building  stone  and  articles 
thereof  (excluding  of  granite  or 
slate,  tiles;  cubes  and  similar 
articles;  of  which  the 
largest 
surface  area  is  capable  of  being 
enclosed  in  a  square  the  side  of 
which  is  <  7  cm);  Worked  slate 
and  articles  of  slate  or  of 
agglomerated  slate  (23.70.12(.30 
+ .60 + .70 + .80) 
Non-refractory 
flooring 
blocks,  support  or  filler  tiles  and 
the  like  (excluding  of  siliceous 
fossil 
earths) 
(23.32.11.30) 
Ball 
(28.14.13.73) 

kerbstones 

valves 

meals 

setts, 

plug 

clay 

and 

or 

22 

EN 13162 
EN  14064-
1 
EN 14303 

EN 1304 

EN 1341 
EN 1342 
EN 1343 
EN 1469 
EN 12057 
EN 12058 
EN  12226-
1 

Not 
available 

EN 331 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

systems 

23. Optical 
cables 

fibre 

24. Electric systems 

sheathed 

Optical  fibre  cables  made  up  of 
individually 
fibres 
whether  or  not  assembled  with 
electric  conductors  or  fitted  with 
connectors (27.31.11.00) 
Insulated  electric  conductors  for 
voltage  >1 000  V 
(excluding 
winding  wire,  coaxial  cable  and 
other  coaxial  electric  conductors, 
ignition  and  other  wiring  sets 
used  in  vehicles,  aircraft,  ships) 
(27.32.14.00) 

Not 
available 

Not 
available 

Source: CSIL and CRESME 

Figure 4. 

Snapshot of the number of products proposed by group 

Source: CSIL and CRESME 

23 

Raw materialsProducts used for structural purposesFinished productsFinishing productsPlants and systemsCovered by European technical specificationsNot covered by European technical specifications0321072181 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Table 3.  

Distribution of selected products by family 

A 

B 

C = B/A 

Number of 
selected 
products 

Share of 
selected 
products over 
total products 

Product families 

1. Metal products 

2. Plastic materials, excluding flooring 

3. Electric material and cables 

4. Other products 

5. Raw materials from mining 

6. Flooring and other coatings 

7. Cement and concrete 

8. Heating and plumbing 
9.  Chemical  products  (paints  and 
adhesive, 
synthetic 
varnishes, 
mastics) 
10. Bricks 
11.  Flooring  and  covering,  doors  and 
windows  and  other  products  made  of 
wood 
12.  Ceramic  products 
sanitary wares) 
13. Glass products 

(tiles  and 

14. Natural stone coatings 

Total number 
of 
construction 
products 
identified 
201 

49 

43 

27 

24 

21 

19 

19 

16 

16 

14 

9 

7 

6 

5 

1 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

3 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2% 

2% 

5% 

7% 

4% 

10% 

11% 

5% 

6% 

19% 

14% 

11% 

14% 

17% 

5% 

Total 

471 

25 

Table 4.  

Distribution of selected products by group 

A 

B 

C = B/A 

Source: CSIL and CRESME 

Product families 

1. Raw materials 
2.  Products  used 
purposes 
3. Finished products 

4. Finishing products 

5. Plants and systems 

Total 

for 

structural 

Number of 
selected 
products 

Share of 
selected 
products over 
total products 

3 

7 

3 

9 

3 

25 

6% 

3% 

13% 

11% 

4% 

5% 

Source: CSIL and CRESME 

Total number 
of 
construction 
products 
identified 
52 

240 

23 

79 

77 

471 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  DATA AND SOURCES 

3.1 Trade data 

After  agreeing  with  the  European  Commission  on  the  list  of  proposed  products,  the 
team proceeded with the collection of data needed for the statistical analysis and with 
the  construction  of  a  consistent  database  of  European  cross-border  trade  and 
production  of  selected  construction  products.  All  the  data  were  gathered  from  the 
Eurostat data-warehouses.  

3.1.1  Data sources and types of data 

We  have  considered  production  and  trade  data,  relying  on  two  main  data  sources: 
PRODCOM for production and trade data, and COMEXT for bilateral trade flow data.  

PRODCOM 

Raw  data  on  production,  export  and  import  have  been  retrieved  from  the  PRODCOM 
database and have been obtained through a bulk download.  

PRODCOM  database  provides  annual  industrial  production  statistics  for  mining  and  quarrying, 
manufacturing,  and  electricity,  gas  and  water  supply.  Annual  production  is  estimated  through 
sampling survey methods carried  out within any  EU  Member States, plus Norway and  Iceland, 
and  then  harmonised  by  Eurostat.  PRODCOM  database  does  not  include  data  referring  to  less 
than 20 employee enterprises. PRODCOM statistics are based on the NACE classification and the 
classification  of  products  by  activity  (CPA).  They  are  comparable  with  external  trade  statistics 
adopting the Combined Nomenclature (CN). Products are identified by a 8-digit code. 

According  to  the  scope  of  the  study,  data  have  been  collected  for  the  period  2003-
2015.  The  dataset  features  information  on  the  annual  production  of  construction 
products within the 28 European countries and overall international trade, that is total 
import  and  export,  of  the  same  products.  Data  are  expressed  in  economic  terms 
(value in euros) and quantity, the latter depending on the specific product (e.g. square 
meters, kg, pieces). The following variables are available. 

Table 5.  
Code 
DECL 
PERIOD 
PRCCODE 
PRODQNT 
PRODVAL 
EXPQNT 
EXPVAL 
IMPQNT 
EXPQNT 
QNTUNIT 

COMEXT 

Variables included in the PRODCOM database 

Description 
Declarant code 
Reference year 
Product code 
Production in quantity (specific unit of measure) 
Production in value (euro) 
Export quantity (specific unit of measure) 
Export value (euro) 
Import quantity (specific unit of measure) 
Import value (euro) 
Unit of measure 

Data  on  international  trade  have  been  collected  from  the  COMEXT  database.  All  the 
monthly data for the period January 2003 to December 2015 have been analysed. 

The COMEXT database covers trade data of goods in the EU Member States, Candidate countries 
and EFTA countries. Intra-EU trade data are collected directly from trade operators, which send 
a monthly declaration to the relevant national statistical administration; thus data are monthly 
based  and  are  made  available  for  download  every  month.  The  updating  process  follows  a 
continuous  backward  revision:  every  time  new  monthly  data  are  released  previous  data  are 
updated. In this situation the updating dates are very important to track the database evolution 
(e.g. data released on the 19/4/2017 reporting updates since January 2016).  

25 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

COMEXT contains data on both trade flows (in Euro) and trade volumes  expressed in 
Kg and specific quantity unit. The latter is product specific and, in most of the cases, 
corresponds  to  the  ‘supply  unit’  variable  provided  by  PRODCOM.  Products  are 
classified according to NC-8 codes. The following variables are available. 

Variables included in the COMEXT database 

Table 6.  
Code 
DECLARANT 
PARTNER 
PRODUCT_NC 
FLOW 
PERIOD 
VALUE 
QUANTITY 
SUP_QUANTITY 

Description 
Declarant code 
Partner code 
Product code (8 digit combined nomenclature) 
Import or Export 
Reference month  
Trade value (euro) 
Trade weight (kilogrammes) 
Trade quantity (specific unit of measure) 

For  both  production  and  cross-border  trade  data  we  considered  only  data  for  EU28 
countries,  i.e.  the  volume  and  value  of  construction  products  produced  in  EU28 
Member States and the volume and volume of exports and imports declared by EU28 
countries  towards/from  any  international  partner  (other  EU28  countries  and  non-
EU28).3  

EFTA  countries  could  not  been  considered  in  the  analysis, due  to less reliable 
trade  and  poor  market  statistics  (e.g.  Liechtenstein  or  Iceland)  and,  especially, 
because PRODCOM database currently does not provide aggregate statistics for EU28 
plus  EFTA,  thus  making  not  possible  to  separate  internal  trade  statistics  from  global 
trade flows for these countries. 

3.1.2  Preliminary data treatment 

All  the  downloaded  data  have  been  organised  and  processed  for  the  statistical 
analysis.  This  operation  has  been  carried  out  on  a  yearly  basis  for  PRODCOM  data 
(production and trade data) and on monthly basis for COMEXT data. In the latter case, 
all  the  data  updated  according  to  the  new  Eurostat  release  have  been  taken  into 
account. Monthly data on import and export have then been aggregated on an annual 
basis for each product, declarant and partner country.  

In  this  phase,  a  first  formal  check  concerning  the  type  (nature)  and  variability 
(volatility)  of  each  variable  has  been  carried  out  to  track  and  record  major  changes 
and  possible  inconsistencies  or  missing  data.  More  specifically,  declarants,  partners 
and products codes have been carefully analysed in order to verify their stability and 
identify possible data inconsistencies. 

3.1.3  Codes check 

Eurostat provides a series of tables and documents describing the structure/nature of 
codes  employed  in  the  two  databases  (PRODCOM  and  COMEXT);  in  particular,  a 
detailed  description  and  explanation  of  every  code  is  provided  (product  headings).  It 
must  be  pointed  out  that  PRODCOM  data  and  COMEXT  data  do  not  have  the  same 
code  structure:  the  former  is  organized  according  to  the  PRODCOM  code  (prccode) 
and  the  latter  according  to  the  combined  nomenclature  (NC-8,  nccode).  Moreover, 

3 Even if the analysis focuses on intra-EU cross border trade, we downloaded data also on extra-EU trade for 
possible comparisons between the two groups.  

26 

 
 
                                           
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

both  codifications  are  continuously  updated;  variations  usually  concerns  the  levels  of 
disaggregation  of  product  codes.  In  order  to  properly  track  the  dynamic  evolution  of 
variables year by year, Eurostat provides three kinds of tables:  

1.  For both codifications, the list of codes and their description for each year; 

2.  For both codifications, the list of the code changes from one year to the other; 

3.  The prccode and nccode correspondence for every year. 

Since  continuous  changes  in  product  codes  may  jeopardize  the  data  comparability 
over time, for the purpose of this study it was necessary to build up an homogeneous 
coding  dataset,  by  carefully  joining  PRODCOM  codes  and  CN8  codes  into  the  same 
database.  For  instance,  the  product  “Prepared  additives  for  cements,  mortars  or 
concretes”  which  since  2008  is  defined  by  code  20.59.57.50,  previously  it 
corresponded to code 24.66.57.510. The full code tracking process is shown in Annex 
2 (Vol. III).  

After  ensuring  correspondence  of  PRODCOM  codes  over  the  2003-2015  years,4 these 
codes  have  been  linked  to  those  used  in  the  combined  nomenclature  of  the 
international  trade  dataset  (nccode).  To  this  purpose  we  have  used  the  official 
correspondence tables provided by Eurostat.  

3.1.4  Development of the final database 

The  steps  followed  to  carefully  match  the  PRODCOM  and  COMEXT  databases  allowed 
us to obtain a unique and coherent database for international trade time series at year 
and country level. The final database includes for every construction product covered 
by the analysis: 

  production data (in value and quantity) for every reporter country; 
  yearly  trade  data  (imports  and  exports,  in  value  and  quantity)  for  every 

partner, including non-European partners. 

PRODCOM import/export annual data have been compared with the COMEXT data and 
used to validate the matching process described above. The annual import and export 
data provided by PRODCOM and COMEXT are  not always identical to each other,  due 
to approximations and possible differences in the treatment of missing data. However, 
this discrepancy is rather marginal. 

The  final  database  is  affected  by  soma  data  gaps,  particularly in  the  production  time 
series.  For  the  purpose  of  the  statistical  analysis  these  gaps  have  not  been  filled  in, 
and no other data treatment has been carried out.  

3.1.5  Caveats 

While the team succeeded to ensure correspondence between PRODCOM and COMEXT 
data, some caution when interpreting the data has to be applied due to the existence 
of additional methodological challenges. 

First, asymmetries between importers and exporters data exist. Although intra-
EU  import  and  export  data  are  based  on  common  and  largely  harmonised  rules,  the 
intra-EU trade balance is not zero, meaning that the value of intra-EU import does not 

4 The only product for which it was not possible to reconstruct the full time series is Steel tubes and pipes. 
This product could be analysed only from 2008 to 2015.  

27 

 
 
                                           
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

perfectly match the value of extra-EU export. A perfect match is made impossible first 
of  all  by  the  CIF/FOB  approach  used  to  report  the  value  of  export  and  import  in 
customs  declaration:  in  theory,  the  import  value  should  be  slightly  higher  than  the 
mirror  export  value  as  it  includes  extra  transport  costs.  However,  asymmetries  also 
come  from  errors  in  reporting,  time  lags, 5 or  from  differences  in  the  concepts  and 
definitions  applied  by  the  partner  countries  (for  a  list  of  the  most  common  causes  of 
methodological  asymmetries,  see  Eurostat  http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/International_trade_statistics_-_background).  In  fact,  since  the 
introduction of Intrastat for intra-EU trade on 1 January 1993, the value of dispatches 
(intra-EU  exports)  has  been  consistently  higher  than  that  of  arrivals  (intra-EU 
imports). Eurostat uses dispatches as the more reliable measure of total intra-
EU  trade  as,  at  aggregated  levels,  total  dispatches  have  better  coverage  than  total 
arrivals. We follow the same approach in our analysis. 

Second,  trade  flows  in  some  countries  may  be  distorted  by  the  so  called 
‘Quasi-transit’  phenomenon.  It  occurs  when  goods  are  imported  by  non-residents 
into  the  reporting  economy  from  outside  the  EU  and  subsequently  dispatched  to 
another Member State as well as when the goods exported from a Member State to a 
non-member  country  are  cleared  for  exports  in  another  Member  State.  This 
phenomenon  affects  especially  the  Dutch  trade  flows:  trade  flows  declared  by  the 
Netherlands  are  over-estimated  because  goods  bound  for  other  EU  countries  which 
arrive in Dutch ports, according to EU rules, are recorded as extra-EU imports by the 
Netherlands  (the  country  where  goods  are  released  for  free  circulation).  This  in  turn 
increases  the  intra-EU  flows  from  the  Netherlands  to  those  Member  States  to  which 
the  goods  are  re-exported.  The  same  phenomenon  affects  to  a  lesser  extent  trade 
data from/to Belgium.  

Third,  trade  flows  may  be  distorted  by  financial  transfers  taking  place  among 
firms  belonging  to  the  same  corporate  group  but  operating  in  different  countries.  In 
these instances, such transfers may be recorded as foreign sales, even if in fact they 
do  not  indicate  real  movement  of  goods  sold  onto  the  market.  This  is  an  intrinsic 
limitation  of  trade  flow  data,  which  can  be  relevant  especially  for  products  such  as 
windows and their frames (i.e. frame produced in a country and assembled in another 
to manufacture a window),  construction  sands  (i.e. different sands  mixed together in 
different plants), cement (i.e. cement processed to produce ready-made concrete) and 
natural  stone  coatings.  Instead,  this  issue  is  more  limited  for  products  whose 
production process is less likely to be split in different phases taking place in different 
countries. In any case, the knowledge of the market players and structure for each of 
the selected construction products is crucial to correctly interpret the trade flows and 
point  out,  where  relevant,  possible  distortions  in  trade  data  due  to  the  effect  of 
financial transfers. 

The  caveats  here  discussed  intrinsically  affect  trade  data  (not  only  in  the  EU,  but  in 
general).  It  is  impossible  to  quantify  the  impact  that  these  limitation  have  on  the 
results  of  our  analysis  and  no  systematic  correction  can  be  applied  to  define  and 
determine  the  “true”  value  or  volume  of  trade  from  one  country  to  another.  In  our 
analysis,  we  relied  on  official  data  sources  and,  knowing  the  different  factors  that 
could influence the data, we paid extreme  care in giving the correct interpretation to 
the observed trade flows.  

5  The same trade operation can be recorded under a different reference period because of transport time or 
processing delays. 

28 

 
                                           
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

3.2 Data on SMEs 

The role of SMEs has been investigated mainly in a qualitative way, since very few and 
incomplete  quantitative  data  exist  on  SMEs  operating  in  the  construction  products 
market.  The  team’s  knowledge  of  the  market  and  the  distribution  system  of  most  of 
construction  products  in  Europe,  originating  from  previous  market  research  and 
studies,  provided  the  basis  to  make  some  preliminary  comments  on  the  extent  to 
which SMEs may be involved in cross-border trade. More insights have been retrieved 
through phone interviews to stakeholders and the on-line surveys to enterprises.  

We complemented the qualitative analysis with two indicators which proxy the weight 
of SMEs in the production of construction products: 

 

 

the  share  of  SMEs  over  the  total  number  of  enterprises,  by  number  of 
employees (SMEs are enterprises with less than 250 employees); 
the share of SMEs over the total number of enterprises, by turnover (SMEs are 
enterprises with a turnover lower than 50 Million Euro). 

These  indicators  were  built  by  analysing  Orbis  firm  level  data  in  the  NACE  sectors 
corresponding to the products under analysis. 

Bureau  van  Dijk’s  Orbis  database  contains  a  vast  amount  of  information  on  around  21  million 
industrial companies across Europe, 6.5 million of which are small-sized companies (below EUR 
50,000  annual  operating  revenues).  Orbis  is  the  most  complete  and  harmonised  database  of 
company data currently available on the market, as it combines data from 30 specialist sources 
for a long time span.  

Specifically,  the  team  has  retrieved  data  on  industrial  companies  with  the  following 
characteristics: 

  Operating  in  any  of  the  NACE  sectors  corresponding  to  the  identified 

construction products; 

  Located either in a EU-28 country or in an EFTA country; 
  Data available for at least one year from 2007 to 2015; 
  0 – 10,000,000 employees; 
  Exclusion of public authorities, states, governments. 

Based  on  the  information  collected,  the  average  share  of  manufacturing  SMEs  has 
been determined for each product, NACE sector and country.  

Lacking  comprehensive  information  in  the  literature  on  the  role  of  SMEs  in  the 
construction  market,  and  with  no  other  harmonised  source  of  data  on  SMEs  at  the 
level  of  specific  products,  the  analysis  of  Orbis  data  allowed  the  team  to  make  some 
reasonable,  although  approximate,  assumptions  on  the  extent  to  which  SMEs  are 
involved in the production of construction products.  

This  analysis  revealed  a  number  of  obstacles  in  carrying  out  a  quantitative  EU-level 
analysis of industrial data, mainly deriving from issues of data availability and level of 
data disaggregation:  

  Each  company  is  classified  in  Orbis  by  its  NACE  sector  (at  4  digit),  which  is 
however  too  aggregate  to  disentangle  specific  construction  products.6 National 

6 For  instance,  the  NACE  sector  2410  ‘Manufacture  of  basic  iron  and  steel  and  of  ferro-alloys’  includes  10 
different  products  as  defined  from  the  PRODCOM  classification;  as  another  example,  sector  2733 

29 

 
 
 
                                           
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

statistical  sources  may  allow  a  more  disaggregated  analysis  for  specific 
countries  only,  without  however  no  assurance  of  data  harmonisation  at  EU 
level.  

  Orbis has some limits in terms of representativeness, as very small enterprises 
(which are not required to make their balance sheets public) are not included. 
On average, Orbis covers around 70% of all existing firms.  

  Data on export value are available only for 4% of companies in the considered 
NACE sectors. This prevented the team from determining with some degree of 
accuracy the share of exporting SMEs by NACE sector.  

‘Manufacture  of  wiring  devices’  covers  some  construction  products  (e.g.  27.33.13.70  ‘Connections  and 
contact  elements  for  wires  and  cables  for  a  voltage  <=  1  kV’),  but  also  other  products  which  are  not 
relevant for this study.  

30 

 
                                                                                                                                
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

4.  OVERVIEW OF CROSS-BORDER TRADE 

In  this  section  we  provide  a  descriptive  overview  of  the  cross-border  trend  of 
construction  products  over  the  2003-2015  period.  We  consider  official  data  of  the 
value (Euro) and volume (Kg) of cross-border trade.7  

First the analysis is carried out at the most aggregate level, showing the evolution of 
intra  EU-trade  of  all  25  construction  products  included  in  our  sample.  The  main 
exporters  and  importers  countries  and  the  direction  of  their  trade  flows  are  also 
examined. Unless otherwise specified, the analysis covers all countries which are part 
of the EU-28, thus which joined the EU in any year from 2003 onwards. The impact of 
the  accession  has  been  considered  and  assessed  with  the  econometric  analysis 
(Section  5).  Then  we  look  at  the  five  product  groups  (raw  materials,  products  for 
structural  purpose,  finished  products,  finishing products,  plants  and  system)  in  order 
to highlight differences  or peculiarities in the level and development  of their intra-EU 
trade of each group as compared to other groups and the total construction market.8  

Finally, an analysis at product level is realised. Its findings are included in the product 
fiches which are presented in vol. II.  

4.1 Aggregate analysis 

The  value  of  cross-border  trade  of  construction  products  within  the  European  Union 
has increased over time (Fig. 5). In particular, between 2003 and 2015,  the value of 
intra-EU export of the 25 construction products increased by 48% (from 21 billion EUR 
in 2003 to 31 billion EUR in 2015) while decreased by 1% in terms of volume (from 59 
million Kg in 2003 to 58 million Kg in 2015). 

Figure 5. 

Intra-EU  trade  for  the  25  construction 

products (2003-2015) 

Large 
fluctuations 
occurred  during  the 
period  of 
interest. 
Cross-border  trade  of 
construction  products 
Member 
among 
States 
been 
has 
characterised  by  a 
steady  growth  until 
it 
2008, 
when 
reached 
its  highest 
peak  both  in  value 
(34  billion  EUR)  and 
volume  (71  million 
Kg).  

In  2009  the  value  and  volume  of  intra-EU  export  dropped  by  -25%  and  -17% 
respectively  as  compared  to  the  previous  year.  A  modest  recovery  started  in  2010. 
Member States resumed their exchanges on the internal market, increasing the value 
and  volume  of  their  import  and  export.  However,  the  economic  crisis  hit  again  the 

7 No correction for inflation was implemented. 
8  Note  that  when  referring  to  the  total  construction  market,  we  refer  in  fact  to  the  full  sample  of  25 
construction products covered by the analysis.  

31 

505560657075808515,00025,00035,00045,00055,00065,00075,000Export, Million KgExport, Million EURIntra-EU Export (EUR)Intra-EU Export (Kg)CPRCPRCPRCPR 
 
 
                                           
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

sector  in  2011.  The  volume  of  intra-EU  trade  suffered  another  decline,  while  their 
value started increasing again in the latest years.  

Figure 6. 

of 

Value 

production, 
intra-EU  export,  extra-EU  export 
the  25 
and  consumption  of 
construction 
(2003-
products 
2015) 

Figure 7. 

Value of intra-EU export, 
extra-EU  export  and 
intra-EU 
consumption 9  as  a  share  of 
production  of  25  construction 
products (2003, 2009, 2015) 

The value of production of the selected 25 construction products in all the 28 countries 
which  are  currently  members  of  EU  ranges  between  88  billion  EUR  in  2003  and  102 
billion  EUR in  2015.  recording  a  16%  growth  rate  over  this  time  span  (Fig.  6)10.  The 
highest  value  of  production  was  recorded  in  year  2007,  before  the  start  of  the 
economic crisis. The joint analysis of trade and  consumption data (Fig. 7) shows that 
the  value  of  intra-EU  trade  as  a  share  of  production  has  increased  over  the 
years, moving from 24% to 31% since 2003. The share of export towards non-EU 
countries  recorded  an  even  stronger  growth,  nearly  doubling  its  value  in  2015  as 
compared  to  2003.  By  contrast,  the  share  of  EU  consumption  used  in  the  internal 
market declined from 66% to 52%.  

When considering the variation in intra-EU export and import occurred between 2003 
and 2015 by country, both in terms of value and volume (Figures 8 to 11 below), the 
following findings can be highlighted: 

  Eastern  European  countries  have  generally  recorded  higher  growth 
rates  as  compared  to  Western  countries.  Among  them,  Lithuania 
experienced  the  strongest  growth  in  terms  of  both  export  and  import,  value 
and  volume.  The  Polish  market  and  trade  of  construction  products  also 
significantly  expanded  during  the  2003-2015  period.  The  EU  enlargement 
the Czech 
occurred 
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia 
and Slovenia) 
and in 2007 (for Romania and Bulgaria) has pushed up cross-border  trade  for 
these countries by granting them free access to the EU internal market.  

2004 

(for 

in 

  A negative change in cross-border trade from 2003 to 2015 is observed 
in  a  few  countries.  The  volume  of  French  and  UK  intra-EU  export  has 
declined. Countries which were strongly affected by the financial and economic 

9 Defined as production used for internal use. 
10 Without correcting for inflation. 

32 

020000400006000080000100000120000140000Million EURIntra-EU ExportExtra-EU ExportIntra-EU consumptionProduction24%25%31%11%13%17%66%62%52%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%200320092015Intra-EU exportExtra-EU exportIntra-EU consumption 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

crisis,  such  as  Greece,  Spain  and  Ireland,  recorded  a  significant  reduction  in 
the volume of imports.  

Figure 8. 

Value  of  intra-EU  export 
–  variation  between  2003  and 
2015 

Figure 10. 

  Value  of  intra-EU  import 
–  variation  between  2003  and 
2015 

Figure 9. 

Volume 

intra-EU 
export  –  variation  between  2003 
and 2015 

of 

Figure 11. 

  Volume 

intra-EU 
import  –  variation  between  2003 
and 2015 

of 

The  figures  below  show  the  evolution  of  trade  for  the  top  five  major  exporter  and 
importer countries in 2015. Specifically: 

  Germany  is  the  leading  trading  country  for  the  construction  products 
market  (Fig. 12, 13, 14). After a drop due to the economic crisis, the value of 
German  export  started  growing  again,  even  if  at  a  slow  pace.  In  terms  of 
volume,  German  export  grew  by  4%  over  the  entire  period,  but  considerably 
decreased starting from 2008. Between 2003 and 2007 its volume increased by 
about  60%  (9  million  Kg),  but  in  the  following  years  export  dropped  by  8.4 
million Kg (Fig.12). 

  The  value  of  Italian  exports  are  similar  to  the  German  ones,  but  their 
volume is significantly lower (Fig. 13). The volume of Dutch export over the 
entire  period  is  on  average  higher  than  the  Italian  one.  Still, in  2015  Spain is 
the  second  largest  exporter  due  to  a  reduction  in  the  volume  of  export 
recorded  by  the  Netherlands  in  the  same  year  (46%  lower  as  compared  to 
2014).  

  In 2015 Poland has become the third largest exporter thanks to the fast 
growth  in  the  value  of  exported  goods  recorded  during  the  period,  as  shown 

33 

Intra-EU export value2003-2015 changeLithuania+616%Germany+73%Belgium-9%Poland+377%Italy+32%France+7%Germany+4%Sweden+140%Romania+213%Poland+377%Italy-13%Intra-EU export volume2003-2015 changeFrance-18%Intra-EU import value2003-2015 changeGreece-60%Slovak Rep.+187%Spain-13%France+34%UK+8%Intra-EU import volume2003-2015 changeSpain-54%Denmark+125%UK-18%Poland+116%Lithuania +134%France-3% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

also  in  the  maps  above.  In  2015,  the  value  and  the  volume  of  Polish  export 
amount respectively to 42% and 27% of the export  of all New Member States 
(Central and Eastern Europe).  

  The  value  and,  especially,  volume  of  imports  to  Belgium  and  the 
Netherland  is  noteworthy. These figures are determined by the presence of 
international  port  hubs  in  these  countries,  where  large  quantities  of  goods 
coming from different  Member States are shipped to their ultimate destination 
place.  

  Besides  Germany,  the  Netherlands  and  Belgium,  France,  UK,  and  Austria  are 

other key importer countries.  

  The 2009 economic crisis seemingly did not affect the volume of traded 
goods to a significant extent (Fig. 13 and 15). By contrast, the effect of the 
crisis  on  the  value  of  export  is  more  evident  for  countries  such  as  Germany, 
Italy  and  France,  while  the  impact  was  marginal  for  Poland,  Belgium  and  the 
Netherlands (Fig. 12 and 14).  

Figure 12. 

  Value  of  intra-EU  export 

of top 5 countries (2003-2015)  

Figure 14. 

  Value  of  intra-EU  import 

of top 5 countries (2003-2015) 

Figure 13. 

  Volume 

intra-EU 
export  of  top  5  countries  (2003-
2015)  

of 

Figure 15. 

  Volume 

intra-EU 
import  of  top  5  countries  (2003-
2015) 

of 

The  share  of  intra-EU  cross  border  trade  taking  place  between  neighbouring 
countries is nearly 50%. More specifically, around 42% of total intra-EU trade takes 
place  among  countries  that  share  a  physical  border  (contiguous  countries).  When 

34 

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000GermanyItalySpainBelgiumPolandIntra-EU export valueMillion EUR200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201505,00010,00015,00020,00025,000GermanyNetherlandsSpainItalyBelgiumIntra-EU export volume Million TON200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201501,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,000Fr GermanyFranceUtd.KingdomNetherlandsBelgiumInttra-EU import valueMillion EUR200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201505,00010,00015,00020,000BelgiumNetherlandsFranceFr GermanyAustriaInttra-EU import volumeMillion TON2003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015+377% 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

adopting a looser definition and  considering also the existence of an easily accessibly 
sea-route to define neighbourhood, neighbouring trade reaches 46% of the total.11 

The  following  graphs  show  the  directions  of  trade  in  the  EU  at  the  beginning  of  our 
period of analysis (2003) and at the end (2015).  

Figure 16. 

  EU28  trading  network  of 
25 construction products: value of 
intra-EU export (2003) 

Figure 17. 

  EU28  trading  network  of 
25 construction products: value of 
intra-EU export (2015) 

Figure 18. 

  EU28  trading  network  of 
25  construction  products:  volume 
of intra-EU export (2003) 

Figure 19. 

  EU28  trading  network  of 
25  construction  products:  volume 
of intra-EU export (2015) 

Note: the size of the circle is proportional to the total value or volume of intra-EU export from 
each country; the thickness of the connecting arcs reflects the relative importance of the value 
and volume of export over the total 
Source: CSIL 

  Considering  the  value  of  intra-EU  trade,  the  network  shows  that  the  largest 
exchanges  of  construction  products  are  between  Germany  and  Italy. 
Strong  relationships  are  in  place  also  between  France  and  Spain,  France  and 

11 In addition to physical contiguity, we have considered the following neighbourhood relationships: 
Belgium, France, Netherlands, United Kingdom; 
Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden; 
Cyprus and Malta are considered neighbouring to Greece and Italy. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Italy,  Germany  and  Austria,  Germany  and  the  Netherland,  Germany  and 
Belgium (Fig.16 and 17). 

  Trade  between  the  Netherlands  and  Belgium  is  also  particularly  intense.  The 
comparison  between  2003  and  2015  reveals  a  slight  diminishment  of 
importance of trading to/from Belgium. 

 

  During  the  considered  period,  the  importance  of  Poland  as  exporting  country 
has  significantly  grown  and  its  trading  relationship  with  Germany  has 
reinforced.  
In  terms  of  volume,  trade  mostly  takes  place  between  Belgium  and  the 
Netherlands, and between the Netherlands and Germany.  
Italy used to be an important exporting country (as reflected in the size of its 
circle  in  Fig.  18)  and  the  volume  of  Italian  exports  were  quite 
homogenously  spread  towards  different  trading  partners  (hence  arcs 
connecting Italy to other countries are all thin). The total volume of its exports 
has not varied to a significant extent in 2015 as compared to 2003. 

 

Figure 20. 

  EU27  trading  network  of 
25 construction products: value of 
intra-EU  export  (2003,  excluding 
Germany) 

Figure 21. 

  EU27  trading  network  of 
25 construction products: value of 
intra-EU  export  (2015,  excluding 
Germany) 

Figure 22. 

  EU27  trading  network  of 
25  construction  products:  volume 
of 
(2003, 
intra-EU 
excluding Germany) 

export 

Figure 23. 

  EU27  trading  network  of 
25  construction  products:  volume 
of 
(2015, 
intra-EU 
excluding Germany) 

export 

Given the large weight of German export over the total intra-EU level of export, when 
German is excluded from the analysis of trading networks the important role played by 
other  major  economies  is  even  more  emphasized  (Fig  20-23).  Trade  relations  are 

Note: same than for Figures 16-19; Source: CSIL 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

particularly  strong  between  Italy  and  France.  French  exports  are  mainly  directed  to 
Italy,  Spain,  the  UK  and  Belgium.  Trade  between  Netherlands  and  Belgium  is  high, 
especially in terms of volume. The overall increase in the weight of Polish export and 
the  lack  of  any  preferential  commercial  partner  for  Poland,  expect  Germany,  is  even 
more evident. 

4.2 Analysis by product group 

In  this  section  we  provide  a  more  disaggregated  analysis  of  intra-EU  trade,  by 
distinguishing the 25 products covered by the study into five different product groups, 
namely  raw  materials,  products  used  for  structural  purposes,  finished  products, 
finishing products, plants and systems (see in Table 2, Section 2, the list of products 
included in each group). 

Figure 25 and 26 illustrate the percentage variation in the value and volume of export 
of different product groups with reference to the previous year.  The  value  of  intra-
EU  trade  of  each  product  group  is  generally  in  line  with  the  trend  of  the 
whole  construction  product  market. The value of trade has been growing fast up 
to  2007,  with  two-digit  annual  growth  rates  in  most  of  the  years.  Then  trade  fell  in 
2009.  After  a  recovery  in  2010-2011  and  another  drop  in  2012,  trade  growth  rates 
have  stabilised  and  turned  positive  again.  Specifically,  the  value  of  raw  materials, 
finished  products  and  plants  and  systems  turned  positive  in  2013  and  further 
increased  in  2014.  The  export  of  finishing  products  recovered  in  2014.  As  to  the 
products used for structural purposes, the value of their export started growing again 
at  positive  rate  only  in  2015.  Annual  growth  rates  in  the  most  recent  years  are 
however generally lower than those recorded before 2007.  

The  relative  weight  of  each  product  group  out  of  the  total  construction  products 
market  has  not  changed  to  a  significant  extent  from  2003  onwards.  Thus,  in  Fig.  24 
we  compare  the  export  share  of  each  product  group  over  the  total  sample  of 
construction products only for the latest available year, i.e. 2015.  

Out  of  the  total  sample  of  25  construction  products,  products  used  for  structural 
purposes  (such  as  aluminium  alloy  bars,  rods,  profiles  and  hollow  profiles,  copper 
and  steel  tubes  and  pipes)  and  finishing  products  (such  as  ceramic  tiles  and 
textiles) are  associated  with  the  highest  value  of  export in 2015. Raw materials 
(such  as  cement  and  sands),  although  representing  only  6%  of  the  value  of 
construction  materials  and  products  considered,  have  a  much  higher  weight,  as  they 
cover up to 57% of the total volume of export of construction materials and products. 

Some  variations  by  product  group  can  however  be  highlighted.  In  particular,  the 
export  value  of  products  used  for  structural  purposes  has  faced  the  largest 
variations  over  the  period.  In  2006  the  value  of  their  export  grew  by  37%  as 
compared  to  the  previous  year,  before  falling  by  40%  in  2009  and  growing  again  at 
32% in 2010. From 2012 on, the value of intra-EU exports of this product groups have 
continued  decreasing,  until  2015,  when  a  positive,  although  small  (4%),  annual 
growth  rate  was  recorded.  This  trend  was  mainly  driven  by  aluminium  bars  and 
profiles which account for the largest value share in the sample of structural products 
(around 60%). 

37 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Figure 24. 

  Share  of  intra-
EU  export  by  product 
group  over 
total 
value  and  volume  of 
construction  products  - 
2015 

the 

Figure 25. 

  Annual  change  in  the  value  of 
intra-EU  export  of  different  product  groups 
and  the  total  construction  market,  2003-
2015 

Figure 26. 

  Annual  change  in  the  volume  of 
intra-EU  export  of  different  product  groups 
and  the  total  construction  market,  2003-
2015 

The  impact  of  the  crisis  was  relatively  lower,  although  still  substantial,  for 
other  product  groups.  On  average,  products  included  in  our  sample  classified  as 
finished  and  finishing  products,  as  well  as  plants  and  systems  have  recovered  faster 
from the crisis than other types of products, recording positive growth rates.  

In terms of volume of export, variations  across different product groups are 
much  more  significant  (Fig.  26).  In  some  cases,  they  even  follow  different  trends 
with  respect  to  the  trend  of  export  value.  It  can  be  noticed,  for  instance,  that  the 
volume of  finished products  exchanged within the  EU  faced a huge increase in 2005, 
but  it  dropped  in  2006  and  experienced  much  lower  growth  rates  after  that.  This  is 
mainly  due  to  the  fall  of  trade  of  wood-made  doors  and  windows.  An  as  much  as 
important drop was observed in the same year for finishing products.  

Similar  to  the  growth  rates  of  export  in  terms  of  value,  growth  rates  in  volume  are 
slowly recovering after 2013. Raw materials are an exception: the volume of intra-EU 
trade  in  2014  and  2015  has  been  decreasing  with  respect  to  the  previous  year, 
determined by the negative export trend of sands. Indeed, when excluding sands from 
the  analysis,  the  group  of  raw  materials  is  characterised  by  low  but  still  positive 
growth rates. 

The following two tables show the value and volume of exported construction products 
for  each  product  group,  and  in  the  total  sample  of  25  construction  products,  at  the 

38 

Finishing products41%Finishing products26%Products for structural purp. 29%Products for structural purp. 14%Finished products 13%Finished products 2%Plants & Systems 10%Plants & Systems 1%Raw materials 6%Raw materials 57%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%ValueVolume-50%-40%-30%-20%-10%0%10%20%30%40%2003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015Total marketRaw materialsProducts used for structural purposesFinished productsFinishing productsPlants & Systems-40%-30%-20%-10%0%10%20%30%40%50%2003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015Total marketRaw materialsProducts used for structural purposesFinished productsFinishing productsPlants & Systems 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

beginning and end of the period of analysis. The relative importance of intra-EU trade 
by country in each year is illustrated through horizontal colour bars. These tables are 
meant to summarise information on cross border trade by product group and allow for 
comparison  across  groups,  countries  and  years.  Note  that  the  width  of  the  coloured 
bars  is  proportional  to  the  weight  of  export  of  each  country  over  the  total  EU-28 
export in the same year.  

We can make at least the following remarks: 

  As  also  shown  before,  Germany  is  the  largest  trading  partner  of  construction 
products,  both  in  terms  of  value  and  volume;  however,  this  holds  especially 
when  considering  raw  materials,  products  used  for  structural  purposes  and 
plants and systems.  

  Italy  is  the  major  trader  of  finishing  products  and  its  leading  position  has 
remained overall unchanged during the period of analysis. The Italian trade of 
finishing  products  is  driven  by  ceramic  tiles,  which  represents  around  80%  of 
the  export  value  of  the  whole  finished  product  group.  After  the  German  ones, 
Italian exports of products used for structural purposes and plants and systems 
are also particularly important. Trade of these product groups, in particular, is 
driven by steel tubes and pipes, and valves.  

  Besides  Italy,  Belgium  is  another  leading  trading  country  in  the  market  of 
finishing products, which is determined by the trade of textile flooring, followed 
by  Spain  where  the  export  of  finishing  products  is  driven  by  the  trade  of 
ceramic tiles and natural stones.  

  The growth of Polish  export is visible especially as far as the finished products 
is  concerned,  and  with  specific  reference  to  wood  and  plastic  doors  and 
windows.  The  value  and  volume  of  finished  products  exported  by  Poland  has 
significantly  grown  in  2015  as  compared  to  2003,  while  Germany  has  lost  its 
leading position in this market.  

  The  volume  of  construction  products  exported  by  Belgium  and  the 
Netherlands has reduced over the years for almost all product groups, as the 
Polish export took shares of their markets.  

  Denmark used to be a major trader of finished products in 2003 (both in value 
and  volume),  but  in  2015  it  has  lost  its  position.  This  is  mainly  due  to  the 
contraction in the market of wood-made doors and windows. 

39 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Table 7.  

Value  of  intra-EU  export  by  country  and  product  group  –  2003 

and 2015 (million Euro) 

Table 8.  

Volume of intra-EU export by country and product group – 2003 

and 2015 (million kilos) 

 Source: CSIL 

40 

200320152003201520032015200320152003201520032015Austria286140764413516938044339539881,371Belgium1491416106371621621,9131,58865982,8992,625Bulgaria169152120269531640289Croatia29351063265112821895213Cyprus6051000000121Czech Rep.2240192324106172199381231135431,030Denmark571131943842241921805573748679Estonia673133012545895889243Finland1411017645311488527113331408Germany3615821,1652,1702665921,1491,5242466593,1875,527France698441156766435354141151681,1961,276Greece36341524168337291196245578Hungary81714922378125851611763337589Ireland51131201923483871412136281Italy871176681,653911152,5672,4501713873,5844,721Latvia2279852462125824117203Lithuania783461352121440335254Luxembourg4499615919303601139121Malta000000000000Netherlands861404045906068858945731761,4821,918Poland20621114851961,2782641,022632676533,114Portugal04231612258197271231244525Romania07881783214646433156170531Slovakia7610932167211206580720201497Slovenia10138418071645086617221359Spain83172354722113461,5011,4111002132,1492,564Sweden53511614860392172094590444521Utd. Kingdom50471451471657931935082130760752EU-281,2011,9395,5778,7382,1643,88510,93512,2931,1662,98521,04329,841Raw materialsProducts used for structural purposesFinished productsFinishing productsPlants & SystemsTotal market200320152003201520032015200320152003201520032015Austria1655483,4943,9432424594365361,1351,337Belgium3,2563,01612,9151,964662542224612105,0483,494Bulgaria872192292,062169842612210860Croatia4544085698001710219016615691Cyprus12702320000001300Czech Rep.5245425,5293,60048526316924241,7601,670Denmark421861,9171,9689050557677387515Estonia320162432331242506112387290Finland21244047115612376617190158Germany12,29711,92011,37716,443841661,6051,897287415,15115,701France2,2982,03211,4388,552261770451916174,1883,441Greece8346391,3123,0782161805261,0331,054Hungary2644152,0731,8422943140293512646948Ireland9421,85340816814105581001,0521,961Italy9799679,7508,84721184,3893,63221376,3855,538Latvia434494,3241,6333266916100547799Lithuania257206799905103010801300424Luxembourg655893,43720216496700458682Malta000000000000Netherlands8,0633,4576,54614,9172430234613598,9815,600Poland3287722,2885,045853837271,37321421,3903,075Portugal3482812,216143332048407367795Romania3416269470422474974138176391Slovakia1,5031,8405025641231108105231,6752,035Slovenia1622031,787864251814515512511465Spain1,3192,2155,4935,34841163,3842,82515325,3095,622Sweden2541035432419121521111014242580Utd. Kingdom5042491,5331,663434923620058942672EU-2834,902,17633,516,5288,883,2708,444,268728,0261,129,15314,530,30814,908,746173,653396,38459,21758,395Total marketRaw materialsProducts used for structural purposesFinished productsFinishing productsPlants & Systems 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

5.  ANALYSIS OF FACTORS INFLUENCING CROSS-BORDER TRADE 

5.1 Drivers of cross-border trade 

The  descriptive  analysis  of  cross-border  trade  of  25  products  at  aggregate  level,  for 
each product group and individual products (Vol. II) has been complemented with the 
findings  deriving  primarily  from  the  econometric  analysis 12 ,  complemented  with 
opinions  expressed  by  consulted  stakeholders  (phone  interview 13 )  and  enterprises 
(online  survey14).  The  objective  was  to  understand  the  key  determinants  and  driving 
factors  which  can  explain  the  observed  trends.  In  this  section  we  discuss  possible 
reasons  which  explain  an  increase  in  cross-border  trade  in  some  years,  for  some 
countries and products, as well as factors which could justify drops in trade or limited 
trade  flows  within  the  European  market.  Such  factors  may  relate  to  market 
specificities, macroeconomic conditions, or the policy framework.  

The specific effect of the CPR and harmonised European specifications on cross-border 
trade is explored in Section 5.2.  

Economic and sector crisis in the EU 

The  world  economic  crisis  had  a  strong  negative  effect  on  production,  consumption 
and  trade  of  cross-border  products  across  the  board.  As  shown  by  the  descriptive 
analysis,  negative  growth  rates  in  intra-EU  trade  are  observed  for  all  considered 
products  in  2008-2009.  A  second  drop  in  trade  took  place  between  2012  and  2013. 
This  second  wave  of  the  crisis  is  associated  with  the  contraction  of  the  real  estate 
market  in  the  EU,  but  also  a  climate  of  distrust  and  uncertainty  determined  by  the 
Greek  debt  crisis  which  discouraged  consumption.15 The  crises  occurred  drove  many 
firms  out  of  business  and  data  shows  that  intra-EU  trade  of  many  products  is  still 
struggling to recover the pre-crisis level.  

The  effect  of  the  crisis  was  relatively  less  significant  in  Eastern  European 
countries, where demand for  civil engineering investment (e.g.  road  infrastructure), 
fuelled  by  EU  funds  and  aimed  to  close  the  gap  with  Western  countries,  continued 
boosting  the  construction  market  and  counteracted  the  reduction  in  national 
consumption for the residential and non-residential buildings market.  

As revealed by interviews, in some countries the crisis also acted as stimulus to 
increase export. As a reaction to the shrinking domestic market in countries severely 
affected by the crisis and decreasing level of internal consumption, firms increasingly 
looked abroad to search for new destination markets and thereby exploit their unused 
production capacity. This trend has been observed for instance in the case of Spanish 
and Greek companies producing aluminium products, and Austrian producers of doors 
and  windows.  The  contraction  of  the  (already  small)  Slovenian  market  of  cement 
determined an increase of trade flows from Slovenia to Italia and the decision of some 
companies to relocate their production in Northern Italy.  

Specific factors in extra-EU countries 

Intra-EU trade of construction products is not only affected by the economic scenario 
in the EU, but also  depends  on  circumstances  and  events  happening  in  extra-

12 Annex 6. 
13 Annex 4. 
14 Annex 5. 
15 Some interviewees believe that the BREXIT may have a similar effect in the coming years. 

41 

 
                                           
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

EU  countries. For instance, the collapse of the Russian rouble and the financial crisis 
in  Russia  started  in  2014  is  making  import  from  Finland  less  convenient.  As  a 
consequence, many Finnish companies which were used to trade with Russia are now 
shifting, at least partially, their trade towards the intra-EU market.  

The  effect  on  intra-EU  trade  of  commercial  relations  between  EU  Member  States  and 
foreign  countries  is  especially  visible  when  considering  the  exports  and  imports 
recorded  by  countries  where  international  hub  ports  are  located.  The  existence  of 
important  hubs  significantly  influences  trade  data  in  Belgium  and  the 
Netherlands,  more  than  for  any  other  EU  Member  States.  The  ‘quasi-transit’ 
phenomenon  explains  the  high  value  and  volume  of  trade  exchanges  between  these 
countries and other EU Member States.  

The EU enlargement process 

The accession to the EU market has greatly stimulated intra-EU trade from/to 
Central-Eastern  European  countries.  The  accession  of  Czech  Republic,  Estonia, 
Hungary,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Poland,  Slovakia  and  Slovenia  in  2004,  of  Romania  and 
Bulgaria in 2007 and of Croatia in 2013 has automatically increased the overall value 
and  volume  of  exchanges  in  the  EU.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  econometric  analysis 
(variable 𝑒𝑢28𝑖𝑗𝑡 )  which  reveals  a  0.403  percentage  points  increase  in  the  value  of 
intra-EU trade as an effect of the enlargement process, ceteris paribus.16 

Thanks  to  the  application  of  harmonised  rules  in  the  EU  internal  market,  the 
enlargement  process  has  positively  affected  cross-border  trade  between  new  and  old 
Member  States,  as  explained  by  interviewed  stakeholders  and  reflected  in  the 
statistical data (see Tables 9-11). While different rules and product requirements were 
in force in each country before their accession to the  EU, thus posing strong barriers 
to free trade with EU Member States, after joining the EU those barriers fell down. By 
joining  the  EU,  New  Member  States  had  to  apply  the  Construction  Products  Directive 
and  adopt  common  rules  and  harmonised  product  standards,  which  eased  trade  with 
other Member States.  

The effect of the enlargement process is particularly evident when looking at 
neighbouring  countries.  The  entry  of  Estonia,  Latvia,  and  Lithuania  is  associated 
with  a  large  increase  in  their  export  to  and  from  each  other  and  other  Scandinavian 
counties.  The  increase  of  Lithuanian  export  to  Sweden  recorded  between  2003  and 
2015  is  particularly  remarkable  (see  Table  9).  Trade  exchanges  in  Central  European 
countries have boost too, especially in terms of  value. Slovenian trade towards all its 
neighbouring  countries  has  increased;  Austrian  export  to  Slovakia  and  the  Czech 
Republic  recorded  a  positive  growth  rate  both  in  terms  of  value  and  volume  (Table 
10). Over the considered period, Greek exports towards Romania increased more than 
towards its closer neighbour Bulgaria. A huge increase of trade of Bulgaria to Romania 
can  also  be  noticed.  This  is  especially  driven  by  Bulgarian  export  of  concrete 
reinforcing bars to Romania (Table  11).  Even if consolidated trade  relationships were 
already in place between some of these neighbouring countries, the access in the EU 
has further stimulated cross-border exchanges.  

Table 9.  

2003-2015  export  growth  rates  (%)  between  Scandinavian  and 

Baltic countries 

Exporter   Denmark 

Sweden 

Finland 

Estonia 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

16 In  other  terms,  being  part  of  the  EU  leads  to  an  increase  in  the  value  of  intra-EU  export  of  0.403 
percentage points.  

42 

 
                                           
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Importer 

value  vol.  value 

value  vol.  value  vol.  value 

vol. 
64 

70 

Denmark 
3 
78 
Sweden 
222 
48 
92 
-19 
Finland 
102  196  374 
805 
Estonia 
Latvia 
451  285  1871  528 
Lithuania  221  531  3886  5130 

30 
102  229 

894  183 
17 
-18 

102 
-49 
813  163  471 
482 
-93 
98 

806 
232 
-18 

-40 
167 

vol. 

value 

vol. 
228  1240  137  1193 
629 
217 
131 
38 
200 
197 
-67 

168 
2 
198 
174 

409 
-17 
-75 

233 

-42 

Source: CSIL elaboration 

Table 10.   2003-2015  export  growth  rates  (%) 

in  Central  European 

countries 

Exporter 
Importer 

Austria 
Czech Rep. 
Slovakia 
Hungary 
Slovenia 

Austria 

Czech Rep. 

Slovakia 

Hungary 

Slovenia 

value 

vol. 

68 
108 
118 
131 

-53 
-85 
-18 
173 

value 
70 

56 
216 
122 

vol. 
14 

-88 
229 
269 

value 
100 
92 

vol.  value 
-5 
134 
4 
-64 
289 

vol. 
-77 
-74 
-60 

774 
1077 

-11 
846 

142 

-67 

value 
82 
-89 
1440 
434 

vol. 
-25 
-97 
495 
-59 

Source: CSIL elaboration 

Table 11.   2003-2015  export  growth  rates  (%)  between  Greece,  Bulgaria 

and Romania 

Exporter  
Importer 

Greece 
Romania 
Bulgaria 

Greece 

Romania 

Bulgaria 

value 

vol. 

-29 
907 

1 
316 

value 
202 

vol. 
364 

4831 

290 

value 
72 
159 

vol. 
-12 
210 

Source: CSIL elaboration 

The  entry  of  new  players  in  the  construction  market  displaced  trade  flows 
between countries. As suggested by the interviewees, this effect is explained by two 
concurrent  mechanisms:  on  one  hand,  the  decision  of  some  (large)  companies  to 
move production from the Old Member States to the new ones to take advantage from 
lower  labour  cost  and  tax  burden  caused  a  change  in  the  direction  of  trade  flows  for 
some products. An example is the decision of a major market player to delocalise the 
production  of  wood  windows  from  Denmark  to  Poland,  which  can  at  least  partially 
explain  the  drop  of  Danish  exports  of  this  product  in  the  latest  years.  On  the  other 
hand, the enlargement has significantly increased price competition and some Eastern 
European  countries  gained  market  shares  by  offering  cheaper  products  as  compared 
to their competitors in Western Europe.  

Poland is the country which benefitted the most from the accession to the EU 
market.  In  2015,  the  value  and  the  volume  of  Polish  export  represent  respectively 
42% and 27% of the export of all New Member States. The value of Polish trade with 
other  Member  States,  particularly  Germany,  significantly  increased  during  the 
considered period and reached the level of the top European exporting countries. 

The  adoption  of  the  Euro  has  also  positively  influenced  cross-border  trade. 
This  is  suggested  by  the  descriptive  analysis  of  trade  data,  when  considering  for 
instance  Slovenian  trade  of  natural  stones,  which  started  increasing  at  a  faster  pace 
after  2008,  the  same  year  where  the  single  EU  currency  was  adopted.  The 
econometric analysis confirms that the value of trade between two countries increases 
by  0.242  percentage  points  if  they  have  the  Euro  as  common  currency  (variable 
𝑒𝑢𝑟𝑜𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑖𝑗𝑡).  

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Size of the economy and connections between countries 

The  size  of  the  economy  is  linked  with  higher  cross-border  trade.  The 
econometric  analysis  shows  on  average  a  statistically  significant  positive  relation 
between the GDP of one country and the value of its exports. Most of the cross-border 
trade  takes  place  among  the  major  producing  countries,  such  as  Germany  and  Italy, 
followed by France, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UK. Country rankings in 
value and volume of trade have not significantly changed in the past decade, with the 
notable  exception  of  Poland:  with  its  accession  into  the  EU  market,  the  volume  of 
trade flows towards/from this country have increased significantly, making Poland one 
of the major market players today for a number of products (e.g. doors and windows, 
wood parquet flooring, concrete reinforcing bars).  

Cross-border  trade  is  also  particularly  high  in  those  countries  which  are 
strongly connected with each other, even if their size is relatively small. The most 
illustrative  example  is  represented  by  Belgium  and  the  Netherlands.  The  very  strong 
logistic  connections  have  been  acknowledged  by  interviewees  as  driver  of  trade 
between the two countries. More in general, neighbouring countries are more likely to 
trade with each other due to lower transport cost and easier and faster connections.17 
60% of surveyed firms perceived transport cost as a barrier to trade, and almost half 
of them  consider it as  a very important barrier.  Transport cost are more  relevant  for 
producers  of  heavy  /  voluminous  products,  such  as  cement,  concrete  and  metallic 
products, and/or low unit-price products (e.g. wood panels). 

Having  a  common  language  contributes  at  facilitating  exchanges.  40%  of 
surveyed  companies  admitted  that  language  differences  represent  a  barrier  to  trade. 
Language  skills  are  actually  important  not  only  to  conduct  trading  transactions,  but 
also  to  provide,  where  relevant,  product  installation  and  post-sale  services.  The 
econometric analysis confirms that if two countries share the same primary language, 
the  value  of  trade  between  them  is  likely  to  be  higher,  ceteris  paribus  (variable 
𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑖𝑗).  

Company strategies and market concentration 

As discussed more extensively in Section 6, medium or large size companies, including 
multinationals,  dominate  the  production  and,  even  more  considerably,  cross-border 
trade  of many  construction  products. The more  concentrated the market and  smaller 
the  country,  the  more  trade  data  recorded  at  national  level  are  driven  by  the 
production and export behaviour of few but larger companies. The already mentioned 
case  of  the  Danish  company  producing  wood  windows  which  moved  production  to 
Poland  has  clearly  contributed  to  determine  a  contraction  of  Danish  export  of  this 
product.  As  another  example,  the  high  increase  in  the  value  and  the  volume  of 
Lithuanian trade of wood parquet flooring is a consequence of the fact that one of the 
major  companies  producing  parquet  has  moved  production  lines  from  Germany  and 
Austria to Lithuania. 

Parallel policies 

During  the  considered  economic  period,  some  national  or  regional  governments 
have  introduced  policy  measures  to  stimulate  the  construction  sector, with a 
view to counterbalance the effect of the economic crisis as well as to promote energy 
efficiency.  

17 As  previously  mentioned,  nearly  50%  of  intra-EU  cross  border  trade  takes  place  between  neighbouring 
countries.  

44 

 
                                           
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

In  France  and  Italy  these  measures  consist  of  tax  deductions  and  subsidies  for 
renovations  and  energy  efficiency  improvements,  with  the  aim  of  supporting  the 
demand  of  products  specifically  used  for  this  kind  of  interventions  (insulating 
materials, flooring and in general finished and finishing products for  energy efficiency 
measures or generic renovation). In Italy for example it has been estimated that these 
measures  (incentives  for  generic  renovation  and  for  energy  efficiency  improvement) 
led  investments  per  year  to  increase  from  about  10  billion  Euro  in  2007-2008  to  a 
level  close  to  30  billion  Euro  in  the  period  2013-2016.  In  France  the  Pinel  incentive, 
based on tax cuts and other forms of incentives, and the PTZ loan (Prêt à taux zero), 
mainly  impacting  on  the  residential  existing  stock,  are  sustaining  the  renovation 
market. In the UK incentives have been introduced to support new production, such as 
the  so-called  Help  to  Buy  (HtB)  scheme,  that  has  been  boosting  the  demand  for 
construction materials like cement. Similarly in Ireland it has been launched a package 
of measures to boost housing supply, with special focus on social housing.  

The  civil  engineering  sector  has  also  been  boosted  by  anti-cyclical  measures  during 
the  crisis  in  different  advanced  European  countries.  Differently,  in  the  Eastern-
European  countries  the  civil  engineering  sector  is  still  absorbing  huge  demand  of 
products like cement, due the ongoing of infrastructural investment process fuelled by 
EU funds. 

Other EU or national policies can also have affected trade. In particular, during 
the  interviews  it  was  mentioned  that  EU  grants  given  to  firms  to  promote  their 
internationalisation  have  pushed  some  firms  to  relocate  their  business  in  other 
countries.  This  has  produced  some  distortionary  effects  on  the  market,  which  is 
especially  visible  from  national  trade  data  when  major  players  decide  to  move  out 
from small countries, or highly concentrated markets (see above). Another example is 
the  EU  Timber  Regulation  (Regulation  (EU)  No  995/2010)  which  imposes  all  EU  and 
non-EU  based  operators  to  comply  with  the  prohibition  on  placing  illegally  harvested 
timber  on  the  market  and  the  obligation  to  exercise  due  diligence  along  the  supply 
chain.  The  Regulation  entered  into  application  on  3  March  2013.  Its  impact  on  both 
extra-EU and intra-EU trade is still unknown, but in principle it may have affected the 
import strategies of some companies based in the EU.  

National or local preferences 

Despite  all  possible  efforts  to  develop  a  single  market  for  construction  products,  the 
movement  of  goods  still  depends  on  preferences  at  national  or  local  level  as 
revealed by both the survey and the interviews. Countries have different preferences 
about the types of products used for their constructions. A homogenisation process of 
tastes  is  ongoing  for  some  product  families  (see  below),  but  for  others  national  and 
local traditions still play a key role, which is likely to continue in the future. 

For instance, even if wood-made windows are losing market shares in some countries 
to the benefit of less expensive PVC windows, consumption of wood windows still holds 
in  Northern  Europe.  Indeed,  more  consolidated  tradition in  the  use  of  wood  products 
but  also  different  climate  conditions  can  explain  the  preference  for  this  specific 
product. The choice over competing flooring materials (textile and carpet, rather than 
wood  parquet,  or  ceramics)  can  also  be  explained,  at  least  partially,  by  different 
cultures and tastes.  

Among surveyed firms, 18% believe that cultural differences and national preferences 
are very strong barriers to trade. This opinion is shared by companies producing and 
trading  windows,  bricks  and  tiles.  Other  30%  of  surveyed  firms  perceive  national 
differences in traditions and tastes as quite relevant barriers, although less significant 
than other factors. 

45 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Product-specific characteristics 

A large variety of products are used in the construction sector and different types of 
products  are  driven  by  different  market  logics.  Raw  materials  and  products  for 
structural  purpose  are  mainly  employed  by  construction  companies  for  both  private 
and  public  building  and  civil  engineering  use.  The  technical  characteristics  of  those 
products  are  key  determinants  of  their  use.  By  contrast,  demand  related  to  private 
and  residential  construction  is  more  relevant  for  finished  and  finishing  products. 
Demand  for  these  products  is  more  likely  to  be  driven  by  considerations  which  go 
beyond the technical specifics, and include local tastes, as well  as transitional fashion 
trends.  

Also, the distribution channels are likely to differ by product. Some products are 
more  likely  to  be  traded  through  the  large-scale  distribution  (do-yourself  chains), 
which increases the level of trade and the number of destination countries reached. By 
exporting 
in  many  countries  products  with  very  similar  characteristics,  the 
development  of  the  large  distribution  is  favouring  a  process  of  homogenisation  of 
tastes, especially for finished products. Preferences and tastes of final consumers tend 
to  become  similar,  thus  partially  counteracting  or  reducing  the  influence  of  national 
and local traditions.  

The need for service of providing installation locally and post-sale services could limit 
cross  border  trade  for  some  products  (e.g.  windows).  This  factor  is  particularly 
relevant  for  smaller  companies,  at  least  those  not  localised  nearby  the  border  and 
lacking the ability to speak a foreign language (see more on this below). 

Some  stakeholders  have  pointed  to  the  degree  of  product  diversification  and 
innovation as  key  drivers  of  demand  and  cross-border  trade. The high degree 
of  specialisation  and  quality  of  some  CE  marked  products  (e.g.  Italian  valves  or 
ceramics…)  are  key  drivers  of  their  demand  from  other  countries,  allowing 
manufacturer companies better resist the effect of the crisis. By contrast, producers of 
cement  could  have  partly  counteracted  the  effects  of  the  crisis  on  the  new 
construction  market  if  they  decided  to  focus  on  the  development  of  innovative 
products  (not  yet  covered  by  CE  mark),  like  the  so-called  biodynamic  cement  a 
product  that,  having  photocatalytic  characteristics  and  high  fluidity,  could  have 
entered new market niches.  

Product innovation can determine changes in the direction of trade flows. For instance, 
the  development  of  improved  materials  or  products  can  displace  consumption  of 
substitute  products  and  therefore  shift  trade  to  the  country  where  the  new  products 
are  produced.  An  example  is  provided  by  demand  for  plasterboards  which  is  today 
increasing  its  market  share  and  substituting  the  use  of  cement  for  new  construction 
and renovation activities thanks to its improved acoustic insulating properties.  

The  trade  dynamics  of  some  products  are  strongly  influenced  by  price 
fluctuations and price differences across countries. As previously mentioned, the 
process  of  EU  enlargement  has  increased  price  competition  among  companies  and 
partially  shifted  trade  towards  cheaper  products  manufactured  in  the  New  Member 
States. This phenomenon has been observed for example with cement.  

In very concentrated markets, such as for cement in countries like Belgium, trade can 
undergo  important  fluctuations  depending  on  the  price  strategies  of  its  market 
players.  

Furthermore, the value of trade of some specific products may have been affected by 
variations  in  the  international  oil  price.  This  is  the  case  especially  of  additives  and 
asphalt products (see related product fiches in Vol. 2).  

46 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

5.2 Impact of the harmonised European standards and the CPR 

Opinions  of  stakeholders  consulted,  perceptions  of  enterprises  surveyed,  and  the 
results of the econometric analysis point to different conclusions regarding the impact 
of  harmonised  European  specifications  and  the  CPR  on  cross-border  trade  of 
construction  products.  A  complex  picture  emerges,  which  makes  not  straightforward 
to  answer  questions  such  as:  Has  the  CPR  achieved  its  objectives?  Has  cross  border 
trade increased thanks to the hENs and the CPR? 

In  this  section  we  provide  an  unified  assessment,  which  combines  and  critically 
interprets the outcomes of the different information sources that have been used.  

It  should  be  stressed  that  the  sample  of  products  considered  is  a  particularly 
critical  element  of  the  analysis.  The  list  of  25  products  selected  for  the  analysis, 
even if highly relevant for the construction market and representing a wide variety of 
products, cannot be regarded as statistically representative of the entire construction 
products market. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that the overall impact of the CPR 
would be different if another sample was selected.  

Increase of cross-border trade of construction products 

The  CPR  has  not  determined  significant  changes  in  the  overall  value  and  volume  of 
cross-border trade for the considered construction products. An increase in the value 
or  volume  of  intra-EU  trade  would  result  from  either  an  export/import  increase  for 
companies  that  already  trade  construction  products  across  Europe,  or  an  increase  in 
the absolute number of exporter/importer firms (ceteris paribus).  

The descriptive analysis of trade data (Section 4) shows that year 2013 represents a 
turning  point  in  the  trend  of  cross-border  trade  in  both  the  overall  sample  and  for 
most  product  groups.  After  a  couple  of  years  of  negative  growth  rates,  since  2013 
trade  started  recovering  in  value  terms.  However,  this  change  cannot  be  directly 
attributed to the introduction of the CPR due to a number of possible other influencing 
factors,  related  to  the  improvement  of  general  macroeconomic  conditions  and  the 
restart of the construction sector. The econometric analysis allowed us to point out the 
impact that could be directly attributed to the CPR, “net” of the effect of other context 
or  product-related  variable  that  could  have  influenced  trade.  The  econometric 
analysis  shows  that,  on  average,  the  correlation  between  the  CPR  and  the 
value of intra-EU trade of 25 construction products between 2003 and 2015, 
is not statistically significant, after controlling for the effect of other possible 
influencers,  e.g.  GDP  and  fixed  investment  in  construction  of  the  origin  and 
destination  countries,  membership  in  the  EU,  distance  between  the  countries,  and 
others (Table 12).  

This result has been confirmed by all interviewed stakeholders, who share the opinion 
that  the  CPR  has  not  changed  the  behaviour  of  firms.  Those  which  were  used  to 
export/import  even  before  the  CPR,  continued  to  do  so.  And  it  is  unlikely  that  those 
which  were  not  trading  started  as  a  direct  effect  of  the  CPR.  National  business 
associations  from  different  countries  and  representing  firms  operating  with  different 
products  agree  that  the  CPR  has  not  stimulated  trade.  The  certification  bodies 
interviewed declared  having noticed no particular increase in the number of requests 
for certification since when the CPR entered into force.  

Interviews suggest three possible, not alternative, reasons why the CPR did not have a 
visible effect on cross-border trade: 

  Market  related  factors, such as those discussed in the previous section, are 
considered  key  drivers  of  trade  and  companies  behaviour,  more  than 
legislation.  Even  a  technical  regulation  such  as  the  CPR,  directly  applying  to 

47 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

firms and affecting rules and procedures they should comply with, is unlikely to 
noticeably influence their way of doing business.  

  With  the  introduction  of  the  CPR,  the  main  foundations  of  the 
legislative  framework  already  set  by  the  CPD  remained  unchanged. 
Interviewees  acknowledge  that  the  introduction  of  the  Construction  Products 
Directive (Council Directive 89/106/EEC, CPD) actually had an important effect. 
By fostering the standardisation of the manufacturing of construction products 
and  harmonising  national  laws  with  respect  to  essential  requirements  of 
products  in  terms  of  health  and  safety,  and  introducing  the  CE  marking  and 
certifying  bodies,  the  CPD  contributed  to  the  creation  of  a  “testing  culture” 
among  firms  and  harmonised  rules  across  the  EU,  which,  according  to  the 
interviewees,  had  a  strong  impact  on  the  development  of  the  EU  internal 
market.  Manufacturer  companies  were  already  accustomed  to  this  framework 
when the CPR was introduced, which could explain its limited additional impact 
on trade.  

Even  if  the  CPR  introduced  some  new  requirements  as  compared  to  the  CPD  (for 
instance by making the CE marking compulsory), firms were generally ready when 
the  new  regulation  came  into  force.  Because they had some time to understand 
the  new  requirements  and  equip  themselves  to  comply  with  them,  the  CPR  did  not 
cause any substantial break in the trade trends after July 2013 and compliance costs 
for companies were spread over time. 

In  assessing  the  impact  of  the  CPR,  country  differences  matter.  Even  if  the 
econometric analysis indicates a nil average effect of the CPR on the value of intra-EU 
export,  different  results  are  found  when  investigating  the  impact  of  the  CPR  for 
specific  countries.  More  in  detail,  the  econometric  analysis  reveals  that,  after 
controlling for all influencing factors, the  introduction  of  the  CPR  had  a  negative 
and statistically significant effect on the value of trade in Germany (Table 13). 
The impact of the CPR on each of the other countries is diversified: 

  as  compared  to  Germany,  the  effect  of  the  CPR  seems  even  more 
negative for some others Old Member States and major traders, i.e. UK, 
France, Denmark and Sweden; 
for  Portugal  and  a  set  of  New  Member  States (Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, 
Lithuania and Slovenia), the effect of the CPR is more positive;  
for the remaining countries, the effect of the CPR is not statistically significant. 

 

 

48 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Table 12.  

Impact  of  the  CPR  and  standards  on  the  intra-EU  export  of  25 

construction products 

DEPENDENT VARIABLE: Value of export from country i to country j 

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES 

MODEL’S SPECIFICATIONS 

Name 

Definition 

n°1 

n°2 

n°3 

n°4 

n°5 

CPR 
#interventi
ons 

Exportt-1 

distance 

GDPi 

GDPj 

Fixed 
investmenti 

Fixed 
investmentj 

in 

the 

(and 

Introduction of the CPR 
Cumulative  number  of 
their 
standards 
revisions)  published  for  a 
specific product 
Export 
value 
previous year 
Distance  between  origin 
and destination countries 
Gross  Domestic  Product of 
the origin country 
Gross  Domestic  Product of 
the destination country 
Fixed  investments  in  the 
construction  sector  in  the 
origin country 
Fixed  investments  in  the 
construction  sector  in  the 
destination country 

Contiguity  Origin 

and  destination 

EU28 

Eurozone 

Language 

Exchange 
rate 

countries are contiguous 
Origin 
and  destination 
countries  have  the  same 
official language 
Origin 
and  destination 
countries  are  both  in  the 
Eurozone 
and  destination 
Origin 
countries  are  both  in  the 
EU 
Ratio between the national 
the  origin 
currency  of 
the 
country 
destination country 
variable 
Constant 
residual 
capturing 
variability  which 
is  not 
explained  by  any  other 
independent variable  
Product FE  Product fixed effects,  
capturing 
time-
invariant  variability  that  is 
intrinsic to a product 

Constant 

and 

the 

the 

Exporter FE  Exporter 

country 

fixed 
effects  capture  the  time 
invariant  variability  that  is 
intrinsic in a country 
fixed 
Importer 
effects  capture  the  time 
invariant  variability  that  is 
intrinsic in a country 

country 

Importer 
FE 

Observatio
ns 
R-squared 

-0.0316 

-0.0542 

-0.0408 

-0.0385 

-0.0447 

0.00577 

8,660*** 

8,473*** 

8,142*** 

6,551*** 

6,550*** 

-1.486*** 

-1.011*** 

-1.378*** 

-1.370*** 

-
1.370*** 

0.714*** 

0.293 

0.964*** 

0.873*** 

0.860*** 

0.742*** 

0.679*** 

-0.322 

-0.260 

-0.259 

3.244e+06 

-26,695 

75,339 

89,046 

-151,479 

4.548e+0
6*** 

4.536e+06*
** 

4.505e+0
6*** 

0.652*** 

0.416*** 

0.455*** 

0.455*** 

0.232** 

0.759*** 

0.658*** 

0.658*** 

0.0776 

0.243** 

0.243** 

0.242** 

0.580*** 

0.410** 

0.408** 

0.403** 

-1.436 

1.091* 

1.012* 

1.014* 

-12.93*** 

-14.02*** 

-13.10*** 

-12.00*** 

-
11.97*** 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

195,000 

178,800 

178,800 

178,800 

178,800 

0.382 

0.364 

0.461 

0.600 

0.600 

Note: The asterisks denote the degree of statistical significance of coefficients. *** p<0.01, ** 
p<0.05, * p<0.1  
Robust standard errors are not reported here for the sake of simplicity, but Annex 6 in Volume 
III includes all the relevant details.  
Source: CSIL elaboration.  

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Table 13.  

The  impact  of  the  CPR  on  intra-EU  export  of  25  construction 

products by country 

DEPENDENT VARIABLE: Value of export from country i to country j 

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES 

MODEL’S SPECIFICATIONS 

Name 

Definition 

CPR 
Exportt-1 
distance 

GDPi 

GDPj 

Fixed investmenti 

Fixed investmentj 

Contiguity 

Language 

Eurozone 

EU28 

Exchange rate 

the  origin 

countries  are 

Introduction of the CPR in the EU 
Export value in the previous year 
Distance  between  origin  and  destination 
countries 
Gross  Domestic  Product  of  the  destination 
country 
Fixed investments in the construction sector 
in the destination country 
Gross  Domestic  Product  of 
country 
Fixed investments in the construction sector 
in the origin country 
Origin  and  destination 
contiguous 
Origin  and  destination  countries  are  both  in 
the Eurozone 
Ratio  between  the  national  currency  of  the 
origin country and the destination country 
Origin  and  destination  countries  have  the 
same official language 
Origin  and  destination  countries  are  both  in 
the EU 
Introduction of the CPR in Austria18 
Introduction of the CPR in Belgium18 
Introduction of the CPR in Bulgaria18 
Introduction of the CPR in Czech Rep. 18 
Introduction of the CPR in Germany 
Introduction of the CPR in Denmark18 
Introduction of the CPR in Spain18 
Introduction of the CPR in Estonia18 
Introduction of the CPR in Finland18 
Introduction of the CPR in France18 

CPR*Austria 
CPR*Belgium 
CPR*Bulgaria 
CPR*Czech Republic 
CPR*Germany 
CPR*Denmark 
CPR*Spain 
CPR*Estonia 
CPR*Finland 
CPR*France 
CPR*United Kingdom  Introduction of the CPR in UK18 
CPR*Greece 
CPR*Hungary 
CPR*Ireland 
CPR*Italy 
CPR*Lithuania 
CPR*Luxembourg 
CPR*Latvia 
CPR*Netherlands 
CPR*Poland 
CPR*Portugal 
CPR*Romania 
CPR*Slovakia 
CPR*Slovenia 
CPR*Sweden 
Constant 

Introduction of the CPR in Greece18 
Introduction of the CPR in Hungary18 
Introduction of the CPR in Ireland18 
Introduction of the CPR in Italy18 
Introduction of the CPR in Lithuania18 
Introduction of the CPR in Luxembourg18 
Introduction of the CPR in Latvia18 
Introduction of the CPR in the Netherlands18 
Introduction of the CPR in Poland18 
Introduction of the CPR in Portugal18 
Introduction of the CPR in Romania18 
Introduction of the CPR in Slovakia18 
Introduction of the CPR in Slovenia18 
Introduction of the CPR in Sweden18 
Constant  variable  capturing  the  residual 
variability  which  is  not  explained  by  any 
other independent variable  
Product fixed effects,  
capturing  the  time-invariant  variability  that 
is intrinsic to a product 
Exporter  country  fixed  effects  capture  the 

Product FE 

Exporter FE 

n°1 
-0.00509 
6,559*** 
-1.371*** 

n°2 

6,544*** 
-1.374*** 

0.947*** 

0.849*** 

-0.262 

-0.306 

6.50e-07 

1.88e-08 

4.37e-06*** 

4.68e-06*** 

0.455*** 

0.453*** 

0.658*** 

0.658*** 

0.240** 

0.240** 

0.398** 

0.361** 

1.013* 

1.073* 

-0.0637 
-0.0260 
0.380*** 
0.0795 

-0.240*** 
-0.0668 
0.269*** 
-0.109 
-0.178*** 
-0.241** 
0.184 
0.0586 
-0.0310 
-0.0129 
0.491*** 
-0.724 
-0.353 
-0.0981 
0.267*** 
0.140* 
0.115 
0.0380 
0.226** 
-0.189** 
-11.80*** 

-0.183*** 

-12.24*** 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

18 With Germany as reference value.  

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

time invariant variability that is intrinsic in a 
country 
Importer  country  fixed  effects  capture  the 
time invariant variability that is intrinsic in a 
country 

Importer FE 

Observations 
R-squared 

Yes 

Yes 

178,800 
0.600 

178,800 
0.600 

Note: The asterisks denote the degree of statistical significance of coefficients. *** p<0.01, ** 
p<0.05, * p<0.1  
Robust standard errors are not reported here for the sake of simplicity, but Annex 6 in Volume 
III includes all the relevant details.  
Source: CSIL elaboration 

When conducting the econometric analysis at product level, the CPR is associated with 
an increase in intra-EU trade for the additives, insulating glass and optical fibre cables. 
A  negative  effect  is  found  for  five  products  used  for  structural  purposes  (copper  and 
steel tubes and pipes, wire rod, concrete reinforcing bars and articles of asphalt), and 
for  two  finishing  products  (roofing  tiles  and  natural  stone  coating).  The  effect  is  not 
statistically different than 0 for the other analysed products (Table 14). 

Similar  results  are  obtained  when  assessing  the  impact  of  harmonised 
European specifications on trade. Intra-EU trade of the 25 construction products is 
not  correlated  with  the  number  of  new  or  updated  standards  introduced  every  year 
from 2003 onwards (Table 12 above, variable #interventions). The analysis at product 
level, which looks specifically at the impact of individual standards on the exports of a 
particular product, shows a diversified scenario, with some standards being positively 
correlated with export (e.g. EN1326-1 for trade  of additives,  or  EN14251-1 for doors 
and windows in plastic), and others negatively (e.g. EN13915 for plasterboards).  

Interviewees  believe  that  the  introduction  of  new  harmonised  product  standards  can 
be a strong stimulus to the trade of construction products. As declared by a national 
business  association  of  companies  producing  insulating  materials,  “it  is  very  unlikely 
that  the  CPR  had  any  effect  on  trade,  because  the  most  crucial  step  towards  the 
market  harmonisation  had  been  in  fact  already  taken  with  the  introduction  of  a 
harmonised  standard  in  2003 19 .“  Just  as  stakeholders  recognise  that  the  CPD 
represented  an  important  stimulus  to  the  development  of  the  internal  market,  the 
ongoing  standardisation  process  is  seen  as  equally  important  to  continue  the 
harmonisation  of  national  rules.  These  expectations  are  not  confirmed  by  the 
statistical  analysis  at  aggregate  level,  and  only  selectively  at  product  level.  The 
possible  reasons  for  this  should  be  searched  in  the  characteristics  of  specific 
standards.  Actually,  enforcing  the  harmonised  European  standards  could  be  more  or 
less  cumbersome  and  more  or  less  beneficial  for  enterprises  depending  on  many 
factors: 

  Standards  which  have  a  more  technical  nature  may  be  heavier  to 
implement  for  enterprises,  as  they  may  require  significant  changes  in  the 
production process. The econometric analysis found a negative impact on trade 
for  all  those  standards  whose  titles  refer  to  “product  marking  and  labelling” 
requirements,  as  for  instance  the  EN  934-2.  Specifically,  these  are  standards 
whose  Informative  Annex  ZA  lists  or  revises  process  requirements  for  CE 
marking  and  labelling  (ZA.3),  i.e.  tasks  for  both  the  manufacturer  and  the 
certification  bodies  for  the  assessment  and  verification  of  performance,  are 

19  EN  13500:  2003.  Thermal  insulation  products  for  buildings.  External  thermal  insulation  composite 
systems (ETICS) based on mineral wool. Specification. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

associated  with  a  negative  impact  on  trade.  It  may  be  that  this  kind  of 
standards  are  more  cumbersome  to  apply  and  may  raise  additional  cost  for 
firms,  as  compared  to  hENs 
focusing  on  the  definition  of  essential 
characteristics  of  products  (ZA.1)  or  their  intended  use  and  applicable 
procedures for conformity assessment (ZA.2).  

  Standards  applying  to  widely  used  products  are  likely  to  have  a 
stronger  and  more  visible  effect  on  cross  border  trade  as  compared  to 
standards applying in very specific cases. For instance, while it is acknowledged 
that the  standard  EN 13500:2003, applying to all thermal insulation products, 
was  the  real  cornerstone  for  the  harmonisation  of  the  insulating  products 
market, 20  the  standard  EN  14064-1:2010,  which  provided  the  harmonised 
definition  of  a  specific  product  type  (loose-fill  mineral  wool  products  before 
their installation), was considered by the interviewee much less critical. This is 
confirmed  by  other  experts  interviewed  and  is  in  line  with  the  econometric 
analysis  which  does  not  find  a  statistically  significant  correlation  between  this 
standard and the level of export of insulating materials. Likewise, the standards 
that define the specifications for masonry units (EN 771-1; EN 771-2; EN 771-
3;  EN  771-4;  EN  771-5;  EN  771-6)  apply  to  very  specific  types  of  products 
(clay,  calcium  silicate,  aggregate  concrete  etc.).  The  econometric  analysis 
revealed  that  the  introduction  of  EN  771-1  that  applies  to  clay  masonry  units 
does not have any significant effect on trade. 

  Too  generally  defined  standards  may  have  a  detrimental  effect  on 
trade.  Some  interviewees  have  the  perception  that,  if  standards  leave  large 
room  for  manoeuvre  and  interpretation  to  enterprises,  or  the  possibility  for 
national  authorities  to  set  country-specific  threshold  levels  in  relation  to  the 
essential  characteristics  of  a  construction  product, 21 the  harmonisation  effect 
would  be  minimal  and  confusion  among  enterprises  may  increase,  with 
negative effect  on trade.  Similarly, the  way  how  standards  are  written  is 
another influencing factor. According to interviewed stakeholders, standards 
which  are  rather  unclear  or  ambiguous,  for  instance  because  they  do  not 
explicitly cite the Declaration of Performance, generate confusion among firms, 
which  are  unsure  about  how  to  ensure  valid  application  of  EU  rules.  These 
issues cannot be confirmed by the statistical and econometric results and would 
deserve to be further investigated with additional analysis. 

20 Since our analysis starts in 2003, it is not possible for us to detect the impact of the 2003 standard  EN 
13500. 
21 An example is a standard applying to some steel products, which impose manufacturers to use the steel 
approved in country of destination. 

52 

 
                                           
 
Table 14.   Summary of CPR and hENs impact on intra-EU export at product level 

Group 

Product 

Effect of 
the CPR 

Effect of 
the 
standard 

Standard 
number 

Year of 
publicatio
n of the 
standard 

Raw 
materials 

Cement 

Nil 

Description of the standard 

Note 

Additives 

Positive 

Positive 

Nil 

EN 13263-
1 
EN 934-5 

2005 

2008 

Negative 

EN 934-2 

2009 

EN 934-3 

Sands 

Nil 

Silica fume for concrete - Part 1: Definitions, 
requirements and conformity criteria 
Admixtures for concrete, mortar and grout - 
Part 5: Admixtures for sprayed concrete - 
Definitions, requirements, conformity, 
marking and labelling 
Admixtures for concrete, mortar and grout - 
Part 2: Concrete admixtures - Definitions, 
requirements, conformity, marking and 
labelling 
Admixtures for concrete, mortar and grout - 
Part 3: Admixtures for masonry mortar - 
Definitions, requirements, conformity and 
marking and labelling 

Products 
for 
used 
structural 
purpose 

Bricks 

Aluminiu
m 
and 

bars 

Nil 

Nil 

Nil 

EN 771-1 

2011 

Positive 

EN 15088 

2006 

Specification for masonry units - Part 1: Clay 
masonry units 
Aluminium and aluminium alloys - Structural 
products for construction works - Technical 
conditions for inspection and delivery 

53 

The impact of EN 
197-1 and EN 413-
1 is captured by the 
constant of the 
model because 
these standards 
were introduced 
before 2004. 

The impact of EN 
13139 and EN 
12620 is captured 
by the constant 
because these 
standards were 
introduced before 
2004. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

profiles 

Nil 

EN 1090-1 

2010 

Negative 

Positive 

EN 1057 

2006 

Negative 

Copper 
tubes  and 
pipes 
Steel 
tubes  and 
pipes 

Execution of steel structures and aluminium 
structures - Part 1: Assessment and 
verification of constancy of performance for 
structural components 
Copper and copper alloys - Seamless, round 
copper tubes for water and gas in sanitary 
and heating applications 

Wire rod 

Negative 

Nil 

Nil 

EN 10025-
1 
EN 10088-
5 

2005 

2009 

Concrete 
reinforcin
g bars 
Articles  of 
asphalt 

Negative 

Nil 

EN 10025-
1 

2005 

Negative 

Nil 

EN 13969 

2005 

EN 13970 

Positive 

EN 14967 

2006 

Negative 

Positive 

EN 
13707:200
4+A2:2009 
EN 14695 

2009 

2010 

54 

Hot rolled products of structural steels - Part 
1: General 
Stainless steels - Part 5: Technical delivery 
conditions for bars, rods, wire, sections and 
bright products of corrosion resisting steels 
for construction purposes 
Hot rolled products of structural steels - Part 
1: General 

Flexible sheets for waterproofing - Bitumen 
damp proof sheets including bitumen 
basement tanking sheets - Definitions and 
characteristics 
Flexible sheets for waterproofing - Bitumen 
water vapour control layers - Definitions and 
characteristics 
Flexible sheets for waterproofing - Bitumen 
damp proof courses - Definitions and 
characteristics 
Flexible sheets for waterproofing - Reinforced 
bitumen sheets for roof waterproofing - 
Definitions and characteristics 
Flexible sheets for waterproofing - Reinforced 
bitumen sheets for waterproofing of concrete 

The impact of EN 
1123-1 and EN 
10312 is captured 
by the constant 
because these 
standards were 
introduced before 
2009 which is the 
first year of analysis 
for this product. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Finished 
products 

Doors  and 
windows 
in wood 

Nil 

Nil 

EN 14351-
1 

2006 

Nil 

EN 16034 

2015 

Doors  and 
windows 
in plastic 

Nil 

Positive 

EN 14351-
1 

2006 

Nil 

EN 16034 

2015 

Finishing 
products 

Prefabrica
te 
buildings 
of 
concrete 
Ceramic 
tiles 

Wood 
parquet 
flooring 
Textile 
flooring 
Plasterbo
ards 

Nil 

N/A 

Nil 

Negative 

EN 14411 

2007 

Nil 

Negative 

EN 
14342:200
5+A1:2008 
EN 14041 

2008 

2005 

Nil 

Nil 

Nil 

Negative 

EN 13915 

2007 

55 

bridge decks and other trafficked areas of 
concrete - Definitions and characteristics 
Windows and doors - Product standard, 
performance characteristics - Part 1: 
Windows and external pedestrian doorsets 
without resistance to fire and/or smoke 
leakage characteristics 
Pedestrian doorsets, industrial, commercial, 
garage doors and openable windows - 
Product standard, performance 
characteristics - Fire resisting and/or smoke 
control characteristics 
Windows and doors - Product standard, 
performance characteristics - Part 1: 
Windows and external pedestrian doorsets 
without resistance to fire and/or smoke 
leakage characteristics 
Pedestrian doorsets, industrial, commercial, 
garage doors and openable windows - 
Product standard, performance 
characteristics - Fire resisting and/or smoke 
control characteristics 

Ceramic tiles - Definition, classification, 
characteristics, evaluation of conformity and 
marking 
Wood flooring and parquet - Characteristics, 
evaluation of conformity and marking 

Resilient, textile and laminate floor coverings 
- Essential characteristics 
Prefabricated gypsum plasterboard panels 
with a cellular paperboard core - Definitions, 
requirements and test methods 

The impact of EN 
13241-1 is captured 
by the constant 
because it was 
introduced in 2004. 

The coefficient of 
the CPR captures 
also the impact of 
the introduction of 
EN 13950 because 
both were 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Insulating 
glass 
Insulating 
materials 

Positive  Negative 

EN 13162 

2009 

Nil 

Nil 

EN 14064-
1 

2010 

Glass in building - Insulating glass units - 
Part 5: Evaluation of conformity 
Thermal insulation products for buildings - 
In-situ formed loose-fill mineral wool (MW) 
products - Part 1: Specification for the loose-
fill products before installation 

introduced in 2013. 

The coefficient of 
the CPR captures 
also the impact of 
the introduction of 
EN 13162 and EN 
14303 because they 
were all introduced 
in 2013. 

Roofing 
tiles 
Natural 
stone 
coating 

Clay 
flooring 
blocks 
Valves 

Optical 
fibre 
cables 
Electric 
systems 

Plants  & 
systems 

Negative 

Positive 

EN 1304 

2005 

Negative 

Nil 

EN 1469 

2005 

EN 12057 

EN 12058 

EN 12326-
1 

2015 

Negative 

Nil 

N/A 

Clay roofing tiles and fittings - Product 
definitions and specifications 
Natural stone products - Slabs for cladding - 
Requirements 
Natural stone products - Modular tiles – 
Requirements 
Natural stone products - Slabs for floors and 
stairs - Requirements 
Slate and stone products for discontinuous 
roofing and external cladding - Part 1: 
Specifications for slate and carbonate slate 

Nil 

Nil 

EN 331 

2011 

Manually operated ball valves and closed 
bottom taper plug valves for gas installations 
for buildings 

Positive 

N/A 

Nil 

N/A 

Note: See Annex 6 in Volume III for more details 
Source: CSIL elaboration 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other benefits for firms 

Even  if  the  impact  of  the  CPR  on  the  level  of  trade  is  generally  not  significant  with 
exceptions  for  some  countries  or  products,  all  stakeholders  consulted  agree  that  the 
CPR brought other sorts of benefits to firms.  

Figure 27. 

  Effects  of  the  CPR  and  the  hENs 

according to consulted firms 

Source: CSIL elaboration of survey results (115 responses) 

Source: CSIL elaboration of survey results (123 responses) 

in 

has 

rules 

The main benefit is in terms 
of increased clarity of rules. 
The  CPR  collects  in  one 
single  document  a  number 
previously 
of 
dispersed 
various 
sources,  from  the  CPD  to 
other communications22 and 
guidance  documents  issued 
over  the  years.  The  CPR 
provides  a  unified  and 
legislative 
clearer 
framework  for  the  sector.  
Half of firms participating in 
the  on-line  survey  believe 
that  the  introduction  of  the 
CPR 
significantly 
increased 
legal  certainty 
and  transparency  of  rules, 
as  well  as  clarified  the 
concept  and  use  of  the  CE 
mark.  Clarity, 
turns, 
facilitates  compliance  with 
rules,  as  acknowledge  by 
34%  of  surveyed 
firms. 
These  positive  effects  lead 
47%  of  firms  perceive  that 
the  CPR  has  facilitated  the 
free  movement  of  goods  in 
the  EU.  Even  if  this  is  not 
reflected  in  the  statistical 
however 
it 
analysis, 
testifies 
general 
positive  judgement  of  firms 
on 
regulatory  
framework  defined  by  the 
CPR.  
of 
The 
harmonised 
European 
specifications  is  considered 
to  have  positive  effects  for 
even a large share of firms. 

introduction 

the 

to 

in 

a 

22  E.g.  the  Commission  communication  in  the  framework  of  the  implementation  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
305/2011  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  9  March  2011  laying  down  harmonised 
conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC - OJ C 076 
of 10/03/2017  

57 

31%18%24%21%23%22%15%17%34%47%49%50%… facilitated compliance with rules… enhanced the free movement of products within the EU… clarified the concept and use of CE marking… increased legal certainty and transparency regarding the rulesThe introduction of the CPR has …NoI do not knowYes42%23%26%23%24%18%10%8%27%53%58%63%… enhanced potential for product innovation… increased cumulative compliance cost with certification (CE marking and national certification)… enhanced the free movement of products withinEurope… improved legal certainty and transparency regarding the rulesThe introduction of the hENs has ...NoI do not knowYes 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Unified  rules  applicable  across  the  EU,  rather  than  country-specific  product 
requirements,  are  considered  to  improve  legal certainty  and  enhance  free  movement 
for  respectively  63%  and  58%  of  consulted  firms.  However,  the  duplication  of 
European and national requirements is still perceived as an obstacle by 53% of firms. 
This issue is more extensively discussed below. 

A  smaller  share  of  firms  surveyed  (27%)  believes  that  European  specifications  of 
essential characteristics of products could also stimulate product innovation. This is in 
line  with  opinions  of  different  business  associations,  which  highlight  that  the  CPR 
encourage  firms  to  focus  on  product  quality  as  main  competitive  advantage.  It 
has been noticed that the high quality standards set by the CPR helped European firms 
better defend  from international competitors.  At the same time, export towards non-
EU  countries  may  have  been  negatively  influenced  by  the  CPR.  By  imposing  higher 
quality  and  security  standards  than  those  required  by  foreign  countries,  European 
products may turn out to be less competitive. 

Finally,  with  more  than  400  harmonised  European  standards  cited  in  the  European 
Official  Journal,  interviewees  such  as  Construction  Products  Europe,  but  also  the 
Finnish  Association  of  construction  products  industries,  acknowledge  that  the 
Commission  is  achieving  to  create  a  common  technical  language  for  all 
operators in the construction products market.  

Still existing barriers 

Since  the  introduction  of  the  CPD  in  1989,  the  Single  European  Market  in  1993  and 
harmonised  European  standards  over  the  years,  major  restrictions  on  the  free 
movement of construction products have been removed and the EU internal market of 
construction  products  has  developed.  Nevertheless,  both  firms  consulted  through  the 
on-line  survey  and  national  business  associations  interviewed  highlight  that  some 
barriers are still in place, constraining cross-border trade among European countries.  

Despite  the  effort  to  replace  national  rules  with  harmonised  European  ones,  national 
standards  and  differences  in  product  requirements  among  Member  States  are  still 
existing  and  represent  a  major  obstacle  to  trade.  A  recent  survey  to  firms  by 
Eurochambers 23  found  that  different  national  product  rules  constrain  cross-border 
trade.  Interviews  and  the  on-line  survey  carried  out  in  the  framework  of  this  study 
confirms  this  finding.  Some  countries,  like  Germany,  France,  Belgium,  Latvia  and 
Estonia, tend to impose additional requirements on the characteristics of construction 
products  entering  the  national  market  which  raise  the  certification  cost  for  foreign 
firms. They may be mandatory or voluntary, but in either cases they are perceived as 
real challenges for exporting firms.  

The  judgement  of  the  European  Court  of  Justice  of  19  October  2014 24  ruled  that 
Member  States  should  refrain  from  setting  additional  requirements  for  effective 
market  access  and  use  of  construction  products,  considering  that  the  harmonised 
system  under  the  CPR  is  exhaustive  and  no  space  is  left  for  any  other  marking 
systems. However, national marking and requirements are still used. In this situation, 
at  least  for  some  construction  products  the  introduction  of  the  CPR  or  European 
standards  has  fostered  the  perception  of  increased  burden  on  companies  due  to  the 
actual  duplication  of  requirements.  The  existence  of  national  marks  has  therefore 
limited  the  potential  effectiveness  of  the  CPR  and  the  hENs,  especially  for  SMEs  (see 
below). In some cases, this could be one of the reasons why the econometric 

23 http://www.eurochambres.eu/custom/Internal_Market_Survey_Report_FINAL-2015-00319-01.pdf 
24 Judgement of the Court of Justice in Case C-199/13, Commission v. Germany, 16 October 2014.  

58 

 
                                           
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

analysis  points  to  a  negative  effect  of  the  CPR  and  some  hENs  on  cross-
border trade.  

As emerged from the interviews, differences in the interpretation of the CPR also 
raise  barriers  to  cross-border  trade.  Some  countries  may  interpret  some 
provisions  more  strictly  than  others.  In  this  way  they  in  fact  make  more  difficult  for 
foreign  companies  to  export  in  their  national  market.  Some  interviewees  mentioned 
that  certification  bodies  in  different  countries  may  interpret  and  apply  the 
testing  criteria  more  or  less  strictly.  As  a  result,  “certification  bodies  may  not 
ensure the same level of certification of the same products across the EU. More time is 
needed before getting to a common, harmonised European certification system”.25  

Figure 28. 

  Barriers 

to 

trade  perceived  by 

consulted firms 

survey 

Firms  participating  in  the 
have 
on-line 
highlighted that the CPR has 
corrections 
made 
and 
specification 
the  CPD 
to 
which,  while  making  rules 
clearer, have also generated 
additional 
some 
administrative 
compliance 
cost. 
As  previously  mentioned, 
these  additional  costs  are 
unlikely  to  having  had  an 
effect  on  the  overall  value 
and volume of trade.  

Source: CSIL elaboration of survey results (131 responses) 

Another important issue relates to the lack of effective market surveillance, which 
makes  the  circulation  of  illegal  construction  products  still  possible.  Some 
products  succeed  to  enter  the  national  markets  without  fulfilling  the  legal 
requirements  set  by  the  EU  legislation  and  without  providing  all  the  required 
documentation.  Importers  may  be  willing  to  purchase  products  even  if  they  do  not 
ensure full compliance with EU marking rules, as long as they are cheaper. In general, 
avoidance  of  rules  is  easier  for  products  for  which  an  auto-certification  is  required 
(those  falling  under  the  verification  systems  3  and  4),  and  in  markets  which  are  not 
particularly concentrated but are characterised by a large number of exporting firms.  

25 Source: interview. 

59 

14%22%27%32%33%31%36%34%31%36%Lack of continuity of existingrulesExistence of national qualitymarksLack of clarity of existing rulesLack of harmonisation of existingrules across different countriesAdministrative burden and costto comply with EU and nationalcertification rulesVery muchSomewhat 
 
                                           
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

6.  FOCUS ON SMES 

6.1 The role of SMEs in the construction products market 

SMEs are the core business in the EU. Up to 95% of construction, architecture and civil 
engineering  firms  are  SMEs 26. According  to  DG  GROW  data 27,  the  total  number  of 
European  construction  enterprises  operating  in  sectors  F41  ‘Construction  of  building’, 
F42  ‘Civil  engineering’  and  F43  ‘Specialised  construction  activities’  in  the  EU-28 
amount  to  3.28  million  in  2015.  Out  of  them,  99.9%  have  less  than  250  employees 
and 93.9% are micro enterprises with less than 10 employees. In 2015 SMEs produce 
82% of the total construction industry’s output and employ 88% of the total workforce 
in the sector. 

However,  there  are  significant  country  differences  in  the  share  of  SMEs  operating  in 
the  construction  sector.  Southern  European  countries  (like  Italy,  Spain  and  Portugal) 
are  traditionally  characterised  by  a  higher  proportion  of  SMEs  as  compared  to 
Northern  European  countries,  not  only  in  the  construction  sector.  The  maps  below 
show the share of SMEs (defined by either their number of employees or their level of 
turnover)  active  in  the  NACE  sectors  corresponding  to  the  25  construction  products 
analysed in this study. The cluster analysis confirms the higher percentage of SMEs in 
the  South  of  Europe.  Some  Eastern  Member  States  are  also  characterised  by  a 
relatively high number of SMEs, even if their share of turnover is more limited. Large 
companies  operating  in  the  construction  sector  are  more  relevant  in  countries  like 
Germany, the UK and Denmark.  

Figure 29. 

  Share  of  SMEs  (<250 
employees)  over  total  enterprises 
active  in  the  construction  sector 
by country – 2007-2016 average 

Figure 30. 

  Share  of  SMEs  (<50 
million  EUR  turnover)  over  total 
the 
enterprises 
construction  sector  by  country  – 
2007-2016 average 

active 

in 

Note: data are clustered following the Jenks natural breaks optimization method.  
Source: CSIL elaboration of ORBIS data 

The degree of involvement of SMEs in cross-border trade also largely depends on the 
type of construction product and market.  

26 https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/construction_it 
27 SME Performance Review 2016 database.  

60 

 
 
 
                                           
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Figure 31. 

  Share  of  SMEs  over  total  enterprises  by  construction  product  – 

2007-2016 average 

Source: CSIL elaboration of ORBIS data 

SMEs  are  relatively  less  involved  in  the  production  of  raw  materials  (cement, 
glass, metals) and semi-finished products, especially those used for structural 
purposes,  such  as  steel  and  copper  tubes,  wire  rod  and  aluminium  bars).  The 
production  and  initial  transformation  phases  of  these  goods  require  big  investment 
costs  and  large  plants,  which  explain  why  their  manufacture  is  in  the  hands  of  big 
industrial,  often  multinational,  corporations.  Since  SMEs’  propensity  to  generally 
export  is  lower  than  for  large  enterprises  (see  also  below),  large-size  manufacturers 

61 

CementAdditivesSandsBricksAluminium bars and profilesCopper tubes and pipesSteel tubes and pipesWire rod & Concrete reinforcing barsArticles for asphaltDoors and windows in woodDoors and windows in plasticPrefabricated buildings of concreteCeramic tilesWood parquet flooringTextile flooringPlasterboardsInsulating glassInsulating materialsRoofing tilesNatural stone coatingClay flooring blocksValvesOptical fibre cablesElectric systems70.0%75.0%80.0%85.0%90.0%95.0%100.0%80.0%85.0%90.0%95.0%100.0%Share of SMEs in terms of turnoverShare of SMEs in terms of number of employees 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

also  drive  cross-border  trade  flows  and  their  market  strategies  can  explain  some  of 
the trade trends previously illustrated.  

SMEs  have  a  larger  role  to  play  in  the  production  and  trade  of  finished  and 
finishing  products, such as doors and windows, as well as flooring products (textile, 
wood-made  or  natural  stones).  Even  if  glass  production  is  concentrated  in  few  large 
companies,  SMEs  are  more  extensively  involved  in  the  production  of  the  insulating 
glass  semi-finished  product.  These  patterns  are  confirmed  by  available  data  on 
140,028  SMEs  contained  in  the  ORBIS  database  and  operating  in  the  NACE  sectors 
related to the selected construction products (Fig. 31 above). 

The distribution systems of the construction products is relevant to explain the degree 
of  involvement  of  SMEs  in  cross-border  trade.  SMEs  may  be  involved  in  the  on-site 
installation phase of finished products, like windows, insulating glass, but also valves, 
electric systems and others. SMEs located nearby the borders are more likely to cross-
border  trade,  thanks  to  lower  transport  cost.  In  countries  such  as  France  where  big 
retailers  and  low  cost  bricolage  retailers  dominate  the  distribution  system  for  a  large 
set  of  finished  products,  trade  by  SMEs  is  probably  more  limited.  Some  products,  in 
spite  of  being  characterised  by  a  concentrated  production,  have  a  highly  fragmented 
distribution chain (including transporting, storing and selling activities) to which SMEs 
could  participate.  This  is  the  case,  for  instance,  of  plasterboards  and  cement,  whose 
transportation mode is mainly by road and haulages are very small companies. 

6.2 SMEs’ propensity and barriers to export  

SMEs are generally not highly involved in cross border trade.  The smaller the size  of 
the  enterprise,  the  smaller  the  probability it  sells its  products  on  the  foreign  market. 
Micro and small enterprises usually produce to  serve their local market; medium and 
large enterprises are more export-oriented.  

When  analysing  the  responses  provided  by  firms  which  participated  in  the  on-line 
survey  with  respect  to  the  perceived  barriers  to  cross-border  trade,  SMEs  and  large 
enterprises seem not to have substantially different opinions.28 However, according to 
interviewees, regulation and financial burden are the main barriers that hinder smaller 
enterprises, especially micro-size firms, from trading. SMEs struggle to understand the 
terms  and  requirements  imposed  by  legislation.  This  challenge  is  exacerbated  by  the 
existence  of  national  different  marking  systems  and  requirements,  which  raise 
confusion and uncertainty among smaller firms. 

Where  national  marking  systems  are  in  place,  the  administrative  but  also  financial 
burden  for  compliance  is  greater  for  SMEs.  As  found  by  the  recent  ‘Analysis  of  the 

28  A  Peason’s  chi-square  test  was  carried  out  in  order  to  determine  whether  the 
distribution of responses is similar for SMEs and large  enterprises. The test compares 
the  distribution  of  responses  of  SMEs  and  those  of  large  firms  under  the  null 
hypotheses that the two distributions are not statistical different from each other. The 
test  never  rejects  the  null  hypothesis,  thus  indicating  that  there  is  no  statistically 
significant difference between SMEs and large enterprises in the perceived obstacles to 
trade of construction products. In this analysis, SMEs were defined by the number of 
employees declared by the respondent firm in the survey. We consider SMEs the firms 
having less than 250 employees; otherwise the firm is classified as large. 

62 

 
                                           
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

implementations  of  the  Construction  Products  Regulation’  (2015),29 larger  companies 
can  rely  on  their  good  reputation  and  resources  to  gain  more  accreditation  and  sell 
more  products.  Moreover,  the  cost  for  obtaining  the  certifications  pays  off  if  the 
volume of export is sufficiently high. This is usually hardly the case for SMEs.  

The  implementation  of  simplified  procedures  for  micro  enterprises,  which  is  foreseen 
in the CPR, has been positively viewed by stakeholders, but their application is limited. 
Actually,  only  10%  of  surveyed  firms  admits  that  the  CPR  has  decreased  costs  and 
administrative burden for smaller enterprises. The simplified requirements for smaller 
firms  are  unclear  and  as  a  consequence  they  are  not  yet  applied  across  the  board. 
SMEs are in fact fulfilling the same requirements of large enterprises, which is a major 
challenge for them. Further simplification efforts is demanded by small firms.  

All  the  above  mentioned  factors  make  smaller  firms  less  equipped  to  export  than 
larger  ones.  The  econometric  analysis  reveals  that  SMEs  are  more  likely  to  trade 
across the borders especially if: 

 

 

they  are  located  nearby  the  borders:  lower  transport  costs  makes  them 
easier  to  deal  with  sale  and  installation  of  products  in  the  foreign  country,  as 
well as providing post-sale services.  
they  can  speak  a  foreign  language,  which  is  also  related  to  their  location 
close to the borders: for instance, firms in the Northern regions of Italy tend to 
speak  French  and  German  and  establish  trade  relation  with  countries  beyond 
the Alps, more than firms in the South of Italy.  

These findings are confirmed by interviewees. In addition to that, stakeholders argue 
that  the  probability  for  SMEs  to  trade  increases  if  they  cooperate  with  each  other: 
export  consortia,  for  instance,  provide  firms  with  support  to  develop  long-term 
internationalization  strategies,  improve  their  knowledge  of  the  markets  and  enhance 
the sharing of information on applying rules and legislative frameworks.  

6.3 Impact of the CPR and hENs on SMEs 

SMEs  have  favourably  looked  at  the  introduction  of  the  CPR,  which 
contributed to clarify the  legislative framework. In particular, thanks to the CPR 
the use of the CE mark has been made clearer and its value is now widely understood 
by market players.  

Yet, as previously stressed, the continuous use of national marking systems  by some 
countries  for  some  products  is  an  issue  which  limits  the  overall  effectiveness  of  the 
CPR, and which hits smaller companies hardest. Certification costs continue being high 
for micro-size enterprises especially.  

In the view of some interviewees, the benefits produced by the CPR could increase in 
the  future  years  as  long  as  national  barriers  fall  down,  simplified  rules  are  more 
effectively implemented and SMEs better organise and equip themselves to go abroad 
(e.g. by joining export consortia, or taking advantage from available public grants for 
internationalisation). 

29 Drafted by RPA on behalf of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, 
Entrepreneurship and SMEs, Directorate C - Industrial Transformation and Advanced Value Chains, Unit C1 
– Clean technologies and products. 

63 

 
                                           
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

In order to complement qualitative evidence retrieved from interviews, we carried out 
a simple econometric analysis of the survey data in order to investigate whether SMEs 
have different opinions than large enterprises about the effectiveness of hEN and CPR 
as  instruments  to  stimulate  the  intra-EU  market  of  construction  products. 30  We 
implemented  a  set  of  multinomial logistic  regressions  where  the  dependent  variables 
are  the  distribution  of  firms’  responses  to  questions  C2  (perceived  impact  of  hENs) 
and question C4 (perceived impact of the CPR). The independent variable of interest is 
the type  of  enterprises, i.e. whether the  respondent is a SME or a large enterprise.31 
Some additional control variables have been included.32  

Results  of  this  exercise  are  presented  in  Tables  15  and  16.  Based  on  this  analysis, 
SMEs  agree  more  than  large  enterprises  that  both  the  hENs  and  the  CPR  have 
improved  legal  certainty  and  transparency  regarding  the  rules.  This  finding  is  in  line 
with evidence  from interviews. Furthermore,  European  standards  seem  to  play  a 
stronger  stimulus  for  product  innovation  for  SMEs  than  for  large  companies. 
As  expected,  the  CPR  has  clarified  the  concept  and  use  of  CE  marking  for  smaller 
companies more than for larger ones. Also, SMEs tend to agree more on the positive 
impact of the CPR on free movements of product within the EU. Even if both SMEs and 
large enterprises has a similar opinion about the usefulness of the CPR to decrease the 
cost and administrative burden for smaller enterprises, SMEs seem more convinced 
that the CPR contributed to address the needs and problems of firms trading 
construction products.  

30 The analysis was conducted on 101 responses collected through the on-line survey. SMEs were defined by 
the number of employees declared by the respondent firm in the survey (question D1). We consider SMEs 
the firms having less than 250 employees; otherwise the firm is classified as large. 
31 A positive and a statistical significant coefficient of this variable indicates that being a SME increases the 
probability  of  receiving  a  response  “Yes”  or  “I  do  not  know”  with  respect  to  a  large  firm  on  the  specified 
dependent variable. 
32 The following control variable are included:  

-  Being part of a group, valuing 1 if the firm belongs to a group and 0 otherwise;  
-  Annual  turnover  is  1  if  firm  declared  a  turnover  per  year  smaller  than  €  10 
million; 2 if the turnover is between € 10 and € 50 million, and 3 if it is greater 
than € 50 million; 

-  Export share on turnover, taking on the value 0 if the firm does not export, 1 if 
the  share  is  between  1%  and  30%,  and  2  if  the  export  share  is  greater  than 
30%. 

64 

 
 
 
                                           
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Table 15.   Multinomial  logit:  the  impact  of  hENs  on  trade  of  construction 

products. SMEs vs large enterprises 

 (1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Dependent 

variable 

is… 

C2 improved 
legal certainty 
and transparency 
regarding the 
rules 

C2 Enhanced the 
free movement 
of products 
within the EU 

Yes 

I do 

not 

know 

Yes 

I do 

not 

know 

C2 increased 
cumulative 
compliance cost 
with certification 
(CE marking and 
national 
certification) 
I do 

C2 Increased 
costs and 
administrative 
burden for 
smaller 
enterprises 

C2 enhanced 
potential for 
product innovation 

Yes 

not 

Yes 

know 

I do 

not 

know 

Yes 

I do 

not 

know 

SMEs 

1.15* 

0.71 

0.33 

0.27 

-1.23* 

0.27 

0.69 

0.66 

2.29*** 

1.17 

(0.71) 

(1.97) 

(0.71) 

(1.97) 

(0.73) 

(0.99) 

(1.08) 

(1.12) 

(0.80) 

(0.95) 

Being part 

of a group 

Annual 

turnover 

Export 

1.00* 

-0.66 

-0.56 

-1.79 

0.34 

0.02 

-0.81 

0.15 

-0.29 

-0.80 

(0.63) 

(1.44) 

(0.61) 

(1.34) 

(0.60) 

(0.80) 

(0.82) 

(0.85) 

(0.63) 

(0.69) 

0.07 

-0.15 

0.13 

-0.06 

-0.27 

0.41 

0.43 

0.54 

0.63 

0.24 

(0.46) 

(0.99) 

(0.43) 

(1.00) 

(0.43) 

(0.57) 

(0.69) 

(0.67) 

(0.48) 

(0.55) 

share on 

-0.25 

-0.67 

0.01 

-1.51 

-0.31 

turnover 

-

1.53** 

-0.30 

-0.52 

-0.66 

-

0.93** 

(0.39) 

(0.78) 

(0.39) 

(0.83) 

(0.40) 

(0.57) 

(0.65) 

(0.70) 

(0.41) 

(0.46) 

Constant 

0.08 

-0.79 

0.85 

0.69 

2.27* 

0.08 

1.34 

-0.07 

-1.76 

0.10 

(1.35) 

(2.93) 

(1.28) 

(2.94) 

(1.27) 

(1.62) 

(2.09) 

(2.17) 

(1.39) 

(1.59) 

McFadden's 

R2 

Log 

Likelihood 

Likelihood 

0.06 

0.09 

0.09 

0.03 

0.12 

-70.6 

-73.6 

-88.7 

-86.8 

-94.7 

ratio test 

0.37 

0.09 

0.03 

0.71 

0.00 

(p-value) 

Hausman 

test for IIA 

Test 

statistic 

p-value 

-0.19 

-0.18 

14.1 

0.00 

-1.40 

0.17 

0.30 

-0.25 

1.02 

-0.84 

- 

- 

0.01 

1.00 

- 

1.00 

1.00 

- 

0.96 

- 

Robust standard errors in parenthesis. The asterisks denote the degree of statistical significance 
of coefficients. *, **, *** denote significance at 10% , 5% and 1% level respectively. 
Source: CSIL elaboration of survey results (101 responses). 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
C4 
Contributing 
to address the 
needs and 
problems of 
firms trading 
construction 
products  

Yes 

I do 
not 
know 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Table 16.   Multinomial  logit:  the  impact  of  CPR  on  trade  (SMEs  vs  large 

enterprises) 

 (1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Dependent 

variable 

is… 

C4 Increasing 
legal certainty 
and 
transparency 
regarding the 
rules 

C4 Clarify the 
concept and 
use of CE 
marking 

C4 Facilitating 
compliance 
with rules 

C4 Decreasing 
costs and 
administrative 
burden for 
smaller 
enterprises 

C4 Enhancing 
the free 
movement of 
products 
within the EU 

SMEs 

Yes 

1.55*

* 

I do 
not 
know 

Yes 

I do 
not 
know 

Yes 

I do 
not 
know 

Yes 

I do 
not 
know 

Yes 

I do 
not 
know 

1.93* 

1.33* 

1.44 

0.89 

0.89 

0.67 

-0.07 

1.52* 

0.51 

1.22* 

1.27 

(0.90) 

(1.20) 

(0.83) 

(1.13) 

(0.72) 

(0.74) 

(0.94) 

(0.69) 

(0.93) 

(1.10) 

(0.69) 

(0.80) 

Being part 

1.50*

of a group 

* 

0.78 

0.60 

-0.28 

0.43 

-0.99 

0.71 

0.21 

-0.04 

0.33 

1.16 

-0.19 

Annual 

turnover  

Export 

(0.71) 

(0.90) 

(0.63) 

(0.85) 

(0.63) 

(0.72) 

(0.79) 

(0.58) 

(0.68) 

(0.80) 

(0.71) 

(0.64) 

-0.07 

-0.30 

0.39 

0.20 

-0.26 

0.17 

-0.01 

0.31 

0.87 

-0.02 

-0.16 

0.66 

(0.51) 

(0.64) 

(0.48) 

(0.63) 

(0.48) 

(0.77) 

(0.55) 

(0.42) 

(0.55) 

(0.62) 

(0.49) 

(0.48) 

-

share on 

-0.34 

-0.51 

-0.48 

0.02 

-0.64 

-0.77 

-0.51 

-0.75 

-0.37 

-0.52 

-0.50 

1.37*

turnover 

* 

(0.43) 

(0.54) 

(0.40) 

(0.54) 

(0.41) 

(0.45) 

Constant 

-0.06 

-0.64 

-0.49 

-1.78 

0.92 

0.55 

(1.52) 

(1.89) 

(1.39) 

(1.84) 

(1.34) 

(0.89) 

(0.49) 

(0.37) 

-1.59 

-0.29 

(1.57) 

(1.19) 

(0.43) 

(0.49) 

(0.44) 

(0.44) 

-1.28 

0.26 

-0.61 

-0.47 

(1.57) 

(1.78) 

(1.41) 

(1.37) 

McFadden's 

R2 

Log 

Likelihood 

Likelihood 

0.09 

0.04 

0.10 

-86.5 

-90.5 

-97.4 

ratio test 

0.03 

0.04 

0.00 

0.03 

-94.2 

0.58 

0.04 

0.10 

-96.9 

-98.5 

0.49 

0.00 

(p-value) 

Hausman 

test for IIA  

Test 

statistic 

p-value 

-0.35 

-0.53 

0.57 

0.03 

0.07 

-0.33 

0.07 

0.09 

0.16 

2.13 

0.15 

0.13 

- 

- 

0.99 

1.00 

- 

- 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

0.83 

1.00 

1.00 

Robust standard errors in parenthesis. The asterisks denote the degree of statistical significance 
of coefficients. *, **, *** denote significance at 10% , 5% and 1% level respectively. 
Source: CSIL elaboration of survey results (101 responses). 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

7.  CONCLUSIONS 

The  introduction  of  the  Construction  Products  Regulation  305/2011/EU  aimed  to 
simplify and clarify the framework established by Directive 89/106/EEC, and improve 
transparency and the effectiveness of the existing measures. Its ultimate goal was to 
remove technical barriers to trade in the field of construction products and enhancing 
their free movement in the internal market.  

Through  an  in-depth  and  rigorous  analysis  of  trade  data  and  consultation  of  national 
stakeholders and a sample of enterprises producing construction products, this study 
finds  convergent  evidence  that  these  objectives  have  been  achieved  only 
partially.  

More  than  the  CPR  by  itself,  harmonised  European  product  standards  are 
perceived  to  be  very  important  to  actually  stimulate  cross-border  trade. In a 
market  where  slightly  more  than  50%  of  intra-EU  trade  occurs  between  non-
contiguous  or  close  neighbouring  countries,  the  harmonisation  of  national  laws  and 
marking  systems,  started  with  the  introduction  of  the  CPD  and  progressed  with  the 
continuous development of new European standards, are viewed by consulted parties 
as  the  real  fundamental  steps  for  the  strengthening  of  the  EU  internal  market  of 
construction products. The Regulation contributed to this process  by  improving 
clarity and transparency of rules.  

However,  when  statistically  analysing  trade  data  for  a  sample  of  25  construction 
products, neither the CPR nor European standards in use between 2003 and 2015 are 
associated with a statistically significant and generalised positive impact on the value 
of  trade  exchanges  between  EU  Member  States.  In  contrast,  country  and  product 
differences  matter  a  lot.  The  net  effect  of  the  CPR,  after  taking  into  account  a 
number of possible confounder variables, is negative for some big market players such 
as  Germany  and  France,  but  also  the  UK,  Denmark  and  Sweden,  while  it  is  more 
positive  for  new  Member  States,  such  as  Poland,  Bulgaria,  Estonia,  Lithuania  and 
Slovenia.  As  to  the  effectiveness  of  harmonised  European  standards,  this  varies  to  a 
greater  extent,  most  likely  depending  on  the  characteristics  of  standards  and  the 
specific benefits and costs that each standard causes on firms.  

Despite  the  EU  policy  intervention,  national  standards  and  differences  in  product 
requirements  among  Member  States  continue  to  be  in  place.  This  seems  to  be  the 
main  factor  that  constrains  the  overall  effectiveness  of  the  CPR  and  the  hENs.  They 
create  a  parallel  systems  which  firms  have  to  conform  to  when  cross-border  trading, 
thus  raising  financial  costs  and  administrative  burden  for  certification,  but  also 
generating confusion and frustration among market operators.  

Still  existing  technical  barriers  hit  smaller  enterprises  the  hardest.  Even  if 
limited  data  are  available  on  the  number  of  SMEs  manufacturing  construction 
products,  and  even  less  on  actually  exporting  SMEs,  there  is  consistent  evidence 
suggesting  that  SMEs’  propensity  to  export  may  benefit  from  stronger  harmonisation 
and even more clarity about applicable rules.  

On  the  basis  of  the  findings  of  this  study,  some  methodological 
considerations  could  also  be  highlighted. They should be carefully considered in 
any subsequent study or ex-post evaluation of the impact of the CPR or hENs.  

  Deep  knowledge  of  the  construction  market  structure  at  product  level 
is  needed  to  correctly  interpret  the  trade  figures.  Given  the  variety  of 
products  used  in  the  construction  industry,  the  variety  of  demand  for  these 
products and the variety of market structures (more or less concentrated) and 
dynamics,  it  is  important  to  have  a  detailed  product-specific  understanding  of 
the key drivers  of trade and be knowledgeable of  how the behaviour  of larger 
companies could influence aggregate trade figures.  

67 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

 

In  the  future,  it  may  be  interesting  to  extend  the  analysis  to  the 
distribution  systems  of  products.  Large-scale  distribution  can  be  an 
important driver to explain the trade of some types of products. The impact of 
the  CPR  and  hENs  could  be  assessed  not  only  on  manufacturers  but  also  on 
distributors  and  retailers.  Since  the  market  of  some  products  is  quite 
concentrated  and  SMEs  may  be  involved  only  downstream  in  the  value  chain, 
including the distribution system in the analysis may allow for a more complete 
understanding of the role of SMEs in the construction industry.  

 

  The  analysis  would  benefit  from  considering  also  extra-EU  trade 
patterns. An analysis at global level would provide a more complete picture of 
the  manifold  determinants  of  trade  among  EU  countries.  Such  determinants 
could  refer  to  the  financial  and  economic  situation  in  foreign  countries,  trade 
strategies (e.g. import duties or export subsidies), and relocation strategies of 
European companies outside the EU. 
If the analysis is at product level, more detailed data on the number, turnover, 
and  export  level  of  SMEs  producing  and  trading  specific  types  of  construction 
products  in  each  country  should  be  searched  within  the  national  statistical 
offices.  Official  and harmonised data source on SMEs are available only at the 
level of the whole construction sector.33 Data for a more disaggregated unit of 
analysis  could  be  retrieved  from  national  statistical  sources,  but  this  would 
require an extra effort to ensure data quality and harmonisation at EU level.  
  Due to less  reliable  and  poorer market  statistics  for  EFTA  countries, an 
analysis  of  cross-border  trade  of  construction  products  is  to  be  limited  to  EU 
Member  States,  unless  specific  data  collection  and  harmonisation  actions  are 
performed.  

  Finally, the results of our econometric analysis would benefit for further 
inquiry  on  individual  European  standards.  This  study  shows  that  large 
variability  exists  in  the  effect  of  harmonised  European  standards  on  EU  trade, 
which  is  likely  to  be  imputable  to  different  specific  characteristics  of  the 
standards. While some possible reasons have been spelled out in this report to 
explain  their  diversified  effect  on  trade,  more  research  focusing  on  the 
standards’ definitions, aim, and implications for firms would be needed.  

33  Produced  by  the  European  Commission  in  the  framework  of  the  annual  SME  Performance  Review 
(Construction is defined by NACE code F).  

68 

 
 
 
                                           
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

69 

 
 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations 
(http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service 
(http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 
(freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels 
may charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 

•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
l

C
a
t
a
o
g
u
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

doi:10.2873/452293