Survey on users' need for information on construction products.
Date: 2018-04-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs
Subjects: EC conformity marking, building industry, building materials, construction equipment, consumer information, consumer survey, cost analysis, economic consequence, regulation (EU), report, technical standard

Survey  
on users' need for information  
on construction products 

Written by Ecorys 
February 2018 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

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

Directorate C – Industrial Transformation and Advanced Value Chains 

Unit C 1- Clean Technologies and Products 

E-mail: GROW-CONSTRUCTION@ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 

B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Survey  

on users' need for information  

on construction products  

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

2018 

ET-01-18-007-EN-N 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 
Freephone number (*): 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

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

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission, however it reflects the views 

only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be 

made of the information contained therein. 

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

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 

ISBN: 978-92-79-77344-0 

doi: 10.2873/87907 

Catalogue number: ET-01-18-007-EN-N 

© European Union, 2018 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

1. 

Introduction 

2.  Survey methodology 

2.1. Determination of the target sample composition 
2.2. Survey implementation 
2.3. Sample composition 
2.4. Test for the statistical significance of findings. 

3.  Analysis of survey responses 
3.1. Sample characteristics 
3.2. Experience of obtaining technical information on construction products 
3.3. Requirements and preferences for technical information and information sources for 
construction products 
3.4. Procedures for checking product performance declarations for construction products 

Annex A: Detailed survey methodology 

Project assignment overview 

Estimation of target sample composition 

Composition of survey responses 

Check for composition bias 

Annex B: Detailed Survey Results 

Annex C: Survey questionnaire, EN version 

7 

9 
9 
10 
11 
13 

15 
15 
23 

59 
68 

87 
87 
88 
89 
92 

95 

143 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. Introduction  

The  Construction  Products  Regulation  (CPR)1  aims  at  ensuring  the  free  movement  of 

construction  products  in  the  Internal  Market.  To  that  purpose,  the  CPR  lays  down 

conditions for the marketing of construction products, by creating a common technical 

language  (i.e.  harmonised  rules  on  how  to  express  the  performance  of  construction 

products in relation to their essential characteristics and on the use of CE marking on 

those products). 

Information is at the heart of the CPR-based system. The common technical language 

created under the CPR defines the essential characteristics of construction products and 

relies on harmonised technical specifications (i.e. harmonised standards and European 

Assessment Documents (EADs) to assess the performance of construction products in 

terms of basic requirements for their use in construction works. 

To place a construction product on the EU market, a declaration of performance (DoP) 

and CE marking are required. Manufacturers of products within the harmonised sphere 
must  use  them.  These  are  the  only  means  to  provide  information2  on  products’ 
performance in relation to the essential characteristics3. 

Having  a  common  technical  language  provides  professionals,  public  authorities  and 

users of construction products with reliable information to compare the performance of 

products. Further advantages include:  

▪  products have to be tested only once according to a harmonised standard or an EAD;  

▪  national  authorities  can  set  their  performance  requirements  using  harmonised 

standards or EADs;  

▪  users of construction products can better determine their performance demands;  

▪  market surveillance can rely on one common information structure. 

Following the implementation report of July 20164, and in the perspective of a potential 
review of the CPR announced in November 20165, it appears appropriate to assess the 

extent to which the CPR actually meets the information needs of stakeholders.  

This study  focusses on construction products users. The costs and burdens related to 

the CE marking have indeed been identified as the main impact of the CPR incurred by 

economic  operators  in  the  supporting  study  for  the  fitness  check  on  the  construction 
sector6. This report describes the outcomes of the “Survey on users' need for information 

on construction products” implemented by Ecorys for the European Commission.  

1 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: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011R0305  

2 Following adoption of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 157/2014 of 30 October 2013 on the conditions for making a 
declaration  of  performance  on  construction  products  available  on  a  website,  manufacturers  can  make  the  DoP  available 
electronically. There is evidence that this approach is used and viewed positively by industry. 

3 Cf. Article 4(2) of the CPR.  
4 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0445 
5 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0860 
6 Supporting study for the fitness check on construction : EU Internal Market and energy efficiency legislation, Economisti 

Associati, CEPS, Milieu and BPIE (Oct. 2016), https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/construction/fitness-check_en  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The purpose of the survey is to enable a better understanding of the information needed 

by European construction contractors and construction services professionals, as well as 

to collect their views on the exhaustiveness and usefulness of the information provided 

by  construction  products  manufacturers  in  application  of  the  CPR  (i.e.  with  the 

declaration of performance and CE marking).  

Thus,  the  survey  aims  to  analyse  users’  information  needs  concerning  construction 

products  and  to  collect  evidence  for  assessing  the  extent  to  which  the  information 

system established under the CPR has achieved its objectives in meeting users' needs. 

This  chapter  provides  a  brief  overview  of  the  background  to  the  survey.  Chapter  2 

outlines the survey methodology, and Chapter 3 describes the main survey outcomes. 

Additional  details  on  the  survey  and  sample  composition  are  provided  in  Annex  A, 

additional information on survey responses are given in Annex B and the English version 

of the survey questionnaire is provided in Annex C. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. Survey methodology 

This  chapter  gives  a  brief  overview  of  the  specification  of  the  ‘target’  sample  for  the 

“Survey on users’ needs for information on construction products”, the implementation 

approach, and description of the achieved survey sample composition.   

2.1.  Determination of the target sample composition 

To develop a survey that reflects the variety of types of professional users of construction 

products, the geographical diversity of the EU construction sector, and the composition 

of the sector in terms of firm size, three criteria have been used: 

•  Sectoral  coverage:  for  which  three  main  professional  categories  of  construction 
product  users  were  identified,  defined  according  to  the  NACE  classification7,  as 

follows: 

o  Construction  and  renovation  (Sector  1):  firms  and  craftsmen  involved  in  the 

construction  or  renovation  of  buildings  and  specialised  construction  activities 
(corresponding to NACE 418, 43.1, 43.3, 43.9); 

o  Installation services (Sector 2): firms and craftsmen providing installation services 

(corresponding to NACE 43.2); 

o  Architects and engineers (Sector 3): professionals providing construction-related 

architectural and engineering services (corresponding to NACE 71.1); 

•  Geographical  coverage:  for  which  10  Member  States  were  initially  selected: 

Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain and the 

United Kingdom. Collectively, these countries account for more than 80% of the EU 

turnover  in  the  sector  (based  on  Eurostat  SBS  data  for  2013)  and  are  considered 

representative of the  main  construction business  systems in the EU.  Further,  they 

cover  the  various  EU  geographical  sub-regions,  and  both  large  and  small  Member 

States. During implementation of the survey, to ensure that targets were reached, 

two additional countries were added, namely: Austria and the Netherlands; 

•  Firm  size  coverage:  for  which  it  was  recognised  that  the  construction  sector  is 

dominated by SMEs, in particular micro and smaller enterprises, with an estimate of 

94% of firms with fewer than 10 employees. When implementing the survey, the EU 

typology has been used to ensure the sample would reflect the composition of the 

sector in Europe.: 
o  micro (< 10 employees)9; 

o  small (10-49 employees); 

o  medium (50-249 employees), and  

o 

large (250+ employees) companies. 

Size of the sample: applying the criteria outlined above, it was determined that for the 

survey to give results that could be considered statistically representative at an EU level, 

a minimum of 2000 replies from construction professionals across the EU should be 

obtained. Information on the ‘target’ sample composition is provided in Annex A.  

7 NACE is  the acronym for Nomenclature statistique des activités économiques dans la Communauté européenne (Statistical 

classification of economic activities in the European Community). 

8 NACE Groups 43.1 includes “Demolition and site preparation”. As this activity is not covered in harmonised standards, 
responses from this sector are not seen as relevant for the study. Accordingly, respondents identifying themselves as 
exclusively engaged in demolition and site preparation activities were excluded from the analysis of the survey responses. 

9 Including single persons (i.e. self-employed/ independent) 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.2.  Survey implementation 

After  refining  the  survey  questionnaire  (attached  in  Annex  C),  the  “Survey  on  user’s 

needs  for  information  on  construction  products”  was  launched  online  on  October  23, 

2017 and closed on December 2, 2017. The survey was made available in 9 languages 

(English,  Danish,  Dutch,  French,  German,  Italian,  Polish,  Romanian,  and  Spanish),  in 

order to secure easier participation in the countries targeted, in particular of small and 

micro-enterprises. 

Initially, to reach professional users of construction products, two channels of contact 

were used: 

1.  Email  contact  with  companies  using  data  extracted  from  a  companies’ 

database. Information on companies engaged in construction related activities was 
extracted  from  the  Amadeus  database  (Bureau  Van  Dijk)10.  This  source, 

supplemented  by  additional  research  to  complete  missing  contact  information, 

yielded approximately 240 thousand email addresses for businesses falling within the 

sectoral and geographical scope set for the survey. Email requests to participate in 

the  survey  –  with  a  web  link  to  the  survey  –  were  sent  to  all  the  identified  email 
addresses, together with follow-up reminder emails11; 

2.  Requests  to  European  and  national  associations  active  in  the  construction 

industry, to disseminate a link to the survey to their members; requests were sent 

to 4 European and 15 national associations. 

The  response  rates  achieved  from  the  above  channels  was  very  low.  For  email 

requests sent directly to companies, the response rate was less than 0.25%. While 

under  100  responses  coming  via  industry  associations.  As  it  was  quickly  apparent 

that the survey would not reach the target of 2000 replies, a third channel was used: 

3.  Email contact with companies, using a pre-established panel of enterprises 
from CheckMarket12, a survey company. CheckMarket sent emails to enterprises on 

a  pre-established  panel,  requesting  their  participation  to  the  online  survey. 

Respondents from the ‘online panel’ were selected to comply with the defined sectoral 

coverage required by the survey. In addition, country targets were set, to balance 

the geographical coverage considering already received responses from the first two 

channels described above. 

In combination with the use  of a third channel, the geographical scope of the survey 

was  extended  to  include  also  the  Netherlands  and  Austria.  This  choice  was  based 

primarily  on  practical  reasons,  specifically  the  availability  of  an  existing  translated 

version  of  the  questionnaire  in  the  national  language  (Dutch  and  German).  Also,  the 

inclusion  of  the  Netherlands  and  Austria  was  considered  reasonable  given  presumed 

similarities  in  the  business  environment  with  those  of  Belgium  and  Germany, 

respectively. 

10 https://www.bvdinfo.com/en-us/our-products/company-information/international-products/amadeus 
11 Of the 240 thousand email requests to participate in the survey that were sent out, approximately 80% are believed to have 

reached the intended recipient (i.e. the ‘bounce rate’ of non-valid email addresses was approximately 20%). 

12 https://www.checkmarket.com 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.3.  Sample composition 

Using the three channels described above, the combined  total of received replies was 

2921.  Of  these,  2053  met  the  selection  criteria  and  were  sufficiently  complete  to  be 
included in the survey analysis13.  

The composition of the retained survey sample in terms of the channel through which 

the replies were received is shown in Table 2.1. As can be seen, nearly three-quarters of 

the retained replies were obtained through email contact with enterprises on the pre-

established panel (‘Online panel’). As noted earlier, the response rate from companies 

contacted by email was extremely low, yielding only 472 replies from the 240 thousand 

initially  identified  companies.  Using  associations  as  intermediaries  yielded  only  86 

retained replies, though it is difficult to evaluate this number, as it is not known what 

follow-up actions were taken by the associations that were requested to disseminate a 

link to the survey to their members. 

Table 2.1:  

Final survey sample by channel 

Channel 

Number of responses 

Company information database (e-mail & web-link) 

Associations (web-link) 

Online panel (e-mail & web-link) 

Total  

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

472 

86 

1 495 

2 053 

The composition of retained survey responses by country and firm size is shown in Table 

2.2.  Compared  to  the  ‘target’  sample  composition,  the  total  number  of  responses 

received  for  each  country  broadly  correspond  their  target  levels.  However,  for  the 

sample as a whole, there is some overrepresentation of large and medium sized firms 

and  a  corresponding  underrepresentation  of  smaller  firms,  mainly  concerning  micro-

enterprises. This is unsurprising, since micro-enterprises are less likely to be included in 

the  underlying  company  database  (Amadeus)  and  dedicated  enterprise  panel 

(CheckMarket) used for the survey. Also, micro-enterprises are probably less likely to 

be  contacted  via  professional  associations,  but  this  cannot  be  verified.  Nonetheless, 

micro-enterprises  still  make up the  largest size  class of  retained respondents.  As can 

also be seen from Table 2.2, among medium and large enterprise size categories, there 

are  some  countries  for  which  there  were  no  responses  (e.g.  Romania)  or  very  few 

responses  (e.g.  Poland  and  Denmark).  Compared  to  information  from  the  Eurostat 

Structural Business Statistics (SBS), these low numbers of responses are consistent with 

the low numbers of larger firms in the population of construction enterprises.  Further 

information  on  the  composition  of  the  sample  is  provided  in  the  ‘Analysis  of  survey 

response’ (Chapter 3; Q1 to Q3) A more detailed assessment of the country, company 

size and sector composition of the sample is provided in Annex A. 

13 Out of the 2921 replies received, 373 were automatically screened-out as the respondents did not perform any professional 

activities falling within the scope of the defined sectoral coverage or came from outside the geographical scope of the survey. 
In addition,16 replies from respondents conducting only demolition and site preparation activities were excluded (see footnote 
8). Finally, a further 466 replies were excluded, as they did not provide sufficiently complete responses to the full survey 
questionnaire.  

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 2.2: 

Survey sample composition by country and firm size 

Country  

Total  

Micro (< 10) 

Small (10-49) 

Medium (50-
249)  

Large 
(>=250) 

AT 

BE  

DK 

DE  

IE 

ES 

FR 

IT 

NL 

PL 

RO 

UK 

 Total 

47 

90 

84 

316 

77 

233 

361 

301 

79 

97 

48 

320 

2053 

15 

36 

64 

135 

28 

55 

98 

150 

13 

85 

38 

118 

835 

13 

29 

18 

103 

20 

57 

95 

67 

18 

8 

10 

68 

506 

9 

17 

1 

47 

17 

57 

72 

57 

23 

3 

0 

80 

383 

10 

8 

1 

31 

12 

64 

96 

27 

25 

1 

0 

54 

329 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

In terms of sector of activity, the survey questionnaire allowed respondents to indicate 

multiple  construction-related  activities,  meaning  that  a  single  respondent  may  be 

counted  as  active  in  more  than  one  of  the  defined  sector  categories  (sectors). 

Consequently, direct comparison with the ‘target’ sample  composition  is not possible. 

Nonetheless, it appears that achieved response levels were generally low in Poland and 

Romania, except  for  micro-enterprises  in  ‘Installation  Services’  and  ‘Architectural and 

Engineering Services’. For France, achieved response levels were low for micro and small 

firms for all sectors. For the UK, achieved response rates were also low for micro and 

small firms, except for small enterprises in ‘Installation Services’. By contrast, response 

rates  for  Denmark  were  low  for  medium  and  large  firms  in  all  sectors.  Further 

information  on  the  composition  of  the  sample  is  provided  in  the  ‘Analysis  of  survey 

response’ (Chapter 3; Q1 to Q3) A more detailed assessment of the country, company 

size and sector composition of the sample is provided in Annex A. 

In terms of difference in the underlying characteristics of the survey sample for different 

channels, it should be noted Channel 3 (‘Online Panel’) was instigated mid-way between 

opening and closing the survey, and that specific targets were set that took account of 

the  country-level  responses  already  received  using  the  other  channels.  Notably,  in 

relative terms, overall high response rates using direct contacts by email (Channel 1) 

and  via  associations  (Channels  2)  were  achieved  from  Romania  and  Poland. 

Consequently, these countries were not covered using the Channel 3 approach. On the 

contrary, Channel 1 and Channel 2 were largely unsuccessful for Spain, Italy, and the 

UK.  Consequently,  a  higher  proportion  of  the  survey  responses  received  for  these 

countries  were  obtained  through  Channel  3.  Notwithstanding  these  country  specific 

adjustments,  the  responses  achieved  using  Channel  3  tended  to  contain  a  higher 

proportion  of  medium  and  large  enterprises  compared  to  the  other  two  channels. 

However, a comparison of the answers to the survey obtained from the three channels 

did  not  reveal  any  discernible  difference  that  would  suggest  that  overall  survey 

responses are in some way biased by the high share of Channel 3 respondents in the 

retained survey sample.  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
As outlined above, the composition of the final (retained) sample of survey responses 

indicates  some  short-comings  when  compared  to  the  target  composition  established 

using  the  three  sample  criteria  (see  Section  2.1)  and  based  on  population  estimates 

derived from Eurostat Structural Business Statistics (SBS). These short-comings relate 

mostly to the overall share of micro and small enterprises, and for some countries the 

small  number  of  responses  from  large,  and  occasionally  medium-sized,  companies. 

Although, in most countries where it occurs, the low number of responses from larger 

companies is unsurprising given that the corresponding SBS data indicate that there are 

very few large companies in the total population construction enterprises.  

To check for potential bias in survey responses, weighting factors were derived to adjust 

the survey responses for differences between the ‘target’ sample composition and the 

composition  of  the  final  (retained)  survey  sample.  A  comparison  between  the 

unweighted  and  weighted  survey  results  did  not  reveal  any  difference  that  were 

considered sufficiently important as to significantly alter findings derived based on the 

unweighted sample (see Annex A).  

The  absence  of  important  differences  between  the  weighted  and  unweighted  survey 

results, suggests that overall results derived from the full (unweighted) survey sample 

do not suffer from any significant bias due to systematic differences between the ‘target’ 

survey composition and the achieved survey composition. Moreover, the  total number 

of replies, together with the numbers of individual respondents (observations) for each 

sub-category  used  in  the  disaggregation  of  findings  (e.g.  by  country,  firm  size,  and 

sector) are considered sufficient to draw meaningful conclusions, in that they could be 

considered statistically representative at an EU level. 

2.4.  Test for the statistical significance of findings. 

For  the  reporting  of  survey  findings  (Chapter  3),  where  results  are  presented  with  a 

breakdown by sub-groups (e.g. by company size of the respondent, or sector of activity), 

the  statistical  significance  of  differences  in  the  observed  proportion  of  particular 
responses for different sub groups has been evaluated using a chi-square (χ2) test for 

nominal data (Pearson’s n-1 chi-square test using 2-tailed p-values). This is a test of 

independence  (association)  between  variables,  that  allows  to  accept  or  reject  the 

hypothesis  that  there  is  no  relationship  between,  for  example,  company  size  of  the 

respondent and frequency of need for obtaining technical information. When presenting 

results, differences across sub-groups are treated as significant if the null hypothesis of 

independence (no relationship) can be rejected at a 0.05 level (i.e. 5% or less); which 

is  referred  to  in  the  text  as  ‘significant  at  a  95%  confidence  level’.  In  the  presented 

analysis,  pairwise  tests  of  independence  have  been  conducted  across  all  sub-group 

categories (e.g. micro, small, medium, and large companies) for each possible response 

to individual questions (e.g. frequently, regularly, occasionally, no/very occasionally).  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. Analysis of survey responses 

This Chapter gives an overview of the main quantitative results of the “Survey on users’ 

needs  for  information  on  construction  products”.  The  presentation  of  the  analysed 

questions follows the order of those in the questionnaire and is divided in 4 sub-chapters. 

These are: sub-section 3.1 presenting the ‘Sample characteristics’, sub-section 3.2 on 

construction  professionals’  ‘Experience  of  obtaining  technical  information  or  data  on 

construction  products’,  sub-section  3.3  presenting  the  ‘Analysis  on  requirements  and 

preferences for technical information and information sources for construction products’ 

and  lastly  sub-section  3.5  on  the  ‘Procedures  for  checking  product  performance 

declarations for construction products’. 

3.1.  Sample characteristics 

This section provides an overview of the composition of survey respondents in terms of 

country coverage (Q1), firm size (Q2) and sector of activity (Q3). These being the three 

main criteria used in the determination of a representative sample of professional users 

of construction products as described in Chapter 2. In addition, the breakdown of survey 

respondents by the main tasks performed in their professional work (Q4) is described. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 1: In which country is your company / business located? 

Figure 1:  

Country of respondents (share of total) 

Country 

France 

United Kingdom 

Germany 

Italy 

Spain 

Poland 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Netherlands (added to initial sample) 

Ireland 

Romania 

Austria (added to initial sample) 

TOTAL 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Number of 
Respondents 

Share of total 

361 

320 

316 

301 

233 

97 

90 

84 

79 

77 

48 

47 

18% 

16% 

15% 

15% 

11% 

5% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

2% 

2% 

2053 

100% 

Figure  1  shows  the  distribution  of  respondents  by  their  country  of  location, 

among  the  12  Member  States  covered.  Overall,  the  breakdown  of  the  2053 

responses  is  broadly  in  line  with  the  economic  size  of  countries  and  the  estimated 

population  of  construction  enterprises  as  indicated  by  available  data  on  industry 

structure (i.e. Eurostat SBS). The largest number of responses are from France (18%), 

UK (16%), Germany (15%), Italy (15%) and Spain (11%). 

16 

FRUKDEITESPLBEDKNLIEROAT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 2: How many persons are employed in your company / business? 

Figure 2:  

Size of company/business of respondents (share of total) 

Size of company 

Micro 

1 person (i.e. self-employed / independent) 

2 to 9 persons 

Small 

10 to 49 persons 

Medium 

50 to 249 persons 

Large 

250 or more persons 

TOTAL 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Number of 
respondents 

Share of 
total 

308 

527 

506 

383 

329 

41% 

25% 

19% 

16% 

2053 

100% 

Figure  2  shows  the  breakdown  of  responses  by  the  size  of  their 

company/businesses.  Respondents  from  micro  companies  account  for  41%  of  the 

sample  (compared  to  a  ‘target’  of  53%),  followed  by  small  companies  with  25% 

(compared to a ‘target’ of 28%). For both these categories, their share within the survey 

sample  is  below  their  estimated  share  in  the  population  of  construction-related 

enterprises derived from industry structure data (i.e. Eurostat SBS). Conversely, there 

is  an  overrepresentation  of  medium-size  and  large  companies  which,  respectively, 

account for 19% and 16% of survey responses (compared to ‘targets’ of 11%, and 8%). 

17 

MicroSmall Medium Large  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 3: What types of construction activities are conducted by your company/ 

business? 

Multiple replies possible 

Figure 3:  

Sector of activity (number of responses) 

Sector of activity 

(n=2053) 

Number 

Share of 

of 

total 

responses 

responses 

Number 

Share of 

Share of 

exclusively 

exclusive 

respondents 

undertaking 

in all 

activity 

responses 

Construction and 

995 

28% 

48% 

358 

36% 

renovation of buildings 

Construction engineering 

603 

17% 

29% 

237 

39% 

and other construction-

related technical services 

Building completion and 

599 

17% 

29% 

195 

33% 

finishing 

Electrical, plumbing, and 

499 

14% 

24% 

195 

39% 

other construction 

installation activities 

Architectural activities 

Demolition and site 

preparation 

Other  

TOTAL 

386 

272 

11% 

8% 

19% 

13% 

159 

5% 

8% 

3513 

100% 

136 

0* 

41 

1162 

35% 

n.a. 

26% 

*  Respondents  exclusively  undertaking  demolition  and  site  preparation  are  excluded  from  the 

sample, see footnote 8 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  3  shows  the  breakdown  of  activities  conducted  by  the  respondent’s 

company.  The  figure  shows  both  the  overall  distribution  of  activities  indicated  by 

respondents  (i.e.  allowing  for  multiple  activities)  and,  within  these,  the  proportion 

18 

020040060080010001200OtherDemolition and site preparationArchitectural activitiesElectrical, plumbing, and other constructioninstallation activitiesBuilding completion and finishingConstruction engineering and other construction-related technical servicesConstruction and renovation of buildingsExclusively this activitiyCombined with other activities 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
exclusively engaged in a single construction activity. Overall, of the total sample of 2053 

respondents,  1162  (57%)  respondents  selected  exclusively  one  sector,  while  the 

remaining 43% indicated that their companies are active in multiple construction-related 

activities. 

The most frequently indicated activity is ‘Construction and renovation of buildings’, with 

28%  of  responses  (equating  to  48%  of  respondents).  Breaking  this  number  further 

down,  among  respondents  that  conduct  ‘Construction  and  renovation  of  buildings’ 

activities,  36%  indicate  that  they  are  exclusively  engaged  in  this  activity  while  64% 

indicated that they  also conduct other activities.  This is followed by companies which 

engage in ‘Construction engineering and other construction-related technical services’, 

17%  of  responses  (equating  to  29%  of  respondents,  among  which  39%  exclusively 

engage  in  this  activity)  and  ‘Building  completion  and  finishing’  also  with  17%  of 

responses  (equating  to  29%  of  respondents,  among  which  33%  active  exclusively  in 

that activity). Further, ‘Demolition and site preparation’ accounts for 8% of responses 

(equating  to  13%  of  respondents),  with  no  respondents  exclusively  engaged  in  this 
activity since such respondents are excluded from the retained survey sample.14 

The category ‘Other’ represented 5% of responses (equating to 8% of respondents), of 

which  slightly  more  than  a  quarter  (26%)  selected  only  this  option.  Half  of  the 

respondents that selected this option did not specify the activities that their companies 

conduct.  The  remaining  respondents  are  distributed  through  different  construction 

related  activities,  some  popular  answers  are:  research  and  consulting  related  to 

construction, construction of non-building (e.g. roads and other infrastructure), as well 

as manufacturing and distribution of construction products. 

Figure  4  shows  the  regrouped  breakdown  of  activities  conducted  by  the 

respondent’s company using the sector grouping described in Section 2.1, as follows: 

•  Construction and renovation, which combines the activities of ‘Construction and 

renovation of buildings’ and ‘Building completion and finishing’; 

•  Architecture  and  engineering,  which  combines  the  activities  ‘Architectural 

activities’  and  ‘Construction  engineering  and  other  construction-related  technical 

services’; 

•  Installation  services,  which  covers  ‘Electrical,  plumbing  and  other  construction 

installation activities’; 

•  Other, which covers responses under the category ‘Other’ for this question. These 

constitute  other  construction-related  activities  conducted  by  the  respondents’ 

company that could not be grouped into one of the above sectors but  that are still 

considered to fall within the scope of desired survey coverage, such as research and 

consulting. 

The most frequently indicated sector of activity is ‘Construction and renovation’, which 

accounts  for  46%  of  all  responses  (equating  to  62%  of  respondents),  followed  by 

‘Architecture  and  engineering  services’  with  30%  of  responses  (equating  to  40%  of 

respondents).  

14 See the methodology - section 2 for more information 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 4:  

Grouped sector of activity (share of total responses) 

Number 

Share of 

Number 

Grouped sector of 

of 

total 

Share of 

exclusively 

activity (n=2053) 

grouped 

grouped 

respondents 

undertaking 

responses 

responses 

activity 

Construction and 

1280 

46% 

62% 

renovation 

Installation services 

Architecture and 

engineering 

Other 

TOTAL 

499 

822 

159 

2760 

18% 

30% 

6% 

100% 

24% 

40% 

8% 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

778 

199 

418 

82 

1477 

Share of 

exclusive 

in number 

of 

responses 

61% 

40% 

51% 

52% 

The  sector  groupings  outlined  above  are  used  in  the  analysis  of  later  questions  that 

provide  a  breakdown  by  ‘sector  of  activity’.  For  these  analyses,  values  for  individual 

sector  groups  are  calculated  using  responses  from  all  respondents  whose  company 

conducts  activities  within  the  scope  of  the  sector  group,  whether  exclusively  or  in 

combination with other activities. For respondents whose company conducts activities 

in multiple sector groups, their responses are included in the corresponding calculations 

for each sector group (i.e. their responses are included in the calculations for more than 

one sector group). Consequently, where responses to a question are broken down by 

‘sector of activity’, the total sum of responses across all sector groups will exceed the 

total number of respondents that answered the question. 

20 

Construction and renovationInstallation servicesArchitecture and engineeringOther 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 4: What are your main tasks in your professional work? 
Multiple replies possible.  

Figure 5:  

Main tasks of respondents (number of responses) 

Main tasks of 

respondents 

(n=2053) 

Number 

Share of 

of 

total 

responses 

responses 

Number 

Share of 

exclusively 

respondents 

undertaking 

activity 

Share of 

exclusive 

in number 

of 

responses 

Repairing or maintaining 

682 

17% 

33% 

215 

32% 

buildings 

Installation of construction 

616 

16% 

30% 

185 

30% 

products in buildings 

Designing buildings  

Managing construction 

sites  

609 

568 

15% 

14% 

30% 

28% 

Purchasing construction 

501 

13% 

24% 

products for your company 

Calculating specific 

406 

10% 

20% 

building performances 

(e.g. structural integrity, 

fire safety) 

217 

159 

80 

83 

36% 

28% 

16% 

20% 

Building control for your 

330 

8% 

16% 

40 

12% 

company/for the building 

owner 

Other 

TOTAL 

248 

3960 

6% 

100% 

12% 

222 

1201 

90% 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure 5 shows the breakdown of main tasks performed by respondents within 

their  professional  work,  allowing  for  multiple  responses  from  a  single  respondent. 

The  most  commonly  selected  professional  tasks  are  ‘Repairing  and  maintaining 

buildings’  (17%  of  responses,  equating  to  33%  of  respondents),  ‘Installation  of 

21 

0200400600800OtherBuilding control for your company/for thebuilding ownerCalculating specific building performancesPurchasing construction products for yourcompanyManaging construction sitesDesigning buildingsInstallation of construction products inbuildingsRepairing or maintaining buildingsExclusively this activitiyCombined with other activities 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
construction products in buildings’ (16% of responses, equating to 30% of respondents), 

‘Designing  buildings’  (15%  of  responses,  equating  to  30%  of  respondents),  and 

‘Managing construction sites’ (14% of responses, equating to 28% of respondents). 

Within  the  overall  numbers  shown  in  Figure  5,  1201  respondents  (58%  of  total 

respondents)  indicate  that  they  perform  exclusively  one  type  of  task.  Among  all 

responses per task, the share of respondents engaged exclusively in the specified task 

are  as follows:  ‘Repairing and maintaining buildings’  32%,  ‘Designing buildings’  36%, 

‘Installation  of  construction  products  in  buildings’  30%,  ‘Managing  construction  sites’ 

28%, ‘Purchasing construction products for their companies’ 16%, ‘Calculating specific 

building  performances’  20%,  and  ‘Building  control  for  their  company/for  the  building 

owner’ 12%. 

Figure 5 shows that 6% of responses (equating to 12% of respondents) were under the 

category  ‘Other’  tasks.  More  than  half  of  these  responses  related  to  financial  and 

administrative tasks for construction companies; other commonly indicated responses 

include: being the owner or manager of a company, dealing with quality and regulatory 

affairs, or engaging in research and development activities. The remaining respondents 

who selected the option ‘other’ either did not specify their type of activities or mentioned 

other unique tasks. 

Figure 6:  

Grouped tasks of respondents (share of total responses ) 

Grouped tasks of 

respondents 

(n=2053) 

Number 

Share of 

Number 

of 

total 

Share of 

exclusively 

grouped 

grouped 

respondents 

undertaking 

responses 

responses 

activity 

Construction & installation 

1297 

Design & performance  

Purchasing  

Building control  

Other 

TOTAL 

799 

501 

330 

248 

41% 

25% 

16% 

10% 

8% 

63% 

39% 

24% 

16% 

12% 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

3175 

100% 

647 

338 

80 

40 

222 

1327 

Share of 

exclusive 

in number 

of 

responses 

50% 

42% 

16% 

12% 

90% 

22 

Construction & installationDesign & performance Purchasing Building control Other 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  6  shows  the  regrouped  breakdown  of  main  tasks  performed  by 

respondents within their professional work – allowing for multiple responses from 

a single respondent – regrouped by following tasks categories: 

•  Construction & installation, combines the tasks of ‘Managing construction sites’, 

‘Installation  of  construction  products  in  buildings’  and  ‘Repairing  or  maintaining 

buildings’; 

•  Design & performance, combines ‘Designing of buildings’ and ‘Calculating specific 

building performances’; 

•  Purchasing, which covers ‘Purchasing construction products for their company’; 

•  Building control, which covers ‘Building control for their company/for the building 

owner’; 

•  Other, which covers responses under the category ‘Other’ for this question. These 

constitute other specified construction-related tasks that could not be grouped into 

one of the above task categories including, for example, administrative, financial and 

managerial tasks. 

The most often indicated task is ‘Construction & installation’, which accounts for 41% of 

all  responses  (equating  to  63%  of  respondents),  followed  by  ‘Design  &  performance’ 

with 25% of responses, ‘Purchasing’ with 16% of responses, and ‘Building control’ with 

10% of responses.  

The task groupings outlined above are used in the analysis of later questions that provide 

a breakdown by ‘main tasks of respondents’. For these analyses, values for individual 

task  groups  are  calculated  using  responses  from  all  respondents  who  perform  tasks 

within  the  scope  of  the  task  group,  whether  exclusively  or  in  combination  with  other 

tasks. For respondents who perform tasks in multiple task groups, their responses are 

included in the corresponding calculations for each task group (i.e. their responses are 

included  in  the  calculations  for  more  than  one  task  group).  Consequently,  where 

responses to a question are broken down by ‘main tasks of respondents’, the total sum 

of  responses  across  all  task  groups  will  exceed  the  total  number  of  respondents  that 

answered the question. 

3.2.  Experience of obtaining technical information on construction products 

This  section  gives  an  overview  of  survey  responses  to  questions  that  address 

respondents’ experience in obtaining information and data on construction products in 

the past 5 years.  

Respondents were first requested to provide information on the frequency with which 

they  needed  to  obtain  technical  information  on  construction  products  (Q5).  Those 

respondents who did not need to obtain technical information, or required it only very 

occasionally  were  directed  to  the  second  part  of  the  questionnaire,  thereby  not 

answering  the  subsequent  questions  on:  the  types  of  products  for  which  technical 

information was needed (Q6), the types of information required (Q7), the sources used 

(Q8), the ease of obtaining information (Q9), and whether the information obtained was 

sufficient (Q10).  

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This section presents overall responses of each question as well as the responses per 
sector and size. When considered insightful, overviews of responses per task or 
country are also presented.  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 5: During the past 5 years, have you needed to obtain technical information 

on construction products; for example, because you have not used the product before 
or because of a different intended use of an already known product? 
Indicate the response that best corresponds to your situation 

Figure 7:  

Frequency of need for obtaining technical information on construction products 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure 7 shows that in the last 5 years, 61% of construction professionals needed 

to obtain technical information on construction products on a regular basis (i.e. 

at least on a monthly basis, or several times a year), while 22% of users indicate 

that they need to obtain information occasionally (i.e. a few times throughout a 

year). The 83% of respondents who selected these options were also requested to reply 

Questions  6  to12  before  continuing  with  Question  13.  Only  17%  of  construction 

professionals  did  not  need  to  obtain  technical  information  on  construction 

products or needed it only very occasionally during the past 5 years.  

Figure 8:  

Frequency of need for obtaining technical information on construction products 
(per sector) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

25 

Frequently26%Regularly 35%Occasionally 22%No/very occasionally 17%14%16%16%18%21%23%38%37%33%31%26%28%0%10%20%30%40%50%Architecture and engineeringInstallation servicesConstruction and renovationFrequentlyRegularlyOccasionallyNo/very occasionally 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 8 shows frequency of need for obtaining technical information, broken 

down by sector of activity. Of professionals from ‘Architecture and engineering’, 69% 

indicate that they need to obtain information on construction products at least monthly 

or several times per year, exceeding the 63% of professionals from ‘Installation services’ 

and the 61% from ‘Construction and renovation‘ professionals; the need of ‘Architecture 

and engineering’ professionals is statistically significantly higher (at a 95% confidence 

level) than that of the other two sectors. 

Figure 9:  

Frequency of need for obtaining technical information on construction products 
(per size) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure 9 shows frequency of need for obtaining technical information, broken 

down by company size. Respondents from larger companies tend to need to obtain 

information  on  construction  products  more  frequently  than  respondents  from  smaller 

companies. More precisely, the figure shows that 69% or respondents working in large 

firms  needed  to  obtain  technical  information  about  construction  products  at  least 

monthly or a few times a year. For medium-sized companies, the percentage is 67%, 

compared  to  63%  for  small  companies  and  55%  for  micro  companies.  The  need  of 

construction professionals from micro-companies is statistically significantly lower (at a 

95%  confidence  level)  than  that  of  other  company  size  categories,  which  can  be 

attributed to the low share (21%) of professionals from micro firms that report needing 

information on a frequent basis (i.e. on a daily or weekly basis). 

26 

19%16%15%17%13%17%22%28%36%37%34%34%33%30%29%21%0%10%20%30%40%50%LargeMediumSmallMicroFrequentlyRegularlyOccasionallyNo/very occasionally 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 10:  

Frequency of need for obtaining technical information on construction products 
(per respondents’ tasks) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure 10 shows frequency of need for obtaining technical information, broken 

down  by  the  main  tasks  of  respondents.  Of  professionals  who  are  occupied  in 

‘Design & performance’ related tasks, 80% indicate that they need to obtain information 

on construction products at least monthly or several times per year, which is statistically 

significantly higher (at a 95% confidence level) than for the other task categories. For 

professionals who engage in ‘Building control’ and ‘Purchasing’ tasks, the corresponding 

shares are 70%, and for professionals who are occupied in ‘Construction & installation’ 

tasks  the  share  is  only  63%;  the  share  for  ‘Construction  &  installation’  is  statistically 

significantly lower (at a 95% confidence level) than for the other three task categories. 

27 

8%8%6%14%22%22%14%24%38%37%40%36%32%33%40%27%0%10%20%30%40%50%Building controlPurchasingDesign &performanceConstruction &installationFrequentlyRegularlyOccasionallyNo/very occasionally 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 6: For which types of construction products (or product groups) have you 

needed to obtain technical information? 

Multiple replies possible - Question open to respondents who signalled they needed to obtain 

product information in the past 5 years (Question 5) 

Figure 11:  

Types of construction products for which technical information is needed 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

28 

5%8%10%10%11%13%14%14%15%15%15%16%16%17%19%19%19%19%19%20%21%21%21%22%22%23%23%24%24%27%27%29%29%34%0100200300400500600700OtherCirculation fixturesRoad construction productsStructural bearingsChimneysAnchorsCurtain walling productsAggregatesGeotextile productsStructural timber products and ancillariesWaste water disposal productsFixed fire-fighting equipmentSealants for non-structural use in joints in buildingsand pedestrian walkwaysGlass productsStructural metallic productsMembranesReinforcing steelExternal Thermal Insulation Composites Systems(ETICS)Pipes, tanks (for fuels, gas, water, drinking water)Power, control and communication cablesPrecast concrete productsWood based panelsGypsum productsSpace heating appliancesAdhesivesMasonry productsWall and ceiling finishesSanitary appliancesFloorings (all materials)Roof coveringsCementConcrete, mortar & groutDoors, windowsThermal insulating productsNumber of respondents 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  11  shows  the  different  types  of  construction  products  (or  product 

groups) for which information is needed, for construction professionals who needed 

to obtain technical information on construction products in the past 5 years. The most 

frequently mentioned product category is ‘Thermal insulating products’ (by 34% of these 

construction professionals). The next highest category is ‘Doors & windows’, followed by 

‘Concrete,  mortar  &  grout’,  ‘Cement’’,  ‘Roof  coverings’,  and  ‘Floorings’,  which  were 

selected by at least 25% of construction professionals who needed product information 

in  the  past  5  years.  The  construction  products  (or  product  groups)  that  are  least 

frequently  indicated  are  ‘Structural  bearings’,  ‘Road  construction  products’,  and 

‘Circulation fixtures’, which are indicated by 10% or less of construction professionals.  

The option ‘Other’ was selected by 5% of respondents. Among these respondents, 39% 

did not specify the other products for which they need information. Of those respondents 

that  specified  the  products  for  which  they  needed  technical  information,  the  most 

commonly mentioned product categories were: closures (13% of that gave information 

on  the  product),  paints  &  coating  (12%),  electrical  products  (7%).  Other  mentioned 

products include: other construction material, ventilation, energy products, composites, 

safety devices and plastics.  

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 12:   Types of construction products for which technical information is needed  

(per sector) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

30 

0%10%20%30%40%50%OtherCirculation fixturesRoad construction productsStructural bearingsChimneysAnchorsCurtain walling productsAggregatesGeotextile productsStructural timber products and ancillariesWaste water disposal productsFixed fire-fighting equipmentSealants for non-structural use in joints in…Glass productsStructural metallic productsMembranesReinforcing steelExternal Thermal Insulation Composites…Pipes, tanks (for fuels, gas, water, drinking…Power, control and communication cablesPrecast concrete productsGypsum productsWood based panelsAdhesivesSpace heating appliancesMasonry productsWall and ceiling finishesSanitary appliancesFloorings (all materials)Roof coveringsCementConcrete, mortar & groutDoors, windowsThermal insulating productsConstruction & renovationInstallation servicesArchitecture & engineering 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  12  shows  the  need  to  obtain  technical  information  on  construction 

products, broken down by sector of activity. In some cases, respondents from one 

sector indicate  a  higher  (or  lower)  need  for  information  on  some  specific  products  or 

product categories than is the case for other sectors. For example: 

• 

Professionals working  in  the  Architecture and  engineering sector  have  statistically 

significantly higher need (at 95% confidence level) for information for 21 of the 33 

construction  product  categories  (excluding  ‘Other’),  notably:  ‘Thermal  insulating 

products’ (43%), ‘Doors and windows’ (41%),‘Roof coverings’ (37%) and ‘Floorings‘ 

(36%); only 31% or less of respondents from the other two sectors selected these 

products; 

• 

Professionals working in Installation services have statistically higher needs (at 95% 

confidence  level)  for  information  on  ‘Power,  control  and  communication  cables’ 

‘Space heating appliances’ and ‘Pipes, tanks (for fuels, gas, water, drinking water)’ 

with shares of 40%, 36% and 34% respectively, while less than 30% of respondents 

from the Architecture and engineering and less than 20% from the Construction and 

renovation sectors selected these products; 

• 

Professional  working  in  the  Construction  and  renovation  sector  have  statistically 

significantly  lower  need  (at  95%  confidence  level)  for  information  on  ‘Sanitary 

appliances’ (22%), ‘Space heating appliances’ (19%), ‘Pipes, tanks (for fuels, gas, 

water, drinking water)’ (18%), ‘Power, control and communication cables’ (17%), 

‘Waste water disposal products’ (15%), ‘Fixed fire-fighting equipment’ (14%) than 

is the case for the other two sectors. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 13:  

Types of construction products for which technical information is needed  
(per size) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

32 

0%10%20%30%40%50%OtherCirculation fixturesRoad construction productsStructural bearingsChimneysAnchorsCurtain walling productsAggregatesGeotextile productsStructural timber products and ancillariesWaste water disposal productsFixed fire-fighting equipmentSealants for non-structural use in joints in buildingsand pedestrian walkwaysGlass productsStructural metallic productsMembranesReinforcing steelExternal Thermal Insulation Composites Systems(ETICS)Pipes, tanks (for fuels, gas, water, drinking water)Power, control and communication cablesPrecast concrete productsWood based panelsGypsum productsAdhesivesSpace heating appliancesMasonry productsWall and ceiling finishesSanitary appliancesFloorings (all materials)Roof coveringsCementConcrete, mortar & groutDoors, windowsThermal insulating productsMicroSmallMediumLarge 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  13  shows  the  need  to  obtain  technical  information  on  construction 

products, broken down by company size. Among the features that stand-out from 

the figure can be noted the following:  

•  Professionals working in micro companies have a statistically higher share (at a 95% 

confidence  level)  of  professionals  reporting  the  need  for  information  on  ‘Thermal 

insulating  products’  (39%,  compared  to  30%  or  less  for  the  other  company  size 

categories),  ‘Doors,  windows’  (34%  compared  to  27%  or  less),  ‘Floorings’  (31% 

compared to 23% or less); 

•  Professionals working in small companies, have a statistically significant (at a 95% 

confidence level) lower need for information on ‘Fixed fire-fighting equipment’ (9%) 

compared  to  all  other  company  size  categories,  while  professionals  in  micro-

companies  (15%)  have  a  statistically  significant  lower  level  of  need  than  those  in 

medium sized companies (20%) and large companies (23%); 

•  Professionals  working  in  large  companies  have  a  statistically  higher  (at  a  95% 

confidence  level)  need  for  information  on  ‘Aggregates’  (24%  compared  to  15%  or 

less for the other company size categories) and ‘Structural bearings’ (18% compared 

to 11% or less). They also have relatively high shares for ‘Concrete, mortar & grout’, 

‘Precast  concrete  products’,  ‘Masonry  products’,  ‘Reinforcing  steel’,  ‘Structural 

metallic  products’,  ‘Membranes’,  and  ‘Power,  control  and  communication  cables’, 

which were more commonly selected by medium and large companies as well as in 

‘Roof coverings’, which to a lesser extent tend to also be more frequently mentioned 

by medium companies that by smaller and micro companies. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 14:  

Types of construction products for which technical information is needed  
(per employees’ tasks)  

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

34 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%OtherCirculation fixturesRoad construction productsStructural bearingsChimneysAnchorsCurtain walling productsAggregatesGeotextile productsStructural timber products and ancillariesWaste water disposal productsFixed fire-fighting equipmentSealants for non-structural use in joints in buildingsand pedestrian walkwaysGlass productsStructural metallic productsMembranesReinforcing steelExternal Thermal Insulation Composites Systems(ETICS)Pipes, tanks (for fuels, gas, water, drinking water)Power, control and communication cablesPrecast concrete productsWood based panelsGypsum productsSpace heating appliancesAdhesivesMasonry productsWall and ceiling finishesSanitary appliancesFloorings (all materials)Roof coveringsCementConcrete, mortar & groutDoors, windowsThermal insulating productsConstruction & installationDesign & performancePurchasingBuilding control 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  14  shows  the  need  to  obtain  technical  information  on  construction 

products,  broken  down  by  the  main  tasks  of  respondents.  The  data  show 

systematically higher  shares of construction  professionals  engaged  in  Building control 

tasks  needing  technical  information  than  professional  performing  other  tasks  for  all 

product  categories,  except  for  ‘Other’  products.  Conversely,  professionals  engaged  in 

Construction and installation tasks have lower shares compared to other professionals, 

with the exception of ‘Adhesives’, ‘Precast concrete products’ and ‘Other’ products, for 

which professionals engaged in Design & performance have the lowest shares.  

Specific  example  of  statistically  significant  (at  a  95%  confidence  level)  difference 

include: 

•  Professional  engaged  in  Building  control  tasks  have  statistically  significant  higher 

need for technical information than the other three task groups for: ‘Doors, windows’, 

‘Concrete, mortar & grout’, ‘Wall and ceiling finishes’, Masonry products’, ‘External 

Thermal Insulation Composites Systems (ETICS)’, ‘Waste water disposal products’, 

‘Structural timber products and ancillaries’, ‘Aggregates’ and ‘Anchors’; 

•  Professional engaged in  Design  &  performance, have  statistically  significant  higher 

need  than  all  other  task  groups  only  for  ‘Adhesives’,  while  the  same  applies  for 

Purchasing professionals for ‘Curtain walling products’; 

•  Professionals  engaged  in  Construction  and  installation  have  statistically  significant 

lower need than the other three task groups for 13 of the 33 listed product categories, 

notably: ‘Thermal insulating products’, ‘Doors, windows’, ‘Roof coverings’, ‘Masonry 

products’, ‘Space heating appliances’, ‘Adhesives’ and ‘Wood based panels’. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 7: For the construction products (or product groups) for which you have needed 

technical information, which of the following types of information were you looking for?  

Multiple replies possible - Question open to respondents who signalled they needed to obtain product 

information in the past 5 years (Question 5) 

Figure 15:  

Need for technical information on construction products by information type 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  15  shows  the  different  types  of  technical  information  on  construction 

products  needed  by  construction  professionals  who  needed  to  obtain  such 

information in the past five years. The most frequently indicated type of information is 

the ‘Intended use of the product’, which is needed by 50% of construction professionals, 

followed by information on ‘Mechanical strength (data or class)’(48%), information on 

‘Behaviour in fire’, ‘Guidance/manual for installation’, ‘Thermal conductivity’ and ‘Sound 

insulation properties’, which are all mentioned by more than one third of construction 

professionals that need to obtain technical information over the past 5 years.  

Only  3%  of  respondents  selected  the  category  ‘Other’  for  the  type  of  technical 

information needed. Types of information mentioned by these respondents included: the 

price  of  products,  certifications  and  test  reports,  as  well  as  miscellaneous  technical 

information  (i.e.  durability,  basis  of  calculation,  viscosities,  densities,  reaction  time, 

thermal insulation, permeability and other). 

36 

3%10%14%16%16%16%20%24%24%28%34%35%36%40%48%50%02004006008001000OtherContact details of testing facility/TechnicalAssessment Body (for ETAs)Leaking into soil and waterEmissions into indoor airGeneral Environmental Product Declarations(EPD)Reusability/possibility for dismantlingRecyclabilityContact details of manufacturerGuidance/manual for maintenance or repairworkContents of dangerous substancesSound insulation propertiesThermal conductivityGuidance/manual for installationBehaviour in fireMechanical strengthIntended use of the productNumber of respondents 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 16:  

Need for technical information on construction products by information type  
(per sector) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  16  shows  the  different  types  of  information  needed,  broken  down  by 

sector of activity. ‘Intended use of the product’ is the most frequently indicated type 

of  information  for  professionals  in  Construction  and  renovation  (52%)  as  well  as  for 

professionals  in  Installation  services  (49%),  together  with  ‘Guidance/manual  for 

installation’  (49%).  For  professionals  in  Architecture  and  engineering,  the  most 

frequently  selected  option  was  ‘Mechanical  strength’  (57%),  which  is  statistically 

significantly higher (at a 95% confidence level) than for professionals in the other two 

sectors.  Other  statistically  significant  differences  (at  a  95%  confidence  level)  are  as 

follows: 

•  Professional engaged in Installation services have higher needs for ‘Guidance/manual 

for installation’ and ‘Guidance/manual for maintenance or repair work’ than the other 

two sectors; 

•  Professional  engaged  in  Construction  &  renovation  have  lower  needs  for 

‘Guidance/manual for installation’ and ‘General Environmental Product Declarations 

(EPD)’ than the other two sectors; 

• 

In  addition  to  ‘Mechanical  strength’,  professionals  in  Architecture  and  engineering 

have higher shares of professionals reporting needs for ‘Sound insulation properties’, 

‘Contact  details  of  manufacturer’  and  ‘Contact  details  of  testing  facility/Technical 

Assessment Body (for ETAs)’. 

37 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%OtherContact details of testing facility/TechnicalAssessment Body (for ETAs)Leaking into soil and waterEmissions into indoor airGeneral Environmental Product Declarations(EPD)Reusability/possibility for dismantlingRecyclabilityContact details of manufacturerGuidance/manual for maintenance or repairworkContents of dangerous substancesSound insulation propertiesThermal conductivityGuidance/manual for installationBehaviour in fireMechanical strengthIntended use of the productConstruction & renovationInstallation servicesArchitecture & engineering 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 17:  

Need for technical information on construction products by information type  
(per size) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  17  shows  the  different  types  of  information  needed,  broken  down  by 

company size. ‘Intended use of the product’ is the most frequently indicated type of 

information  for  professionals  in  micro  and  small  companies  followed  by  ‘Mechanical 

strength‘.  These  are  also  the  two  most  selected  options  for  medium  and  large 

companies, but in the reverse order. The share of professionals needing information on 

‘Thermal  conductivity’  amongst  micro  companies  was  44%,  which  is  statistically 

significantly  higher  (at  a  95%  confidence  level)  than  the  35%  for  professionals  from 

small  companies,  the  28%  for  large  companies  and  the  26%  amongst  medium 

companies.  Micro  enterprises  also  show  a  statistically  significant  higher  share  of 

professionals needing information on ‘Sound insulation properties’ (41% compared to 

less  than  33%  for  the  other  three  firm  size  categories).  Some  variation  between 

respondents from different company sizes is also noted for ‘Recyclability’, which is more 

frequently  mentioned  by  respondents  from  large  and  medium  sized  companies,  and 

‘Sound insulation properties’, which is more frequently mentioned by micro companies. 

38 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%OtherContact details of testing facility/TechnicalAssessment Body (for ETAs)Leaking into soil and waterEmissions into indoor airGeneral Environmental Product Declarations(EPD)Reusability/possibility for dismantlingRecyclabilityContact details of manufacturerGuidance/manual for maintenance or repairworkContents of dangerous substancesSound insulation propertiesThermal conductivityGuidance/manual for installationBehaviour in fireMechanical strengthIntended use of the productMicroSmallMediumLarge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 18:  

Need for technical information on construction products by information type  
(per employees’ tasks) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure 18 shows the different types of information needed, broken down by the 

main task of respondents. For all four categories, the three most frequently selected 

options  are  the  same  i.e.  ‘Intended  use  of  the  product’,  ‘Mechanical  strength’  and 

‘Behaviour  in  fire’,  in  this  order,  with  exception  professionals  engaging  in  Building 

control, who selected more frequently ‘Mechanical strength’ than ‘Intended use of the 

products’.  Professionals  engaging  in  design  and  performance  also  selected  less 

frequently  the  options  ‘Guidance/manual  for  installation’  and  ‘Guidance/manual  for 

maintenance or repair work’ compared to professionals in the other task categories.  

Except from ‘Intended use of the product’, the responses from professionals engaged in 

Building  control  tasks  indicate  that  they  have  a  greater  need  for  different  types  of 

technical information compared to the other task categories; although the difference is 

statistically significant (at a 95% confidence level) from the other three task groups only 

for  ‘Thermal  conductivity  (data  or  class)’.  Nonetheless,  it  appears  that  the  range 

(variety) of technical information required by professionals engaged in Building control 

tasks  is  wider  than  for  other  task  categories.  By  contrast,  professionals  engaged  in 

Construction  &  installation  have  statistically  significantly  lower  needs  than  the  other 

three task groups for ‘Behaviour in fire (e.g. resistance or reaction to fire -performance 

class)’,  ‘Thermal  conductivity  (data  or  class)’,  ‘Sound  insulation  properties’,  ‘Contact 

details  of  manufacturer’,  ‘Emissions  into  indoor  air  (values  or  classes)’  and  ‘Contact 

details of testing facility/Technical Assessment Body (for ETAs)’. 

39 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%OtherContact details of testing facility/TechnicalAssessment Body (for ETAs)Leaking into soil and waterEmissions into indoor airGeneral Environmental Product Declarations(EPD)Reusability/possibility for dismantlingRecyclabilityContact details of manufacturerGuidance/manual for maintenance or repairworkContents of dangerous substancesSound insulation propertiesThermal conductivityGuidance/manual for installationBehaviour in fireMechanical strengthIntended use of the productConstruction & installationDesign & performancePurchasingBuilding control 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 8: For the construction products (or product groups) for which you have 

needed technical information, which of the following sources did you use to obtain the 

needed information? 

Multiple replies possible - Question open to respondents who signalled they needed to obtain 

product information in the past 5 years (Question 5) 

Figure 19:  

Sources used to obtain technical information on construction products 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure 19 shows the sources of information used by construction professionals 

who needed to obtain technical information on construction products in the past 5 years. 

More  than  three-quarters  (77%)  of  these  construction  professionals  indicate  using 

‘Product data sheet’, while more than half (53%) use ‘Product information supplied on 

the  product  or  accompanying  the  product’.  Certificates  are  a  much  less  frequently 

mentioned source of information, with ‘Certificates provided by authorities’ achieving a 

frequency of 31% if they include specific technical data, and only 25% if they are without 

specific technical data.  

Only 4% of respondents indicated using ‘Other’ sources of information. Of these, around 

a  third  indicated  that  they  obtain  technical  information  from  the  internet  and  over  a 

quarter  from  the  manufacturer;  other  sources  mentioned  are:  authorities  (but  not 

certificates), experts, or other undefined third parties.  

40 

4%25%31%53%77%0200400600800100012001400OtherCertificates provided by authorities (withoutany specific technical data)Certificates provided by authorities (includingspecific technical data)Product information supplied on the product oraccompanying the product (e.g. Declaration ofperformance or CE marking)Product data sheetNumber of respondents 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 20:  

Sources used to obtain technical information on construction products  
(per sector) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure 20 illustrates the sources of information used broken down by sector of 

activity. The ranking of sources is the same for all the sectors. Overall, there do not 

seem to be major differences in the sources of information needed per sector. Although 

the shares of Architecture & engineering professionals using information from ‘Product 

data sheet’ and ‘Certificates provided by authorities (including specific technical data)’ 

are statistically significantly higher  (at a 95% confidence level)  than for both  the two 

other sectors. 

Figure 21:  

Sources used to obtain technical information on construction products (per size) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure 21 shows the sources of information used broken down by company 
size. In this case some differences appear. ‘Product data sheet’ are used as a source 
of information by 84% of professionals working in micro companies, which is 
statistically significantly higher (at a 95% confidence level) than the 77% for small 
companies, 76% for large companies and 66% for medium companies. Professionals 
from medium companies show a higher utilisation of ‘Certificates provided by 
authorities (without any specific technical data)’, with 34% of respondents indicating 

41 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%OtherCertificates provided by authorities (withoutany specific technical data)Certificates provided by authorities (includingspecific technical data)Product information supplied on the product oraccompanying the product (e.g. Declaration ofperformance or CE marking)Product data sheetConstruction & renovationInstallation servicesArchitecture & engineering0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%OtherCertificates provided by authorities(without any specific technical data)Certificates provided by authorities(including specific technical data)Product information supplied on theproduct or accompanying the product(e.g. Declaration of performance or…Product data sheetMicroSmallMediumLarge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
that they use this source, compared to 32% for respondents from large companies, 
24% for small companies, and 20% for micro companies.  

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 9: For the construction products (or product groups) for which you have 

needed technical information, were you able to obtain the information that you were 

looking for? 

Indicate the response that best corresponds to your situation - Question open to respondents 

who signalled they needed to obtain product information in the past 5 years (Question 5) 

Figure 22:  

Ability and ease of obtaining technical information on construction products by 
information type (excluding ‘Not relevant’) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  22  shows  the  ease  of  obtaining  technical  information  by  information 

type,  for  construction  professionals  who  needed  to  obtain  technical  information  on 

construction products in the past five years. Figure 22 excludes those respondents that 

indicated a particular type of information was not relevant for them. 

The  information  that  was  most  easy  for  construction  professionals  to  obtain  is  the 

‘Intended  use  of  the  product’  and  the  ‘Contact  details  of  the  manufacturer’  which, 

together  with  ‘Mechanical  strength’,  also  have  the  lowest  rates  of  responses  by 

construction  professionals  indicating  they  were  ‘unable  to  find  information’.  Similarly, 

but  to  a  lower  extent,  it  appeared  easy  for  construction  professionals  to  obtain 

information  in  the  form  of  ‘Guidance/manuals  for  installation’  and  ‘Guidance/manuals 

for maintenance or repair’, or information on ‘Thermal conductivity’.  

43 

18%17%21%19%16%19%17%7%12%16%10%9%9%11%7%3%42%40%39%44%42%42%45%28%44%44%41%38%34%42%45%31%40%43%39%37%42%39%38%64%44%40%48%53%57%47%49%66%0%20%40%60%80%100%Other (as specified in Question 7)Contact details of testing facility/TechnicalAssessment Body (for ETAs)Leaking into soil and waterEmissions into indoor airGeneral Environmental Product Declarations(EPD)Reusability/possibility for dismantlingRecyclabilityContact details of manufacturerGuidance/manual for maintenance or repairworkContents of dangerous substancesSound insulation propertiesThermal conductivityGuidance/manual for installationBehaviour in fireMechanical strengthIntended use of the productNO unable to find informationYES but with some effort requiredYES relatively easily 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Conversely, it appears relatively more difficult to obtain information on ‘Leaking into soil 

and  water’,  ‘Reusability/possibility  for  dismantling’,  ‘Emissions  into  indoor  air’, 

‘Recyclability’,  and  ‘Contact  details  of  testing  facility/Technical  Assessment  Body  (for 

ETAs)’, For these information types, 17% or more of construction professionals indicate 

being unable to find the information they need.  

Figure 23: 

Ability and ease of obtaining technical information on construction products by 
information type (per sector) - Sum of ‘YES relatively easily’ and ‘YES but with 
some effort required’ as a share of total responses (excluding ‘Not relevant’) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  23  shows  the  ease  of  obtaining  technical  information  by  information 

type, broken down by sector of activity. The figure shows the sum of the responses 

‘YES relatively easily’ and ‘YES but with some effort required’ and, accordingly, a high 

value  indicates  that  it  is  relatively  easy  for  construction  professionals  to  obtain  the 

information. Overall, there do not seem to be major differences  across sectors; there 

are no systematic statistically different shares  (at a 95% confidence level) across the 

sectors  for  any  of  the  information  types.  The  highest  variation  is  noted  for  the 

‘Reusability/possibility for dismantling’, for which professionals engaging in Architecture 

and engineering indicate having more difficulties obtaining this information compared to 

professionals in the other sectors. 

44 

50%60%70%80%90%100%Other (as specified in Question 7)Contact details of testing facility/TechnicalAssessment Body (for ETAs)Leaking into soil and waterEmissions into indoor airGeneral Environmental Product Declarations(EPD)Reusability/possibility for dismantlingRecyclabilityContact details of manufacturerGuidance/manual for maintenance or repairworkContents of dangerous substancesSound insulation propertiesThermal conductivityGuidance/manual for installationBehaviour in fireMechanical strengthIntended use of the productConstruction & renovationInstallation servicesArchitecture & engineering 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 24:  

Ability and ease of obtaining technical information on construction products by 
information type (per size) - Sum of ‘YES relatively easily’ and ‘YES but with 
some effort required’ as a share of total responses (excluding ‘Not relevant’) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  24  shows  the  ease  of  obtaining  technical  information  by  information 

type,  broken  down  by  company  size.  The  figure  shows  the  sum  of  the  responses 

‘YES relatively easily’ and ‘YES but with some effort required’, such that a high value 

indicates  that  it  is  easy  for  construction  professional  to  obtain  information.  ‘Intended 

use of the product’ is identified by all size categories as the easiest type of information 

to be obtained. The perception of ease of obtaining information on ‘Recyclability’ as well 

as ‘Leaking into soil and water’ varies considerably among users from different company 

sizes. For ‘Recyclability’, medium and large companies perceive this type of information 

as relatively easy compared to small and micro companies, with micro companies having 

a statistically significantly lower share (at a 95% confidence level) that report being able 

to obtain this information ‘relatively easily’ or ‘with some effort required’.  

For  Question  9,  to  check  for  possible  country  differences  in  the  ease  of  obtaining 

information,  a  breakdown  has  been  made  by  Member  State  for  certain  types  of 

information 

(‘Behaviour 

in 

fire’, 

‘Mechanical 

strength’, 

‘Recyclability’, 

‘Reusability/possibility for dismantling’). The results are shown in Figures 25 & 26. 

45 

50%60%70%80%90%100%Other (as specified in Question 7)Contact details of testing facility/TechnicalAssessment Body (for ETAs)Leaking into soil and waterEmissions into indoor airGeneral Environmental Product Declarations(EPD)Reusability/possibility for dismantlingRecyclabilityContact details of manufacturerGuidance/manual for maintenance or repairworkContents of dangerous substancesSound insulation propertiesThermal conductivityGuidance/manual for installationBehaviour in fireMechanical strengthIntended use of the productMicroSmallMediumLarge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 25:  

Ability and ease of obtaining technical information on construction products for 
‘Behaviour in fire’ and ‘Mechanical strength’ (per country - excluding ‘Not 
relevant’)  

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure 25 shows the ease of obtaining technical information for ‘Behaviour in 

fire’ and ‘Mechanical strength’ by country of the respondent. For information on 

‘Behaviour in fire’, more than 85% of respondents in 8 countries were able to find this 

information, relatively easily or with some effort. Conversely, construction professionals 

were statistically significantly less likely (at a 95% confidence level) to be able to find 

information on ‘Behaviour in fire’ in the Netherlands (23% report being unable to find 

this information) compared to the average across all other countries; Belgium (22%); 

Austria  (17%)  and  Poland  (16%)  also  have  relatively  high  shares  of  respondents 

reporting being unable to find this type of information. 

For ‘Mechanical strength’  the share of  respondents  who were  able to  find  information 

‘relatively easily’ or ‘with some efforts required’ is above 85% in all countries, with 95% 

or higher reporting being able to find this information in Denmark, Ireland, Poland and 

Italy.  The  highest  shares  of  users  unable  to  obtain  such  information  are  in  Austria, 

46 

14%9%13%16%23%9%8%8%8%7%22%17%47%42%73%34%38%41%47%47%38%61%27%42%39%49%15%50%40%50%45%45%54%32%51%42%0%20%40%60%80%100%UKSpainRomaniaPolandNetherlandsItalyIrelandGermanyFranceDenmarkBelgiumAustriaBehaviour in fire10%8%11%3%9%4%2%6%7%2%7%14%51%47%57%47%42%44%53%41%38%54%36%43%40%45%31%50%49%51%45%53%55%44%57%43%0%20%40%60%80%100%UKSpainRomaniaPolandNetherlandsItalyIrelandGermanyFranceDenmarkBelgiumAustriaMechanical strengthNO unable to find informationYES but with some effort requiredYES relatively easily 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Romania  and  the  UK  (14%,  11%  and  10%  respectively)  but  their  shares  are  not 

statistically significantly different (at a 95% confidence level) from the averages for all 

other countries. 

Figure 26:  

Ability and ease of obtaining technical information on construction products for 
‘Behaviour in fire’ and ‘Mechanical strength’ (per country - excluding ‘Not 
relevant’)  

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure 26 shows the ease of obtaining technical information for ‘Recyclability’ 

and ‘Reusability/possibility for dismantling’ by country of respondents. For both 

information types, the situation appears more contrasted, with large variations across 

countries. The share of professionals reporting that they were unable to find both types 

of  information  is  statistically  significantly  higher  (at  a  95%  confidence  level)  for 

Denmark, Romania and Poland when compared to other countries. The country with the 

lowest  share  of  respondents  unable  to  obtain  information  for  ‘Recyclability’  and 

‘Reusability/possibility for dismantling’  is Ireland, which  also has the  highest  share  of 

respondents indicating that they are able to find this type of information relatively easily.  

47 

19%13%45%41%16%12%8%19%17%58%24%13%47%49%27%33%50%52%43%47%38%32%41%41%34%38%27%26%34%36%49%34%46%11%35%47%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%UKSpainRomaniaPolandNetherlandsItalyIrelandGermanyFranceDenmarkBelgiumAustriaRecyclability16%15%38%42%18%17%10%24%18%53%26%13%48%42%34%23%39%48%43%35%38%26%41%52%35%42%28%35%43%35%47%41%44%21%33%35%0%20%40%60%80%100%UKSpainRomaniaPolandNetherlandsItalyIrelandGermanyFranceDenmarkBelgiumAustriaReusability/possibility for dismantlingNO unable to find informationYES but with some effort requiredYES relatively easily 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 10: In your opinion, what could be done to make technical information on 

construction products more easily available for your work? 

Open text answers - Question open to respondents who signalled they needed to obtain 

product information in the past 5 years (Question 5) 

Construction professionals who needed to obtain technical information in the past five 

years were requested to provide their opinion on how construction products’ information 

would be made more easily available to them. Of the respondents to which this question 

was  addressed,  56  respondents  indicated  that  they  are  satisfied  with  the  current 

information available, 221 indicated that they had no suggestion, and a further 385 left 

the  question  blank.  Nonetheless,  1044  construction  professionals  expressed  some 

opinion  on  possible  improvements.  After  grouping  of  responses,  the  main  types  of 

suggestions are summarised below. 

Availability of information on the internet 

Of the 1044 construction professionals who provided some suggestions, over half (53%) 

referred  to  the  availability  of  information  on  the  internet.  The  inputs  of  these 

respondents were further grouped in 4 sub-categories: 

•  Online construction products database(s): around 20% of all respondents that 

shared an opinion, indicated that online database(s) with information on construction 

products  from  different  manufacturers  would  facilitate  their  access  to  technical 

information.  Some  respondents  indicated  specific  characteristics  and  features  that 

such  a  database  should  have;  examples  of  mentioned  characteristics  are: 

independence,  reliable,  transparent,  exhaustive,  free  of  charge,  easily  accessible, 

including  a  strong  search  engine,  enabling  users  to  share/review  information, 

frequently updated, dividing products into groups and maintaining historical data of 

construction  products.  Some  respondents  also  envisaged  the  types  of  information 

such a database should contain; for example: all technical information, data sheets, 

certificates,  standards,  contact  details  as  well  as  links  to  key  documents  and 

approvals. Finally, some respondents indicated other specificities regarding the scope 

of  such  a  database;  for  example,  geographical  scope  (i.e.  EU  level,  national)  or 

sectoral focus; 

•  Upload information or  improve manufacturers’ websites: around 17%  of all 

respondents  that  shared  an  opinion  referred  to  manufacturers’  websites.  Some 

respondents  indicated  that  information  should  be  made  available  for  all  products 

should be made available of manufacturers’ websites or commented on the structure 

and functionality of manufacturers’ websites. In some cases, reference was made to 

specific  information  requirements  (e.g.  data  sheets,  manuals,  certificates,  other 

technical  information). Some also  mentioned  the  need  to be  able to download the 

information  from  the  websites  in  convenient  formats  (e.g.  pdf,  cad).  Other  issues 

concerning of manufacturers’ websites included, for example: the need for clear and 

simple  structure,  good  organisation  of  information,  functional  search  function, 

improved download areas as well as interactive chat functions; 

•  Availability of information online: 14% of all respondents that shared an opinion 
stressed the need to have access to information online, without specifying if it should 

be through databases or on specific websites (e.g. manufacturers’ website). Certain 

respondents indicated the type of data they would like to have online access to; for 

example: technical data, manuals, data sheets as well as video tutorials and more. 

Additionally, a few respondents indicated the need for areas to review and discuss 

with the manufacturers and other users (e.g. forums and platforms); 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Access  to  digital  information:  2%  of  all  respondents  that  shared  an  opinion 
indicated  ideas  on  ways  to  access  online  data  about  products.  Some  examples 

mentioned by  multiple respondents include:  scanning of QR codes or  barcodes for 

instant access to product information such as data sheets. Others indicated that a 

phone  application  would  be  convenient  way  to  access  information  on  construction 

products. 

Improving provided information 

Approximately, one-in-three construction professionals who provided some suggestions, 

referred to the information provided with remarks on their sufficiency, structure, quality 

etc. The inputs of these respondents were further grouped in 5 sub-categories, which 

are the following: 

•  Make more information available: 9% of all respondents that shared an opinion 

indicated  more  information  is  needed  to  facilitate  their  work  with  construction 

products.  Some  professionals  indicated  specific  examples  of  information  that  they 

would  like  to  be  able  to  access;  for  example:  technical  data  sheet,  substances, 

contents list, recyclability, environmental impact, manuals, contacts of manufacturer, 

safety  file,  design  data,  original  manufacturer,  country  of  origin,  price  list, 

regulations,  certificates.  A  few  respondents  also  indicated  that  they  would  like  to 

have access to more detailed technical information, such as more complete technical 

sheets; 

•  Accessibility  of  information:  7%  of  all  respondents  that  shared  an  opinion 

stressed that access to information is essential. Some respondents indicated the need 

for  free  access  to  the  full  information  and  documentation  related  to  construction 

products, as well as to databases compiling data, standards and national technical 

assessments.  A  few  respondents  indicated  that  information  should  be  provided 

directly by the manufacturer with the acquisition of a construction product (e.g. by 

e-mail  or  in  paper),  without  a  request  being  necessary.  Additionally,  some 

respondents  also  indicated  that  access  to  information  should  be  made  as  easy  as 

possible without registrations being required; 

•  Quality of information: 5% of all respondents that shared an opinion indicated the 

importance of the quality of provided information. For  example, some respondents 

indicated  that  information,  should  be  clear,  accurate,  concise,  understandable, 

presented in an appropriate way (with figures in certain cases), including all details 

in a structured way as well as presenting information in a practical way; 

•  Standardisation  of  information:  5%  of  respondents  that  shared  an  opinion 

mentioned  standardisation  as  an  essential  issue  for  improving  the  provided 

information.  Professionals  raised  issues  such  as  standardising  the  collection  and 

presentation  of  information,  as  well  as  adopting  standardised  structures  of  data 

sheets, product summaries etc.; 

•  Availability  and  quality  of  data  sheets:  several  responses  indicated  the 

importance of always making data sheets available, while other indicated that data 

sheets  could  be  sufficient  as  a  single  source  of  technical  information  if  properly 

completed and providing in depth information. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other issues 

Approximately  20% of  respondents that shared  an  opinion  could not be grouped into 

the aforementioned categories. Among the areas covered by these other responses are 

the following: 

•  Regulatory  considerations:  2%  of  all  respondents  that  shared  an  opinion 

indicated  the  need  for  regulatory  actions.  Some  examples  of  inputs  mentioned  by 

several  respondents  are  the  following:  clear  rules  and  standards,  making  the 

provision of information obligatory requirement for manufacturers as well as adoption 

of clear guidelines for providing information. However, a few respondents indicated 

that actions should be taken to reduce existing restrictions and regulations; 

•  Trainings: 1% of all respondents that shared an opinion stressed the need for the 

provision  of  trainings  and  seminars  for  both  users  and  providers  of  construction 

products; 

•  Language: 1% of all respondents that shared an opinion indicated that information 

should be provided also in the local languages; 

•  Customer service: several respondents indicated that high-level customer service 

with  technical  knowledge  is  essential  for  enhancing  communication  with  users  of 

construction products; 

•  Classification: several respondents indicated that a more efficient classification (by 

an  authority  or  independent  body)  of  construction  products  is  necessary  amongst 

other for comparability of products. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 11: For the construction products (or product groups) for which you have 

obtained technical information, was the information sufficiently precise for the 

purposes of your work? 
Indicate the response that best corresponds to your situation - Question open to respondents 
who signalled they needed to obtain product information in the past 5 years (Question 5) 

Figure 27:  

Sufficiency of technical information on construction products by information type 
(excluding ‘Not relevant’) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure 27 shows a breakdown according to whether information obtained was 

judged sufficiently precise for the requirements of those construction professionals 

who needed to obtain  technical  information on construction products. The breakdown 

excludes information from  respondents that indicated a particular type of  information 

was not relevant for them.  

Overall,  between 78% to 96% (depending of  the  type  of information) of respondents 

consider the information  as precise (i.e. options ‘Yes sufficiently precise’  and ‘Yes but 

could  be  better’).  The  general  pattern  of  responses  shown  in  figure  27  reveals  some 

similarities  with  that  for  the  relative  ease  of  obtaining  information  (figure  22).  The 

information  that  is  most  often  considered  sufficiently  precise  concerns  the  ‘Contact 

details of the manufacturer’ and the ‘Intended use of the product’ which, together with 

information  on  ‘Mechanical  strength’,  which  have  the  lowest  rates  of  responses  by 

51 

14%16%19%19%16%22%19%9%13%18%12%11%10%14%8%4%50%43%45%45%44%41%43%32%40%42%43%42%41%40%41%39%37%42%36%36%40%36%37%59%47%40%45%47%50%46%50%58%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Other (as specified in Question 7)Contact details of testing facility/TechnicalAssessment Body (for ETAs)Leaking into soil and waterEmissions into indoor airGeneral Environmental Product Declarations(EPD)Reusability/possibility for dismantlingRecyclabilityContact details of manufacturerGuidance/manual for maintenance or repairworkContents of dangerous substancesSound insulation propertiesThermal conductivityGuidance/manual for installationBehaviour in fireMechanical strengthIntended use of the productNO not sufficientYES but could be betterYES sufficiently precise 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
construction professionals indicating the information is ‘not sufficient’. Information types 

for which there is a high relative share of responses indicating that the information was 

‘not  sufficient’  and  a  low  share  for  information  was  ‘sufficiently  precise’  are: 

‘Reusability/possibility  for  dismantling’,  ‘Recyclability’,  ‘Emissions  into  indoor  air’, 

‘Leaking into soil and water’ and ‘Contents of dangerous substances’ with 18% or more 

of respondents indicating that the information available was ‘not sufficient’. 

Figure 28:  

Sufficiency of technical information on construction products by information type 
(per sector) - Sum of ‘Yes, sufficiently precise’ and ‘YES but could be better’ as 
a share of total responses (excluding ‘Not relevant’) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  28  shows  the  sufficiency  of  technical  information  on  construction 

products  by  information  type,  broken  down  sector  of  activity.  The  figure 

illustrates  the  sum  of  the  responses  ‘YES  sufficiently  precise’  and  ‘YES  but  could  be 

better’,  thereby  showing  the  share  of  construction  professionals  considering  the 

information  provided  as  sufficiently  precise.  Overall,  there  do  not  seem  to  be  major 

differences  across  sectors  for  different  information  types.  However,  the  proportion  of 

Architecture and engineering professionals that indicate that information is sufficiently 

precise tends to be lower than for other sectors, but the observed differences are not 

statistically significant. 

52 

50%60%70%80%90%100%Other (as specified in Question 7)Contact details of testing facility/TechnicalAssessment Body (for ETAs)Leaking into soil and waterEmissions into indoor airGeneral Environmental Product Declarations(EPD)Reusability/possibility for dismantlingRecyclabilityContact details of manufacturerGuidance/manual for maintenance or repairworkContents of dangerous substancesSound insulation propertiesThermal conductivityGuidance/manual for installationBehaviour in fireMechanical strengthIntended use of the productConstruction & renovationInstallation servicesArchitecture & engineering 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 29: 

Sufficiency of technical information on construction products by information type 
(per size) - Sum of ‘Yes, sufficiently precise’ and ‘YES but could be better’ as a 
share of total responses (excluding ‘Not relevant’) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  29  shows  the  sufficiency  of  technical  information  on  construction 

products by information type, broken down by company size. Again, the figures 

illustrate  the  sum  of  the  responses  ‘YES  sufficiently  precise’  and  ‘YES  but  could  be 

better’. ‘Intended use of the product’ receives the highest frequency of responses for all 

size categories. On average, the share of professionals working for large and medium 

sized companies that indicate that information is sufficiently precise is higher than for 

smaller companies; although there are no systematic statistically significant differences 

observed across size groups.  

For  question  11  it  was  seen  as  interesting  to  analyse  the  ease  of  obtaining  technical 

information  for  certain  type  of  information  (‘Behaviour  in  fire’,  ‘Mechanical  strength’, 

‘Recyclability’,  ‘Reusability/possibility  for  dismantling’)  per  country  of  respondents. 

Figures 30 and 31 illustrate this information.  

53 

50%60%70%80%90%100%Other (as specified in Question 7)Contact details of testing facility/TechnicalAssessment Body (for ETAs)Leaking into soil and waterEmissions into indoor airGeneral Environmental Product Declarations(EPD)Reusability/possibility for dismantlingRecyclabilityContact details of manufacturerGuidance/manual for maintenance or repairworkContents of dangerous substancesSound insulation propertiesThermal conductivityGuidance/manual for installationBehaviour in fireMechanical strengthIntended use of the productMicroSmallMediumLarge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 30:  

Sufficiency of technical information on construction products for ‘Behaviour in 
fire’ and ‘Mechanical strength’ (per country - excluding ‘Not relevant’)  

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure 30 shows the degree of precision of technical information for ‘Behaviour 

in  fire’  and  ‘Mechanical  strength’,  broken  down  by  country  of  respondents. 

Regarding ‘Behaviour in fire’, in 7 countries more than 85% of respondents consider the 

information available sufficient to some extent, in particular in Denmark and Ireland the 

percentage  is  higher  than  95%.  The  countries  with  the  highest  percentage  of 

respondents perceiving the information obtained as not sufficient are Romania (34%), 

Netherlands  (28%)  and  Poland  (25%);  for  each  of  these  countries  the  share  of 

respondents indicating that information is not sufficient is statistically significantly higher 

(at a 95% confidence level) than the average for all other countries.  

54 

15%16%34%25%28%8%4%14%11%5%21%14%40%40%39%27%36%40%34%43%43%51%33%39%45%44%27%48%36%52%62%43%46%44%47%47%0%20%40%60%80%100%UKSpainRomaniaPolandNetherlandsItalyIrelandGermanyFranceDenmarkBelgiumAustriaBehaviour in fire11%9%9%11%9%6%2%9%8%12%11%5%41%50%52%27%43%39%47%47%37%34%31%45%48%41%39%61%48%55%51%45%54%54%57%50%0%20%40%60%80%100%UKSpainRomaniaPolandNetherlandsItalyIrelandGermanyFranceDenmarkBelgiumAustriaMechanical strengthNO not sufficientYES but could be betterYES sufficiently precise 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For ‘Mechanical strength’, overall 88% of respondents or more consider the information 

they obtained sufficiently precise, with the highest rates being 98% in the case of Ireland 

and 95% for Austria. 

Figure 31:  

Sufficiency of technical information on construction products for ‘Behaviour in 
fire’ and ‘Mechanical strength’ (per country - excluding ‘Not relevant’)  

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  31  shows  the  degree  of  precision  of  technical  information  for 

‘Recyclability’  and  ‘Reusability/possibility  for  dismantling’  by  country  of 

respondents.  Regarding  ‘Recyclability’  some  variations  are  noted  among  users  from 

different countries. For example, more than half of respondents from Romania (56%) 

and  Denmark  (55%)  consider  the  information  obtained  as  not  sufficient,  followed  by 

Poland (39%); the shares for these countries are statistically significantly higher (at a 

95% confidence level) than the average for all other countries. By contrast, in Austria, 

Ireland  and  the  United  Kingdom,  more  than  85%  of  respondents  considered  the 

information  available  to  them  as  precise  to  some  extent  (i.e.  ‘sufficiently  precise’  or 

‘could be better’). 

55 

15%18%56%39%24%15%10%23%16%55%31%13%44%50%26%19%43%44%42%45%46%20%31%50%41%33%19%42%33%42%48%32%38%25%39%38%0%20%40%60%80%100%UKSpainRomaniaPolandNetherlandsItalyIrelandGermanyFranceDenmarkBelgiumAustriaRecyclability16%21%56%44%20%16%11%24%23%61%35%16%43%50%20%26%44%43%48%40%40%17%29%50%41%29%24%29%36%40%41%36%37%22%35%34%0%20%40%60%80%100%UKSpainRomaniaPolandNetherlandsItalyIrelandGermanyFranceDenmarkBelgiumAustriaReusability/possibility for dismantlingNO not sufficientYES but could be betterYES sufficiently precise 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Regarding  ‘Reusability/possibility  for  dismantling’,  variations  among  countries  are 

similar to ‘Recyclability’. Indeed, 61% of the respondents from Denmark consider the 

information obtained as not sufficient, followed by Romania (56%) and Poland (44%); 

the shares for these countries are statistically significantly higher (at a 95% confidence 

level) than the  average for all other  countries.  Ireland has the  highest percentage of 

respondents (89%) considering the information obtained as sufficient to some extent, 

followed by Austria (84%), Italy (84%) and UK (84%). 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 12: Please describe and give any specific details or examples of your 

experience of product information that is not sufficiently precise and/or could be 

improved.  

Open text answers - Question open to respondents who signalled they needed to obtain 

product information in the past 5 years (Question 5) 

Construction professionals who needed to obtain technical information in the past five 

years  were  requested  to  provide  specific  details  or  examples  of  their  experience  of 

product information that is not sufficiently precise or could be improved.  

In response  to  this question,  out of  1708 respondents that were asked this question, 

442 (26%) left the question blank, 429 (25%) stated that they had no suggestions, and 

75  professionals  (4%)  indicated  that  they  are  satisfied  with  the  current  available 

information for the products they are using.  

762  construction  professionals  (44%  out  of  all  respondents  to  whom  this 

question  was  addressed)  indicated  some  aspects  of  construction  products’ 

information that could be improved.  

This  information  is presented below  clustered in main  types of examples or  areas  for 

improvement. 

Insufficient  details  on  types  of  technical  information:  23%  of  the  755 

respondents  who  provided  details  or  examples  indicated  that  they  have  experienced 

missing technical information for  construction products.  For  example, the information 

provided may have been too general or data sheets may have not been provided or may 

have  been  incomplete.  Construction  professionals  in  some  cases  mentioned  specific 

technical  characteristics  about  the  appearance,  performance,  or  specific  values  of 

construction  products  that  they  were  unable  to  find.  Specific  examples  mentioned  by 

multiple  professionals  include:  thermal  capacity,  thermal  or  sound  insulation, 

composites  of  products,  compatibility  between  materials,  dimensions,  weights,  fire 

resistance and fireproofing information. 

Insufficient (technical) information for specific products: 9% of respondents who 

provided details or examples  mentioned specific examples of products they  for  which 

they  were  unable  or  had  difficulties  to  find  technical  information.  The  examples  of 

products  or  product  categories  mentioned  by  multiple  professionals  include:  windows 

and  doors,  plasters,  cement  and  concrete,  wood,  metallic  material,  bricks,  wool, 

insulation products. In some  cases,  professionals mentioned specific information they 

were looking for specific products, such as resistance information for plastic, or acoustic 

parameters for wool.  

Other types of insufficient information: 25% of respondents who provided details 

or examples indicated other types of information they were not able or had difficulties 

to acquire. The most common of these were as follows:  
•  Insufficient  information  on  manuals/instructions/maintenance:  6%  of 
respondents who provided details or examples indicated that construction products 

are  often  not  accompanied  by  appropriate  manuals  and 

instructions 

for 

assembling/installation/maintenance, or these exist but are lacking information. For 

example, instructions may not contain images or text, or installation images may be 

unclear; 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Insufficient information on safety: 4% of respondents who provided details or 

examples  stressed  the  lack  of  sufficient  safety  information  linked  with  the  use  of 

construction  products.  Some  professionals  mentioned  the  need  to  provide 

information on chemical substances or toxic contents, while others indicated the need 

for  explanation  of  the  hazards,  and  suggested  precaution  measures  (e.g.  gloves, 

masks); 

•  Insufficient information on environmental characteristics and recyclability: 

3%of  respondents  who  provided  details  or  examples  indicated  there  is  a  lack  of 

environmental  characteristics  as  well  as  information  on  recycling  of  construction 

products; 

•  Insufficient  information  on  testing,  certificates  and  markings:  3%  of 

respondents who provided details or examples mentioned that either this information 

is not provided at all or lacks key information on testing such as specific values of 

tests and exact focus of certificates; 

•  Insufficient  information  on  contact  details:  1%  of  respondents  who  provided 

details or examples indicated that even though contact details are provided, in most 

cases, only a generic contact is available, meaning that they are often unable to reach 

a  contact  with  the  appropriate  expertise  to  reply  their  questions  on  specific 

characteristics of construction products. 

Examples of other types of information that are not provided at all or missing include: 

information on prices of specific products (or versions of products), information on real 

environment use cases, and alternative uses. Additionally, a few respondents indicated 

that in some cases the information may be too generic and missing specific data or not 

updated to the latest product characteristics. 

Availability  and  accessibility  of  information:  8%  of  respondents  who  provided 

details  or  examples  indicated  issues  related  to  access  to  information.  Certain 

professionals mentioned that information was not available on manufacturers’ websites 

or not sent with the products, others have been able to find the information, but some 

additional effort was required. For instance, certain professionals had to contact directly 

the manufacturer, conduct time-consuming data searches and, in some cases, register 

to databases or pay phone charges to obtain the desired information. 

Clarity and complexity of information: 8% of respondents who provided details or 

examples  indicated  that  information  provided  was  either  unclear  or  complex.  For 

example, certain professionals mention that information was too generic to be useful for 

them, visualisations such as diagrams were missing, too much information was provided 

making it difficult to identify relevant information. Additionally, others stressed that the 

language used in some cases was too technical and not accessible for non-experts. 

Comparability of information: 4% of respondents who provided details or examples 

raised  issues  of  comparability  and  the  need  for  standardisation  of  information.  They 

mentioned  both  issues  of  comparability  between  products  of  different  manufacturers 

(e.g.  using  different  units  of  measurement  or  different  interpretations  of  data)  and 

comparability issues between products from different countries of manufacturing.  

Language  of  information:  4%  of  respondents  who  provided  details  or  examples 

mentioned linguistic issues as an area that impacts the precision of information provided. 

Many of those referred to the fact that information in some cases is either not translated 

or poorly translated  into their local language(s), while others mentioned the fact that 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the  language  usage  in  various  sources  of  information  is  rather  too  technical  and  not 

accessible for non-experts. 

Reliability  of  information:  4%  of  respondents  who  provided  details  or  examples 

indicated that the information available  is not always reliable. This according to them 

may  include  mistakes  in  data  sheets  or  other  pieces  of  information,  or  misleading 

descriptions  and  information.  Few  respondents  mention  that  they  have  received 

contradictory information about certain products.  

Other issues: 16% of respondents who provided details or examples mentioned other 

issues that could not fit in any of the aforementioned categories. These responses refer 

to  several  aspects  related  to  information  on  construction  products.  For  example, 

respondents mentioned  communication issues (e.g. with the manufacturer), issues of 

digitisation of information (e.g. use of QR codes, databases, web structures, uploading 

information  online),  presentation  of  information  (e.g.  tutorial  videos),  examples  of 

national  or  other  databases  they  use  to  identify  information,  training  and  education 

issues  as  well  as  difficulties  to  access  useful  information  due  to  the  large  amount  of 

available information. 

3.3.  Requirements and preferences for technical information and information 

sources for construction products 

While the preceding part of the questionnaire focussed on the respondents’ experience 

in the past, this second part aimed at exploring their expectations and preferences in 

terms of information. 

This section provides an overview of survey responses to questions that address their 

information requirements for construction products in terms of level of detail (Q13), type 

of information (Q14), and preferred source (Q15).  

The questions covered in this section were asked to all survey respondents, including 

those  who  indicated  (Q5)  that  did  not  need  technical  information,  or  required  it  only 

very occasionally in the past five years. 

The analysis performed under this section is presented in figures of the overall responses 

of  each  question  as  well  as  the  responses  per  sector  and  size.  When  it  is  considered 

insightful, an overview of responses per task or country is also presented.  

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 13: What level of detail of information on construction products is necessary 

for it to be useful for your work? 

Indicate the response that best corresponds to your situation 

Figure 32:  

Level of detail of technical information necessary by information type  

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  32  shows  the  preference  of  respondents  on  the  level  of  detail  of 

technical  information  that  is  useful  for  their  work,  i.e.  specific  values, 

performances classes or minimum requirements. Figure 32 excludes those respondents 

that indicated a particular type of information was not relevant for them. Across all types 

of  information,  ‘Specific  values’  is  the  most  commonly  selected  response  (43%  of 

respondents), followed by ‘Performance classes’ (selected by 34% of respondents) and 

‘Passing minimum requirements’ (selected by 23% of respondents).  

Relatively high shares of need for ‘Specific values’ and low shares for ‘Passing minimum 

requirements’  are  found  for  ‘Intended  use  of  the  product’,  ‘Mechanical  strength’, 

‘Guidance/manual  for  installation’,  ‘Guidance/manual  for  maintenance  or  repair’, 

‘Thermal  conductivity’  and  ‘Sound  insulation  properties’.  By  comparison,  ‘Passing 

minimum requirements’ is relatively more relevant for information on ‘Recyclability’ and 

‘Reusability/possibility for dismantling’. 

The option ‘Other’ was selected by approximately 46% of respondents to this question 

who privileged specific values (39%), followed by performances classes (36%). The type 

of  information  concerned  was  specified  by  a  few  respondents  (less  than  1%),  who 

60 

24%25%24%27%30%32%22%24%19%19%20%21%18%18%36%36%35%35%36%34%30%30%33%34%31%39%35%34%39%39%41%38%34%34%47%46%47%48%49%40%47%48%0%20%40%60%80%100%OtherLeaking into soil and water (values orclasses)Emissions into indoor air (values or classes)General Environmental Product Declarations(EPD)Reusability/possibility for dismantlingRecyclability (e.g. manufacturer’s declaration, availability of recycling …Guidance/manual for maintenance or repairworkContents of dangerous substancesSound insulation propertiesThermal conductivity (data or class)Guidance/manual for installationBehaviour in fire (e.g. resistance or reactionto fire -performance class)Mechanical strength (data or class)Intended use of the productPassing minimum requirementsPerformance classesSpecific values 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
specified: factory production control, weight, price, reliability, type of material, lighting 

bodies,  waterproofing,  integrity,  repairs,  speed,  handling  &  storage,  corrosion 

resistance,  security  norms,  test  certificates  &  reports  and  water  usage  rates.  Other 

respondents  mentioned  to  include  informal  registration  next  to  the  product  class  or 

norm. 

Figure 33:  

Level of detail of technical information necessary by information type (per 
sector) - Sum of ‘Specific values’ and ‘Performance classes’ as a share of total 
responses (excluding ‘Not relevant’) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  33  shows  a  breakdown  of  replies  choosing  specific  value  and 

performances  classes  by  sector  of  activity.  The  figure  shows  the  sum  of  the 

responses  ‘Specific values’ and ‘Performance  classes’; a  high  value  indicates a  higher 

proportion  of  professionals  that  need  information  exceeding  ‘Passing  minimum 

requirements’. Overall, there do not seem to be major differences across sectors; there 

are no statistically significant differences observed across sectors. The highest variation 

is noted for the ‘Mechanical strength’’ for which professionals engaging in Architecture 

and  engineering  indicate  that  ‘Specific  values’  and  ‘Performance  classes’  are  more 

relevant compared to the other two sectors. 

61 

50%60%70%80%90%100%OtherLeaking into soil and waterEmissions into indoor airGeneral Environmental Product Declarations(EPD)Reusability/possibility for dismantlingRecyclabilityGuidance/manual for maintenance or repairworkContents of dangerous substancesSound insulation propertiesThermal conductivityGuidance/manual for installationBehaviour in fireMechanical strengthIntended use of the productConstruction & renovationInstallation servicesArchitecture & engineering 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 34: 

Level of detail of technical information necessary by information type (per size) 
Sum of ‘Specific values’ and ‘Performance classes’ as a share of total responses 
(excluding ‘Not relevant’) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  34  shows  a  breakdown  of  replies  choosing  specific  values  and 

performances classes, broken down by company size. The figure shows the sum 

of the responses ‘Specific values’ and ‘Performance classes’. Overall, there do not seem 

to be major differences in the level of detail of technical information required by different 

company size classes; there are no statistically significant differences observed across 

company size categories.  

62 

50%60%70%80%90%100%OtherLeaking into soil and waterEmissions into indoor airGeneral Environmental Product Declarations(EPD)Reusability/possibility for dismantlingRecyclabilityGuidance/manual for maintenance or repairworkContents of dangerous substancesSound insulation propertiesThermal conductivityGuidance/manual for installationBehaviour in fireMechanical strengthIntended use of the productMicroSmallMediumLarge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 14: How relevant for your work are the following types of information? 

Indicate the response that best corresponds to your situation 

Figure 35:  

Relevance of other information on construction products: contacts and validity 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  35  shows  that  approximately  half  of  construction  professionals  consider  that 

information on ‘Name and contact details of manufacturer’ and ‘Name and contact details 

of  testing  facility/technical  assessment  body’  is  very  relevant  to  their  work  with, 

respectively,  90%  and  86%  of  respondents  indicating  that  such  information  is  ‘Very 

relevant’ or ‘Relevant’. Information on the ‘Period of validity of product information’ is 

‘Very  relevant’  or  ‘Relevant’  for  80%  of  construction  professionals;  though  only  36% 

indicate that is very relevant.  

Out of all the respondents  36%  provided an  answer  to  the option ‘Other’  although of 

these  61%  said  it  was  ‘Not  relevant’  with  39%  indicating  that  other  information  was 

either ‘Relevant’ or ‘Very relevant’, corresponding to 14%  of the total respondents to 

question 14.  

Under  the  option  ‘Other’,  47  respondents  specified  the  type  of  information. 

Examples  of  the  types  of  other  information  considered  relevant  include:  more 

information  on  the  product  itself  (e.g.  technical  data  properties  and  environmental 

performance),  certificates  and  other  testing  results  as  well  as,  manuals  and 

specifications on the use of the product.  

63 

61%20%14%10%22%44%37%39%17%36%49%51%0%20%40%60%80%100%OtherPeriod of validity of product information (e.g.expiry date of certificate, new technicalstandards in preparation)Name and contact details of testingfacility/Technical Assessment BodyName and contact details of manufacturerNot relevantRelevantVery relevant 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 36:  

Relevance of other information on construction products: contacts and validity 
(per sector) – Percentage of the sum of responses ‘Very relevant’ and ‘Relevant’ 
out of total responses  

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure 37:  

Relevance of other information on construction products: contacts and validity 
(per size) - Percentage of the sum of responses ‘Very relevant’ and ‘Relevant’ 
out of total responses  

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figures  36  and  37  present  the  relevance  of  information  respectively,  broken 

down by sector of activity and company size. Overall, there are no major variations 

observed, with the exception of the ‘Period of validity of product information’, which is 

perceived  as  more  relevant  by  large  (89%)  and  medium  sized  (86%)  companies 

compared to small (77%) and micro (75%) companies; the difference between larger 

(large and medium) and smaller (small and micro) companies is statistically significant 

(at a 95% confidence interval). 

64 

30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%OtherPeriod of validity of product information (e.g.expiry date of certificate, new technicalstandards in preparation)Name and contact details of testingfacility/Technical Assessment BodyName and contact details of manufacturerConstruction & renovationInstallation servicesArchitecture & engineering30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%OtherPeriod of validity of product information (e.g.expiry date of certificate, new technicalstandards in preparation)Name and contact details of testingfacility/Technical Assessment BodyName and contact details of manufacturerMicroSmallMediumLarge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 15: From which source(s) would you prefer to get technical information on 

construction products? 

Multiple replies possible 

Figure 38:  

Preferred sources of technical information on construction products  

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

As shown in Figure 38, more than half of construction professionals indicate that ‘Product 

information accompanying a declaration of performance/CE marking, on the website of 

the manufacturer or supplier’ and ‘Product data sheets provided by the manufacturer or 

supplier, either on the website of the manufacturer or supplier’ are among their preferred 

source(s) of technical information on construction products. The same information on 

paper  instead  of  the  website  was  selected  by  7%  fewer  respondents  in  the  case  of 

product  data  sheets  and  12%  fewer  in  the  case  of  information  accompanying  a 

declaration of performance/CE marking. Specific logos or quality marks receive a much 

lower level of preference, particularly when not accompanied with technical data (22% 

and 17%), as well as ‘Personal feedback from experts/companies’ (17%). 

Additionally,  3%  of  respondents  selected  the  option  ‘Other’.  Some  examples  of 

responses include third party testing and reviews, certificates and databases of products.  

65 

3%17%22%26%36%41%45%52%53%020040060080010001200OtherSpecific logos (e.g. quality marks) attached toproduct: without any specific technical dataPersonal feedback from experts/companiesSpecific logos (e.g. quality marks) attached toproduct: with accompanying specific technicaldataWebsite/database/publications of schemeproviders for General Environmental ProductDeclarations (EPD)Product information accompanying aDeclaration of Performance/CE marking: onpaperProduct data sheets provided by themanufacturer or supplier: on paperProduct data sheets provided by themanufacturer or supplier: on the website of themanufacturer or supplierProduct information accompanying aDeclaration of Performance/CE marking: onthe website of the manufacturer or supplierNumber of respondents 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 39:  

Preferred sources of technical information on construction products (per sector) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure 39 illustrates the preferred information sources, broken down by sector 

of  activity.  On  average  professionals  in  construction  and  renovation  selected  fewer 

different sources, this explains why in most cases this sector has a lower percentage. 

For example, for ‘Product data sheets provided by the manufacturer or supplier: on the 

website of the manufacturer or supplier’ was selected by 48% of professionals working 

in  Construction  and  renovation,  which  is  statistically  significantly  lower  (at  a  95  % 

confidence level) than for Installation services (59%) and Architecture and engineering 

(60%). Similar variations are noted for ‘Product information accompanying a Declaration 

of  Performance/CE  marking:  on  the  website  of  the  manufacturer  or  supplier’  and 

‘Website/database/publications of scheme providers for General Environmental Product 

Declarations  (EPD)’;  for  the  latter,  the  share  for  Construction  and  renovation  is 

statistically significantly lower than for the other two sectors. The expressed preference 

of  professionals  in  Installation  services  for  ‘Product  data  sheets  provided  by  the 

manufacturer or supplier: on paper’ is statistically significantly higher than for the other 

two sectors. 

66 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%OtherSpecific logos (e.g. quality marks) attached toproduct: without any specific technical dataPersonal feedback from experts/companiesSpecific logos (e.g. quality marks) attached toproduct: with accompanying specific technicaldataWebsite/database/publications of schemeproviders for General Environmental ProductDeclarations (EPD)Product information accompanying aDeclaration of Performance/CE marking: onpaperProduct data sheets provided by themanufacturer or supplier: on paperProduct data sheets provided by themanufacturer or supplier: on the website ofthe manufacturer or supplierProduct information accompanying aDeclaration of Performance/CE marking: onthe website of the manufacturer or supplierConstruction & renovationInstallation ServicesArchitecture & engineering 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 40:  

Preferred sources of technical information on construction products (per size) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  40  illustrates  the  preferred  information  sources,  broken  down  by 

company  size.  Overall,  all  size  categories  follow  a  similar  ranking  of  information 

sources.  Large  companies  stand  out  for  their  statistically  significant  (at  a  95% 

confidence level) higher preference for ‘Product information accompanying a Declaration 

of Performance/CE marking: on paper’ which was selected by 53% of professionals from 

large companies compared to 37%-39% for the other size categories. 

67 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%OtherSpecific logos (e.g. quality marks) attached toproduct: without any specific technical dataPersonal feedback from experts/companiesSpecific logos (e.g. quality marks) attached toproduct: with accompanying specific technicaldataWebsite/database/publications of schemeproviders for General Environmental ProductDeclarations (EPD)Product information accompanying aDeclaration of Performance/CE marking: onpaperProduct data sheets provided by themanufacturer or supplier: on paperProduct data sheets provided by themanufacturer or supplier: on the website ofthe manufacturer or supplierProduct information accompanying aDeclaration of Performance/CE marking: onthe website of the manufacturer or supplierMicroSmallMediumLarge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.4.  Procedures 

for  checking  product  performance  declarations 

for 

construction products 

This  last  part  of  the  questionnaire,  after  exploring  respondents’  experience  and 

preferences regarding information on construction products, focussed on how they check 

performance declaration. 

This  section  provides  an  overview  of  the  survey  responses  to  questions  that  address 

respondents’  practices  for  checking  information  on  product  performance  for  familiar 

(Q16) and new/unfamiliar (Q17) construction products and for checking the validity of 

such information (Q18). Also covered are responses on the preferred source of product 

performance information (Q19).  

The questions covered in this section were asked to all survey respondents, including 

those that indicated (Q5) that did not need technical information, or required it only very 

occasionally in the past five years.  

The analysis performed under this section is presented in figures of the overall responses 

of  each  question  as  well  as  the  responses  per  sector  and  size.  When  is  considered 

insightful, an overview of responses per task or country are also presented.  

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 16: For construction products that you have been using for more than five 

years, which of the following are you still usually doing to check on product 

performance? 

Multiple replies possible 

Figure 41:  

Product performance check for products used for more than five years 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  41  shows  whether  construction  professional  usually  check  product 

performance  when  using  construction  products  with  which  they  are  familiar. 

The  results  indicate  that  around  40%  of  construction  professionals  usually  perform 

‘Checking for the manufacturer’s declaration of performance for the product’ (43%) and 

‘Checking  for  a  CE  marking  accompanying  the  manufacturer’s  Declaration  of 

Performance’ (37%), for products with which they are familiar (i.e. have more than 5 

years  of  experience  of  using  the  product).  At  the  same  time,  33%  of  construction 

professionals are ‘Relying on their company’s experience with the construction product’ 

(35%).  

The option ‘Not relevant’ was selected by 22% of professionals. These could either be 

respondents who do not have responsibility for checking products or that do not have 

experience of more than five years with specific construction products.  

Additionally,  1%  of  respondents  selected  the  option  ‘Other’.  Some  examples  of  the 

checks specified include: periodic testing of other products, other markings (i.e. other 

than  CE  marking),  self-testing,  results  of  testing  from  independent  entities  (e.g. 

laboratories). 

69 

1%22%28%33%37%43%02004006008001000OtherNot relevantChecking for certificates or logosaccompanying the manufacturer's Declarationof Performance for the productRelying on your/your company's experiencewith the construction product to know itsperformance and how to install itChecking for a CE marking accompanying themanufacturer's Declaration of Performancefor the productChecking for the manufacturer's Declarationof Performance for the productNumber of respondents 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 42:  

Product performance check for products used for more than five years (per 
sector)  

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure 42 shows the breakdown of performance check for familiar products by 

sector of activity. Overall, all sectors follow a similar ranking of information sources; 

although  respondents  from  Construction  &  renovation  have  a  statistically  significant 

lower share (at a 95% confidence level) for ‘Checking for a CE marking accompanying 

the  manufacturer's  Declaration  of  Performance  for  the  product’  and  ‘Checking  for 

certificates  or logos  accompanying  the  manufacturer's  Declaration  of  Performance  for 

the product’. 

70 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%OtherNot relevantChecking for certificates or logosaccompanying the manufacturer's Declarationof Performance for the productRelying on your/your company's experiencewith the construction product to know itsperformance and how to install itChecking for a CE marking accompanying themanufacturer's Declaration of Performance forthe productChecking for the manufacturer's Declarationof Performance for the productConstruction & renovationInstallation servicesArchitecture & engineering 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 43:  

Product performance check for products used for more than five years (per size) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure 43 illustrates the ways professionals check the performance of products 

(with 5 years of experience), broken down by company size. There seems to be 

a relationship between size of companies and the ways to conduct a performance check. 

Respondent from large and medium sized companies more frequently select the options 

‘Checking for the manufacturer's Declaration of Performance for the product’, ‘Checking 

for a CE marking accompanying the manufacturer's Declaration of Performance for the 

product’  and  ‘Checking  for  certificates  or  logos  accompanying  the  manufacturer's 

Declaration  of  Performance  for  the  product’.  Conversely,  micro  companies  report  a 

statistically  significant  (at  a  95%  confidence  level)  higher  share  of  construction 

professionals  that  indicate  ‘Relying  on  your/your  company's  experience  with  the 

construction product to know its performance and how to install it’. 

71 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%OtherNot relevantChecking for certificates or logosaccompanying the manufacturer's Declarationof Performance for the productRelying on your/your company's experiencewith the construction product to know itsperformance and how to install itChecking for a CE marking accompanying themanufacturer's Declaration of Performance forthe productChecking for the manufacturer's Declarationof Performance for the productMicroSmallMediumLarge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 17: If you were using construction products for the first time, which of the 

following would you usually do to check on product performance? 

Multiple replies possible 

Figure 44:  

Product performance check for products used for first time 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  44  shows  whether  and  how  construction  professionals  check  product 

performance when using a product for the first time. The general pattern of the 

share of construction professionals who check different sources of information for new 

products is similar to that for more familiar products (figure 41) but with higher overall 

rates. Nearly half of construction professionals report that they would usually ‘Check for 

the  manufacturer’s  Declaration  of  Performance’  (48%),  while  42%  report  that  they 

‘Check for a CE marking accompanying the manufacturer’s Declaration of Performance’. 

Nonetheless, a quite substantial  proportion  of  construction professionals indicate that 

they  would  also  make  use  of  experience  of  others  (i.e. 

‘Collection  of 

information/feedback  from  other  experts/companies…’,  36%)  or  experience  of  other 

products from the manufacturer/supplier (i.e. ‘Check for trademarks’, 34%). 

The  option  ‘Not  relevant’  was  selected  by  15%  of  respondents.  This  may  reflect 

responses from professionals that are not responsible for checking products, or that do 

not use new products.  

Additionally,  2%  of  respondents  selected  the  option  ‘Other’.  Some  examples  of 

responses include: manufacturer’s performance in personal conversation, product data 

sheet,  technical  samples  on  site,  product  reviews,  third  party  testing  and  reports,  as 

well as self-testing. 

72 

2%15%31%34%36%42%48%020040060080010001200OtherNot relevantCheck for certificates or logos accompanyingthe manufacturer's Declaration ofPerformance for the productCheck for trademarks (e.g. rely on positiveexperience of already used constructionproducts as an indication of product…Collect information/feedback from otherexperts/companies with enough experiencewith the product to know its performance…Check for a CE marking accompanying themanufacturer's Declaration of Performance forthe productCheck for the manufacturer's Declaration ofPerformance for the productNumber of respondents 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 45:  

Product performance check for products used for first time (per sector) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure 45 illustrates the ways professionals check the performance of products 

used for first time, broken down by sector of activity. The ranking of responses is 

similar for all three sectors, apart from the indication that professionals in Architecture 

and engineering rank ‘Collect information/feedback from other experts/companies…’ as 

third option for checking product performance, while it is the fourth option for the other 

two sectors. Professionals from the Construction & renovation sector have statistically 

significant lower shares than for the other two sectors for all of the individual types of 

checks, except ‘Check for trademarks (e.g. rely on positive experience of already used 

construction products as an indication of product performance)’. 

73 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%OtherNot relevantCheck for certificates or logos accompanyingthe manufacturer's Declaration ofPerformance for the productCheck for trademarks (e.g. rely on positiveexperience of already used constructionproducts as an indication of productperformance)Collect information/feedback from otherexperts/companies with enough experiencewith the product to know its performance andhow to install itCheck for a CE marking accompanying themanufacturer's Declaration of Performance forthe productCheck for the manufacturer's Declaration ofPerformance for the productConstruction & renovationInstallation servicesArchitecture & engineering 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 46:  

Product performance check for products used for first time (per size) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure 46 illustrates the ways professionals check the performance of products 

used  for  first  time,  broken  down  by  company  size.  Professionals  working  for 

smaller companies (micro and small) indicated that they ‘Collect information/feedback 

from other experts/companies…’ to a greater extent compared to larger companies. The 

share  of  43%  for  micro  companies  is  statistically  significantly  higher  (at  a  95% 

confidence  level)  than  for  small  (33%),  medium  (27%)  and  large  (29%)  companies. 

Conversely, ‘Check for a CE marking accompanying the manufacturer's Declaration of 

Performance for the product’, is more popular among larger companies, as half of the 

professionals  working  in  large  companies  (50%)  selected  this  option,  followed  by 

medium  (45%),  small  (41%)  and  micro  (39%)  companies.  Professionals  from  micro 

companies also have a statistically significant lower share than the other size categories 

for ‘Check for certificates or logos accompanying…’. 

74 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%OtherNot relevantCheck for certificates or logos accompanyingthe manufacturer's Declaration ofPerformance for the productCheck for trademarks (e.g. rely on positiveexperience of already used constructionproducts as an indication of productperformance)Collect information/feedback from otherexperts/companies with enough experiencewith the product to know its performance andhow to install itCheck for a CE marking accompanying themanufacturer's Declaration of Performancefor the productCheck for the manufacturer's Declaration ofPerformance for the productMicroSmallMediumLarge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 18: For construction products for which you have obtained performance 

information in the past, the information may become outdated (e.g. new test methods, 

expiry of certificates). Do you normally check the validity of previously obtained 

information? 

Indicate the response that best corresponds to your situation 

Figure 47:  

Checking the validity of previously obtained product performance information 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  47  indicates  that  29%  of  construction  professionals  systematically 

check  the  validity  of  previously  obtained  information  on  the  performance  of 

construction products, while 50% will check such information when they are 

in doubt or have been informed of a change. The remaining 21% of construction 

professionals do not check the validity of previously obtained information, as they do 

not expect changes in the products they use.  

Figure 48:  

Checking the validity of previously obtained product performance information 
(per sector) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

75 

Yes, systematically29%Yes, when I am in doubt or I have been informed about changes50%No, I do not expect any significant changes in the products I am using21%16%19%22%52%53%49%32%28%29%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%Architecture & engineeringInstallation servicesConstruction & renovationYes, systematicallyYes, when I am in doubt or I have been informed about changesNo, I do not expect any significant changes in the products I am using 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  48  shows  whether  professionals  check  the  validity  of  previously 

obtained  product  performance  information  broken  down  by  sector.  The  figure 

shows that 84% of professionals in Architecture and engineering are checking previously 

obtained  information  systematically  or  when  in  doubt,  whereas  the  shares  for 

professionals in Installation services and in Construction and renovation are 81% and 

78%  respectively.  The  differences  across  sectors  are  not  statistically  significant, 

however. 

Figure 49:  

Checking the validity of previously obtained product performance information 
(per size) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  49  shows  whether  professionals  check  the  validity  of  previously 

obtained product performance information, broken down by company size. The 

figure indicates that a higher share of professionals in medium (84%) and large (82%) 

companies  are  checking  previously  obtained 

information  systematically 

than 

professionals working for small (79%) and micro companies (75%). Professionals from 

micro-enterprises have a statistically significant lower share (at a 95% confidence level) 

for ‘Yes, systematically’ (22%) than the other three categories, while the share for small 

companies (27%)  is  statistically  significantly lower  than  for  medium  (37%)  and  large 

(38%) companies. 

The following tables (50 to 53) aim at further investigating which specific information is 

requested at a regular basis (complementary to questions 5,7,15 and 16 of the survey). 

76 

18%16%21%25%44%48%52%53%38%37%27%22%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%LargeMediumSmallMicroYes, systematicallyYes, when I am in doubt or I have been informed about changesNo, I do not expect any significant changes in the products I am using 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 50:  

Checking the validity of previously obtained product performance information 
(per frequency of need to obtain information – Q5)  

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  50  shows  the  outcome  of  the  cross-tabulation  of  whether  and  how 

systematically  respondents  check  the  validity  of  previously  obtained 

information (Question 18) with the frequency with which respondents need to 

obtain technical information (Question 5). The figure shows a strong relationship 

between the responses to the two questions. Respondents that indicate that they need 

technical information frequently or regularly are more likely to systematically check the 

validity of previously obtained information, or to check it when they are in doubt. For 

example,  among  respondents  that  frequently  require  technical  information,  43% 

indicate that they systematically check the validity of previously obtained performance 

information, which is statistically significantly higher  (at a 95% confidence level) than 

for  all  other  groups.  Similarly,  among  respondents  regularly  needing  technical 

information, 61% report that they check the validity of information ‘when in doubt or I 

have  been  informed  about  changes’,  which  is  statistically  higher  than  for  all  other 

groups.  Conversely,  among  respondents  needing  technical  information  only  very 

occasionally (or not at all), the 51% share that select ‘No, I do not expect any significant 

changes in the products I am using’ is statistically significantly higher than for all other 

groups,  and  the  25%  share  for  respondents  needing  technical  information  only 

occasionally  is  statistically  significantly  higher  than  for  the  respondents  that  require 

technical information either frequently or regularly. 

77 

51%25%13%10%31%52%61%47%18%23%26%43%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%No/veryoccasionallyOccasionallyRegularlyFrequentlyYes, systematicallyYes, when I am in doubt or I have been informed about changesNo, I do not expect any significant changes in the products I am using 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 51:  

Checking the validity of previously obtained product performance information 
(per types of information – Q7)  

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

78 

23%7%7%7%7%7%8%14%15%11%14%12%19%14%11%14%37%46%47%49%48%53%51%53%55%55%56%57%56%51%57%55%40%46%46%44%45%40%42%34%30%34%30%30%25%34%32%31%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%OtherContact details oftesting facility/TechnicalAssessment Body (for…Leaking into soil andwaterEmissions into indoorairGeneral EnvironmentalProduct Declarations(EPD)Reusability/possibilityfor dismantlingRecyclabilityContact details ofmanufacturerGuidance/manual formaintenance or repairworkContents of dangeroussubstancesSound insulationpropertiesThermal conductivityGuidance/manual forinstallationBehaviour in fireMechanical strengthIntended use of theproductYes, systematicallyYes, when I am in doubt or I have been informed about changesNo, I do not expect any significant changes in the products I am using 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  51  shows  the  outcome  of  the  cross-tabulation  of  whether  and  how 

systematically  respondents  check  the  validity  of  previously  obtained 

information (Question 18) with the type of technical information that they need 

(Question  7).  The  figure  shows,  for  example,  that  among  respondents  needing 

information on the ‘Intended use of the product’, 31% indicate that they systematically 

check the validity of previously obtained product performance information, while 55% 

indicate  that  they  do  so  when  in  doubt  or  if  they  have  been  informed  of  a  change. 

Looking across the named information types, the survey results show that for certain 

‘environmental-related’ technical information (i.e. ‘Recyclability’, ‘Reusability/possibility 

for  dismantling’,  ‘General  Environment  Product  Declarations  (EPD)’,  ‘Emissions  into 

indoor air’, and ‘Leaking into soil and water’), the shares of respondents that indicate 

that  they  systematically  check  the  validity  of  previously  obtained  performance 

information is higher than for most other information types; the shares of respondents 

that  systematically  check  the  validity  of  these  ‘environmental-related’  technical 

information  categories  are  in  all  cases  statistically  significantly  higher  (at  a  95% 

confidence level) than the corresponding shares for the categories ‘Intended use of the 

product’ ‘Guidance/manual for installation’, ‘Guidance/manual for maintenance or repair 

work’,  ’Mechanical  strength’,  ‘Thermal  conductivity’,  and  ‘Sound  insulation  properties’ 

and,  with  the  exception  of  ‘Reusability/possibility  for  dismantling‘,  are  statistically 

significantly  higher  than  for  the  categories  of  ‘Behaviour  in  fire’  and  ‘Contents  of 

dangerous materials’ and ‘Contact details of the manufacturer’. Conversely, the shares 

of  respondents  indicating  that  they  do  not  check  the  validity  of  previously  obtained 

information (answer: ‘No, I do not expect any significant changes in the products I am 

using’) is generally statistically significantly lower – although sometimes only at a 90% 

confidence level – among respondents requiring information on ‘environmental-related’ 

technical  information  (i.e.  ‘Recyclability’,  ‘Reusability/possibility  for  dismantling’, 

‘General  Environment  Product  Declarations  (EPD)’,  ‘Emissions  into  indoor  air’,  and 

‘Leaking into soil and water’) than for other information categories, with the exception 

‘Contact details of testing facility/Technical Assessment Body …’, ‘Contents of dangerous 

substances’, and the category ‘Other’. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 52:  

Checking the validity of previously obtained product performance information 
(per information sources – Q15) 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  52  shows  the  outcome  of  the  cross-tabulation  of  whether  and  how 

systematically  respondents  check  the  validity  of  previously  obtained 

information (Question 18) with the preferred source of technical information 

on  construction  products  (Question  15).  The  figure  shows,  for  example,  that  for 

respondents that identify ‘Product data sheets provided by the manufacturer or supplier: 

on  the  website  of  the  manufacturer  or  supplier’  among  their  preferred  sources  of 

technical  information,  32%  also  report  that  they  systematically  check  the  validity  of 

previously obtained product information, while 55% check such information when they 

are  in  doubt  or  have  been  informed  of  changes.  The  data  provide  little  evidence  of 

significant  differences  in  reported  behaviour  for  checking  previously  obtained 

information  that  can  be  linked  to  the  respondent’s  preferred  sources  of  technical 

information, except in the cases of ‘Personal feedback from experts/companies’ and the 

category  of  ‘Other’  preferred  sources.  For  respondents  that  select  ‘Personal  feedback 

from experts/companies’ among their preferred sources, the share of those that report 

‘Yes,  systematically’  for  checking  previously  obtained  data  is  statistically  significantly 

lower (at a 95% confidence level) than for other preferred information sources, except 

for the category ‘Other’. Conversely, their share of respondents that select ‘No, I do not 

expect any significant changes in the products I  am using’ is statistically  significantly 

higher  for  respondents  using  personal  feedback  as  a  preferred  source  than  the 

corresponding shares for all other preferred information sources. For respondents that 

indicate using ‘Other’ preferred sources of information, which represent around 3% of 

the total sample, the share of respondents reporting ‘Yes, when I am in doubt or I have 

80 

64%14%22%14%15%15%17%17%15%14%47%54%53%55%49%50%55%54%22%40%24%33%30%36%33%28%32%0%20%40%60%80%OtherSpecific logos (e.g. quality marks)attached to product: without any specifictechnical dataPersonal feedback fromexperts/companiesSpecific logos (e.g. quality marks)attached to product: with accompanyingspecific technical dataWebsite/database/publications of schemeproviders for General EnvironmentalProduct Declarations (EPD)Product information accompanying aDeclaration of Performance/CE marking:on paperProduct data sheets provided by themanufacturer or supplier: on paperProduct data sheets provided by themanufacturer or supplier: on the website ofthe manufacturer or supplierProduct information accompanying aDeclaration of Performance/CE marking:on the website of the manufacturer or…Yes, systematicallyYes, when I am in doubt or I have been informed about changesNo, I do not expect any significant changes in the products I am using 
 
 
 
 
 
 
been informed about changes’ is statistically significantly lower than for other preferred 

source categories, while the share reporting ‘No, I do not expect any significant changes 

in the products I am using’ is statistically significantly higher. 

Figure 53:  

Checking the validity of previously obtained product performance information 
(per ways of checking product performance – Q16 – excluding ‘Not Relevant’)  

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  53  shows  the  outcome  of  the  cross-tabulation  of  whether  and  how 

systematically  respondents  check  the  validity  of  previously  obtained 

information (Question 18) with the ways used to check product performance 

(Question  16).  The  figure  shows,  for  example,  that  for  respondents  that  identify 

‘Checking for the manufacturer’s Declaration of Performance of the product’ among their 

ways  that  they  check  product  performance,  38%  also  report  that they  systematically 

check  the  validity  of  previously  obtained  product  information,  while  52%  check  such 

information when they are in doubt or have been informed of changes. Looking across 

the four main categories of ways of checking data (i.e. excluding the category ‘Other’), 

the shares of respondents that indicate that they check data when they are in doubt or 

have been informed about changes are similar, within the range 52% to 55%, and are 

not statistically  significantly  different  from  each other.  However, for respondents that 

select ‘Relying on your/your company’s experience with construction products to know 

its performance and how to install it’ as a way to check product performance, the share 

of  respondents  that  select  ‘Yes,  systematically’  for  checking  the  validity  of  previously 

obtained  product  information  is  statistically  significantly  lower  (at  a  95%  confidence 

level) than for the other 3 main categories, while the share reporting ‘No, I do not expect 

any significant changes in the products I am using’ is statistically significantly higher. 

The category ‘Other’ for the ways used to check product performance has been selected 

by only 28 respondents that also provided information on how systematically they check 

the validity of previously obtained data. For this category, the share of respondents that 

selected ‘Yes, when I am in doubt or I have been informed about changes’ is statistically 

significantly  lower  than  for  all  the  other  categories,  while  the  shares  for  ‘Yes, 

systematically’ and ‘No, I do not expect  any  significant changes in the products I am 

using’ are statistically higher than for the other categories, except the category ‘Relying 

81 

25%9%20%9%10%29%53%55%54%52%46%38%25%37%38%0%20%40%60%OtherChecking for certificates or logosaccompanying the manufacturer'sDeclaration of Performance for the productRelying on your/your company'sexperience with the construction product toknow its performance and how to install itChecking for a CE marking accompanyingthe manufacturer's Declaration ofPerformance for the productChecking for the manufacturer'sDeclaration of Performance for the productYes, systematicallyYes, when I am in doubt or I have been informed about changesNo, I do not expect any significant changes in the products I am using 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
on your/your company’s experience with construction products to know its performance 

and how to install it’. Nonetheless,  despite  the  apparent statistical significance,  given 

the small number of responses in the category ‘Other’, caution should be applied when 

assessing these findings. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 19: Do you have a preferred source for obtaining information on construction 

product performance? 

Indicate the response that best corresponds to your situation 

Figure 54:  

Preferred source for information on construction product performance 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Figure  54  indicates  that  most  construction  professionals  do  not  have  a 

preferred  source 

for  obtaining 

information  on  construction  product 

performance.  From  the  12%  of respondents that  indicated  preferred source(s)  (237 

respondents).The  main  categories  of  preferred  information  sources  that  could  be 

identified from the details entered by respondents, are: the internet in general  (4%), 

the  manufacturer  of  the  construction  product  (3%),  the  supplier  or  distributor  of  the 

construction product (2%), other experts such as public bodies or testing facilities (1%). 

Other miscellaneous options that could not be grouped in categories amounted to 3% of 

responses (or roughly a quarter of the sources from those respondents that indicated a 

preferred information source). 
Figure 55:  

Preferred source for information on construction product performance (per 
sector) – Detailed yes responses out of total 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

83 

No preferred source88%Internet4%Manufacturer2%Expert2%Supplier1%Other3%Yes12%If yes, please specify5%4%3%3%3%2%3%1%2%0,5%2%0,3%1%2%1%0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%Architecture &engineering (102respondents)Installationservices (62respondents)Construction &renovation (149respondents)InternetManufacturerExpertSupplierOther 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  55  shows  the  proportion  and  split  of  professionals  who  selected  a 

preferred information based on their sector of activity. Only 8% of professionals 

in  Construction  and  renovation  (from  1268  that  answered  this  question)  indicated  a 

preferred source of information, which is lower than the 13% for the other two sectors 

(from  495  respondents  for  installation  services  and  816  for  the  Architecture  & 

engineering). There are no major variations in the split between different  information 

source categories. 

Figure 56  

Preferred source for information on construction product performance (per size) 
Detailed yes responses out of total   

CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Source: 

Figure  56  shows  the  proportion  and  split  of  professionals  who  selected  a 

preferred information source based on their company size. For micro companies, 

16%  of  professionals  (out  of  822  who  responded  this  question)  indicated  a  preferred 

source,  compared  to  13%  for  large  companies  (from  502  responses),  12%  for  small 

companies (from 382 responses) and 9% for medium companies (from 328 responses). 

There are no major variations in the split between different sources identified. 

84 

3%3%4%5%3%1%2%4%3%1%1%2%1%2%2%3%4%3%3%0%5%10%15%20%Large (37respondents)Medium (30respondents)Small (55respondents)Micro (115respondents)InternetManufacturerExpertSupplierOther 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 20: Are there any other issues concerning information availability and data 

quality for construction products that are not addressed so far in this survey but that 

you consider as relevant? 

If yes, please specify below 

95%  of  respondents  did  not  have  any  additional  issues  to  mention,  which  could  be 

because they considered the questionnaire to be sufficiently comprehensive. 

98 specific answers to this question were given, i.e. 5% of respondents. 

The responses can be grouped in the following broad categories:  

•  Need  for  additional  information:  This  need  was  indicated  by  33  respondents. 

Many of the responses referred to their need for additional types of information (i.e. 

appearance, 

suitability,  packaging  units)  or 

information 

for  additional 

products/product  categories  (i.e.  finishing  products,  electrical  products)  that  are 

relevant to them. Other responses indicated the importance in regular updates of the 

information available (e.g. ISO) as well as the presentation of the information (i.e. 

presentation of data in figures instead of text); 

•  Standardisation  of  information:  The  need  for  standardisation  was  the  second 

most common response, selected by 10 respondents. Construction professionals who 

selected this option indicated that standardisation would contribute to objectivity and 

comparability of information and would allow direct comparison between the actual 

performance and requirements. A few respondents mentioned BIM as a  useful tool 

for standardisation; 

•  Information  through  the  manufacturers:  8  respondents  to  this  question 

indicated  the  importance  of  the  manufacturers’  role  for  providing  the  necessary 

information.  Construction  professionals  indicated  that  manufacturers  should  make 

technical  information  available  in  a  clear  and  transparent  way.  A  few  respondents 

mentioned  the  need  to  provide  information  through  the  manufacturers’  websites, 

while  other  stressed  the  need  for  direct  contact  with  manufacturers  (instead  of 

distributors); 

•  Construction products database: 8 respondents referred to the importance of a 

global  construction  products  database  (at  EU  or  national  level).  Respondents 

indicated that such a database for  construction products (which could also include 

notified bodies),  in a structured  and  comparable  manner,  could be essential  given 

the massive availability of information; 

•  Lack of transparency/Verification of information: 9 respondents mentioned the 

need  for  verification  of  information  or  the  lack  of  clarity  and  transparency  of 

information available to them. These respondents stressed that a public authority or 

another  third  party  should  verify  the  accuracy  of  information  provided  by  the 

manufacturers; 

•  Other: A number of other inputs as a response to this question could not be grouped. 

Examples are: the lack of availability of (specific) information, the large amount of 

information,  the  need  for  free  provision  of  standards,  the  high  regulatory  burden, 

and the need for availability of information in local languages. 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex A: Detailed survey methodology 

Project assignment overview 

The intention of the “Survey on user’s needs for information on construction products” 

was  to  provide  statistically  representative  results  on  EU  construction  professionals’ 

needs for information  on  construction products. The  initial targets set for the survey, 

subsequently  verified,  was  to  achieve  a  minimum  of  2  000  replies  across  10  given 

Member States (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Romania, 

Spain  and  the  United  Kingdom),  reflecting  inter  alia  the  size  composition  of  the 

population of construction enterprises. 

To  implement the “Survey on  user’s  needs for  information on construction products”, 

the following main tasks were performed:  

•  Task  1:  Questionnaire  preparation  and  translation.  Review  of  the  draft 

questionnaire prepared in English by the Commission Services to ensure clarity and 

readability,  as  well  as  propose  and  apply  any  necessary  content  changes.  After 

completion of the review, undertaken in collaboration with the Commission Services, 

the questionnaire has been translated into the 8 languages of the target non-English 

speaking countries: Danish, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Polish, Romanian and 

Spanish; 

•  Task 2: Sample definition. Definition and construction of an appropriately stratified 

sample, targeting a wide range of users from different company sizes, sectors and 

across 10 countries. The ‘target’ representative sample composition was developed 

using  information  from  Eurostat  Structural  Business  Statistics  (SBS),  taken  to  be 

representative  of  the  population  of  relevant  construction  enterprises.  The  ‘target’ 

representative sample composition was used to guide implementation of the survey, 

by  providing  a  tool  for  monitoring  the  representativeness  of  received  replies 

throughout the period when the survey was open and, where necessary, to initiate 

actions where the numbers of responses received were unbalanced. Subsequently, it 

was used to evaluate the overall representativeness of the final retained sample of 

survey replies; 

•  Task  3:  Survey  implementation.  Implementation  of  the  online  interviews 

(survey),  with  continuous  monitoring  of  responses  and  implementation  of  any 

mitigating  measures  needed  to  reach  the  target  of  a  balanced  sample  of  2,000 

responses.  

o  The  initial  proposed  approach  for  survey  implementation  was  based  on  direct 

electronic mailing sent to over 200 000 firms based on the sample definition, in 

combination  with  an  invitation  to  European  and  national  associations  to 

disseminate the survey to their relevant members; 

o  As  response  rates  from  these  approaches  proved  extremely  low,  an  additional 

approach using emails sent to a pre-established panel of enterprises was used to 

supplement the initial approach; 

The  survey  was  launched  online  on  October  23,  2017  and  closed  on  December  2, 

2017.  Initially,  the  survey  was  addressed  to  construction  professional  in  the  10 

initially selected countries. Due to concerns about the low response rate, the use if 

the pre-established panel of enterprises was instigated, with the sending of emails 

launched on 20 November 2017 (with the survey closed also on December 2, 2017). 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
For  this  approach,  the  country  coverage  was  extended  to  include  2  additional 

countries: Austria and the Netherlands. In total over 2,900 replies were received, of 

which 2,053 were retained for the subsequent data analysis; 

•  Task  4:  Data  analysis.  Translation  of  responses  to  open  survey  questions,  data 

preparation  and  analysis.  The  data  preparation  work  and  data  analysis  were 

implemented  in  December  2017  and  January  2018.  Translation  of  open  survey 

responses was undertaken in January 2018; 

•  Task  5:  Reporting.  Reporting  of  survey  results  ‘question  by  question’  with  their 

presentation  using  appropriate  graphical  figures  and  diagrams.  The  reporting  of 

survey results is documented in this report.  

Estimation of target sample composition 

Data from the Eurostat Structural Business Statistics (SBS)15 have been used to define 

a ‘target’ representative sample composition for the survey, based on three criteria: 

•  Sectoral  coverage:  for  which  three  main  professional  categories  of  construction 
product  users  were  identified,  defined  according  to  the  NACE  classification16,  as 

follows: 

o  Construction and renovation: firms and craftsmen involved in the construction or 

renovation of buildings and  specialised construction  activities (corresponding to 
NACE 4117, 43.1, 43.3, 43.9); 

o  Installation  services:  firms  and  craftsmen  providing  installation  services 

(corresponding to NACE 43.2); 

o  Architects  and  engineers:  professionals  providing 

construction-related 

architectural and engineering services (corresponding to NACE 71.1); 

•  Geographical  coverage:  for  which  10  Member  States  were  initially  selected: 

Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain and the 

United Kingdom. Collectively, these countries account for more than 80% of the EU 

turnover  in  the  sector  (based  on  Eurostat  SBS  data  for  2013)  and  are  considered 

representative of the  main  construction business  systems in the EU. Further,  they 

cover  the  various  EU  geographical  sub-regions,  and  both  large  and  small  Member 

States.  During  implementation  of  the  survey,  to  ensure  that  targets  by  EU 

geographical  sub-regions  were  reached,  two  additional  countries  were  added, 

namely: Austria and the Netherlands; 

•  Firm  size  coverage:  for  which  it  was  recognised  that  the  construction  sector  is 

dominated by SMEs, in particular micro and smaller enterprises, with an estimate of 

94%  of  firms  with  fewer  than  10  employees.  When  implementing  the  survey,  the 

following firm size categories have been used: 
o  micro (< 10 employees)18; 
o  small (10-49 employees); 

o  medium (50-249 employees), and  

o 

large (250+ employees) companies. 

15 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/structural-business-statistics 
16 NACE is the abbreviation used for the ‘Statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community’. 
17 NACE Groups 43.1 includes “Demolition and site preparation” as this falls under NACE Groups 43.1. As this activity is still not 
covered in harmonised standards, responses from this sector are not seen as relevant for the study. Accordingly, respondents 
identifying themselves as exclusively engaged in demolition and site preparation were excluded from the analysis of survey 
responses 

18 Including single persons (i.e. self-employed/ independent) 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The SBS data have been used to estimate the ideally required number of respondents 

per  sub-population  (stratum),  based  on  a  combination  of  indicators  of  number  of 

enterprises and turnover per country, and assuming a total of 2000 survey replies. The 

initial  estimates  of  the  number  of  respondents  per  sub-population  (stratum)  derived 

from SBS data were further adjusted to ensure a minimum target size of 5 respondents 

per stratum (table cell), considered as the least number possible at which data can be 
meaningfully analysed.19 The final ‘target’ sample composition for the survey is shown 

in Table 0.1.  

Table 0.1:  

Target representative sample composition 

Country   Total  

Sector  

Sector  

Sector  

Sector  

Micro (< 10) 

Small (10-49) 

Medium (50-249)  

Large (250+) 

BE  

DK 

DE  

IE 

ES 

FR 

IT 

PL 

RO 

UK 

1 

35 

11 

86 

8 

82 

101 

98 

49 

9 

85 

2 

10 

6 

56 

5 

32 

56 

42 

15 

5 

36 

107 

69 

383 

63 

231 

367 

289 

132 

65 

294 

3 

9 

5 

49 

5 

32 

52 

27 

9 

5 

44 

1 

13 

7 

66 

5 

30 

62 

51 

18 

6 

43 

2 

5 

5 

43 

5 

11 

23 

22 

5 

5 

3 

5 

5 

36 

5 

11 

22 

12 

5 

5 

1 

5 

5 

16 

5 

8 

19 

12 

6 

5 

14 

19 

21 

2 

5 

5 

9 

5 

5 

6 

5 

5 

5 

6 

3 

5 

5 

7 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

7 

1 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

11 

5 

5 

5 

9 

2 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

3 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

Total 

2000 

564  263  237  301  138  125 

102 

56 

54 

60 

50 

50 

1064 

564 

212 

160 

Sector 1: Construction and renovation 
Sector 2: Installation services 
Sector 3: Architectural and engineering services 
Source: Ecorys based on Eurostat SBS data  

Composition of survey responses 

In total, 2921 respondents took part in the survey. Of  these, 373 were automatically 

screened out as they did not perform any professional activities falling within the scope 

of  the  defined  sectoral  coverage,  and  16  replies  from  respondents  conducting  only 
demolition and site preparation activities were excluded.20 A further 13 replies that came 

from respondents from outside the geographical scope of the survey were also excluded. 

Finally,  a  further  466  replies  were  excluded,  where  the  information  provided  was 

insufficiently complete.  

19 This adjustment primarily had the effect of raising the target number of responses for smaller countries; in particular, Ireland 
and Romania. To balance these increases, while keeping the overall (minimum) target of 2000 respondents, the weighting of 
individual countries has been recalibrated by reducing the target number of responses for larger countries; in particular 
Germany, France and UK; although still maintaining the minimum target size of 5 respondents per stratum (table cell). 
20   NACE Groups 43.1 includes “Demolition and site preparation”. As this activity is not covered in harmonised standards, 
responses from this sector are not seen as relevant for the study. Accordingly, respondents identifying themselves as 
exclusively engaged in demolition and site preparation activities were excluded from the analysis of the survey responses. 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 0.2:  

Screening of overall survey replies 

Responses 

Total responses 

Screened out responses – outside sectoral scope 

Screened out responses – demolition and site preparation only 

Screened out responses – outside geographical scope 

Incomplete responses 

Final sample 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017) 

Number  

2921 

373 

16 

13 

466 

2053 

Table 0.3 presents the composition of survey responses for the final (retained) sample, 

by country and firm size. In terms of the sample distribution per country, the number 

of  responses  from  Germany,  Poland,  and  Romania  are  somewhat  below  the  ‘target’ 

levels,  while  the  numbers  of  responses  for  the  UK,  Denmark  and  Ireland  are  above 

appreciably above the target levels. The overall number of responses from medium and 

large companies are well above their target levels; by a factor of 2 for large companies, 

and by a factor of 1.8 for medium sized companies. Conversely, the number of responses 

from small and micro companies are below the target level. However, the overall number 

of retained replies corresponds to 78% of the target number for micro companies and 

90% for small enterprises. 

Table 0.3:  

Final survey sample composition by country and firm size 

Country  

Total  

Micro (< 10) 

Small 10-49) 

Medium (50-
249)  

Large (250+) 

BE  

DK 

DE  

IE 

ES 

FR 

IT 

PL 

RO 

UK 

AT* 

NL* 

90 

84 

316 

77 

233 

361 

301 

97 

48 

320 

47 

79 

36 

64 

135 

28 

55 

98 

150 

85 

38 

118 

15 

13 

29 

18 

103 

20 

57 

95 

67 

8 

10 

68 

13 

18 

17 

1 

47 

17 

57 

72 

57 

3 

0 

80 

9 

23 

8 

1 

31 

12 

64 

96 

27 

1 

0 

54 

10 

25 

Total 

506 
Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

2053 

835 

383 

329 

For  the  sector  of  activity,  the  survey  questionnaire  allowed  respondents  to  indicate 
multiple construction-related activities21, such that a single respondent can be counted 

as  active  in  more  than  one  of  the  three  sector  categories.  Table  0.4  shows  the  final 

sample composition of survey responses, including the breakdown by sector of activity 

and  allowing  for  multiple  responses;  note,  due  to  multiple  responses,  the  sum  of 

individual cells do not match the total number of responses for each country. Further, 

Table 0.5 shows the ratio between the sample composition and the target composition; 

i.e. comparing cells in Table 0.4 with their counterparts in Table 0.1, excluding Austria 

and  the  Netherlands  that  were  not  included  in  the  original  estimation  of  the  target 

composition.  A  direct  comparison  with  the  target  composition  is  not  possible  due  to 

multiple responses. However, the information suggests that response rates from micro 

enterprises, for all sectors, are low for Spain, and France. By contrast, response rates 

21 See Annex B, Question 3. 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
for  this  size  class  are  well  above  the  targets  for  Denmark  for  all  sectors.  Further, 

Denmark,  Poland,  and  Romania,  appear  to  have  low  response  rates  for  large  and 

medium-sized companies for all sectors. 

Table 0.4:  

Final survey sample composition by country, firm size, and sector of activity 

Micro (< 10) 

Small (10-49) 

Medium (50-
249)  

Large (250+) 

Country  

Total  

Sector  

Sector  

Sector  

Sector  

BE  

DK 

DE  

IE 

ES 

FR 

IT 

PL 

RO 

UK 

AT* 

NL* 

90 

84 

316 

77 

233 

361 

301 

97 

48 

320 

47 

79 

1 

30 

42 

90 

22 

34 

59 

72 

48 

7 

79 

6 

13 

2 

7 

12 

29 

6 

11 

27 

30 

27 

10 

28 

4 

10 

3 

13 

23 

58 

2 

25 

31 

87 

30 

28 

36 

9 

1 

1 

29 

13 

74 

14 

39 

67 

45 

5 

5 

2 

9 

3 

3 

1 

14 

24 

5 

1 

2 

4 

0 

3 

1 

2 

3 

11 

20  10  21 

0 

1 

0 

0 

21 

46 

38 

12 

23 

25  10  28 

7 

23 

20 

13 

4 

4 

9 

15 

19 

23 

1 

4 

9 

41 

46 

37 

2 

0 

5 

16 

20 

19 

1 

0 

5 

17 

30 

34 

0 

0 

7 

1 

7 

42  26  38 

57  13  47 

15  11  15 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

47 

27 

17 

59 

20 

34 

34  13  26 

8 

3 

18 

13 

6 

6 

4 

0 

23 

14 

4 

7 

6 

0 

7 

25  15  18 

Total 

2053 

496 

197 

334 

356  144  159  280  111  161  227  99  200 

Sector 1: Construction and renovation 
Sector 2: Installation services 
Sector 3: Architectural and engineering services 
Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Table 0.5:  

Ratio of final survey sample composition to target sample composition by 
country, firm size and sector of activity (in %) 

Country   Total  

Sector  

Sector  

Sector  

Sector  

Micro (< 10) 

Small (10-49) 

Medium (50-249)  

Large (250+) 

BE  

DK 

DE 

IE 

ES 

FR 

IT 

PL 

RO 

UK 

158 

122 

95 

122 

101 

98 

104 

73 

74 

109 

1 

86 

382 

105 

275 

41 

58 

73 

98 

78 

93 

86 

Total 

94  

2 

70 

200 

52 

120 

34 

48 

71 

180 

200 

78 

3 

144 

460 

118 

40 

78 

55 

207 

333 

560 

82 

138 

271 

78 

1 

123 

186 

100 

280 

130 

108 

88 

28 

83 

109 

105 

2 

100 

60 

42 

140 

209 

87 

59 

80 

80 

193 

90 

90 

3 

160 

100 

111 

180 

136 

86 

192 

20 

80 

89 

122 

1 

200 

20 

213 

180 

513 

242 

308 

33 

0 

281 

234 

2 

40 

0 

133 

100 

320 

333 

380 

20 

0 

333 

170 

181 

3 

80 

0 

271 

100 

340 

600 

680 

0 

0 

486 

265 

1 

100 

20 

380 

140 

840 

518 

300 

20 

0 

378 

302 

3 

60 

0 

420 

140 

760 

940 

300 

0 

0 

520 

314 

2 

40 

0 

200 

20 

520 

260 

220 

0 

0 

260 

152 

206 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
Check for composition bias 

To  check  for  possible  bias  in  the  survey  results  due  to  difference  between  the 

composition  of  final  sample  responses  and  the  target  composition,  a  comparison  has 

been made between the survey outcomes (unweighted) and adjusted outcomes, using 

weighting  factors  based  on  differences  between  the  survey  sample  and  the  target 

sample, adjusted for the difference between total retained survey sample size (2053) 

compared to the target of 2000 responses.  

The  weighting  factors,  which  are  based  on  the  ratio  between  the  target  number  of 

responses  per  sub-population  (stratum)  and  the  number  of  received  responses,  are 

shown  in  table  0.6.  For this  exercise,  the  survey  responses  for  Austria  were grouped 

with those from Germany, and the response from the Netherlands grouped with those 

from Belgium, thus permitting weighting factors to be calculated for the entire sample 

based on the original estimates of the ‘target’ composition. A weighting factor above 1 

indicates that the number of retained survey responses is below the ‘target’ number for 

the sub-population (stratum) and, conversely, a weighting factor below 1 indicates that 

the  number  of  retained  survey  responses  is  above  the  ‘target’  number  for  the  sub-

population (stratum). 

Weighting factors are calculated and used only for those sub-populations (stratum) with 

a minimum of 5 received responses. Otherwise, for sub-populations (stratum) with less 

than five received responses, the weighting factor has been set to 1, or is not applicable 

(NA) for sub-populations (stratum) with no received responses.  

Table 0.6:  

Survey weighting factors 

Micro (< 10) 

Small (< 50) 

Medium (< 250)  

Large (250+) 

Country  

Sector  

Sector  

Sector  

Sector  

BE & NL  

DK 

DE & AT 

IE 

ES 

FR 

IT 

PL 

RO 

UK 

1 

1,17 

0,27 

0,96 

0,40 

2,73 

1,98 

1,46 

1,02 

1,29 

1,12 

2 

1,43 

0,50 

1,93 

0,83 

2,91 

2,07 

1,40 

0,56 

0,50 

3 

1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

0,69 

0,45  0,56  0,36  0,21  1,00  0,45  0,25  0,50  0,24 

0,22 

0,54  1,00  1,00  1,00  NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

0,84 

0,89  2,05  0,78  0,42  0,75  0,30  0,20  0,50  0,18 

1,00 

0,45  0,71  0,56  0,56  1,00  1,00  0,83  1,00  0,71 

1,28 

0,83  0,48  0,73  0,21  0,31  0,29  0,12  0,19  0,13 

1,68 

1,03  1,15  1,16  0,48  0,30  0,17  0,22  0,38  0,11 

0,31 

1,28  1,69  0,52  0,33  0,26  0,15  0,36  0,45  0,33 

0,30 

1,00  1,00  1,00  1,00  1,00  NA 

1,00  NA 

0,18 

1,00  1,00  1,00  NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

1,29 

1,22 

1,08  0,52  1,12  0,39  0,30  0,21  0,30  0,38  0,19 

NA = not available (zero responses) 
Sector 1: Construction and renovation 
Sector 2: Installation services 
Sector 3: Architectural and engineering services 
Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

A  comparison  of  the  unweighted  and  weighted  survey  results  did  not  reveal  any 

systematic differences that would significantly alter findings derived on the basis of the 

unweighted  sample.  For  instance,  Tables  0.7,  0.8  and  0.9  illustrate  the  results  for 

weighted and unweighted responses of questions 5, 6 and 7. With respect to questions 

5  and  7  there  are  no  statistically  significant  differences  between  the  unweighted  and 

weighted sample percentages shown. For question 6 (Table 0.8), statistically significant 

differences  are  observed  for  only  6  out  of  the  33  product  categories.  Based  on  this 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
analysis, and a fuller assessment of the statistical significance of differences for other 

questions (not reported here), it has been determined that the presentation of survey 

results  in  the  main  body  of  this  report  would  been  undertaken  using  the  unweighted 

survey data.  

Table 0.7:  

Comparison of unweighted and weighted responses to Question 5 

Question 5: During the past 5 years, have you needed to 
obtain technical information on construction products; 
for example, because you have not used the product 
before or because of a different intended use of an 
already known product? 

Unweighted 
responses 

Weighted 
responses 

Frequently 

Regularly  

Occasionally  

No/very occasionally  

26,6% 

34,7% 

21,9% 

16,8% 

25,3% 

34,1% 

23,2% 

17,4% 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Table 0.8:  

Comparison of unweighted and weighted responses to Question 6 

Question 8: For the construction products (or product groups) 

Unweighted 

Weighted 

for which you have needed technical information, which of the 

responses 

responses 

following sources did you use to obtain the needed information? 

Thermal insulating products* 

Doors, windows 

Concrete, mortar & grout 

Cement 

Roof coverings 

Floorings (all materials) 

Sanitary appliances 

Wall and ceiling finishes 

Masonry products 

Space heating appliances* 

Adhesives* 

Wood based panels 

Gypsum products 

Precast concrete products 

Power, control and communication cables 

Pipes, tanks (for fuels, gas, water, drinking water) 

External Thermal Insulation Composites Systems (ETICS) 

Reinforcing steel 

Membranes 

Structural metallic products 

Glass products 

Sealants for non-structural use in joints in buildings and 
pedestrian walkways 

Fixed fire-fighting equipment 

Waste water disposal products 

Structural timber products and ancillaries** 

Geotextile products 

Aggregates 

Curtain walling products 

Anchors 

Chimneys** 

Structural bearings 

Road construction products* 

Circulation fixtures 

34% 

29% 

29% 

27% 

27% 

24% 

24% 

23% 

23% 

22% 

22% 

21% 

21% 

21% 

20% 

19% 

19% 

19% 

19% 

19% 

17% 

16% 

16% 

15% 

15% 

15% 

14% 

14% 

13% 

11% 

10% 

10% 

8% 

37% 

31% 

28% 

28% 

27% 

26% 

26% 

24% 

23% 

25% 

25% 

22% 

22% 

21% 

22% 

20% 

21% 

20% 

17% 

19% 

18% 

18% 

17% 

16% 

19% 

14% 

15% 

14% 

14% 

14% 

10% 

8% 

7% 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other 

5% 

5% 

* Statistically significantly different at 95% confidence level 
** Statistically significantly different at 99% confidence level 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

Table 0.9:  

Comparison of unweighted and weighted responses to Question 7 

Question 7: For the construction products (or product 
groups) for which you have needed technical 
information, which of the following types of information 
were you looking for? 

Unweighted 
responses 

Weighted 
responses 

Intended use of the product 

Mechanical strength 

Behaviour in fire 

Guidance/manual for installation 

Thermal conductivity 

Sound insulation properties 

Contents of dangerous substances 

Guidance/manual for maintenance or repair work 

Contact details of manufacturer 

Recyclability 

Reusability/possibility for dismantling 

General Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air  

Leaking into soil and water  

Contact details of testing facility/Technical Assessment Body 
(for ETAs) 

50% 

48% 

40% 

36% 

35% 

34% 

28% 

24% 

24% 

20% 

16% 

16% 

16% 

14% 

10% 

52% 

49% 

41% 

39% 

37% 

36% 

28% 

26% 

26% 

19% 

15% 

16% 

17% 

15% 

11% 

Other    

3% 

3% 

Source: CPR Survey results (2017), Ecorys calculations 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex B: Detailed Survey Results 

RESPONDENT INFORMATION 

Question 1: In which country is your company / business located? 

Country (n=2053) 

France 

United Kingdom 

Germany 

Italy 

Spain 

Poland 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Netherlands (added to initial sample) 

Ireland 

Romania 

Austria (added to initial sample) 

TOTAL 

Number 

361 

320 

316 

301 

233 

97 

90 

84 

79 

77 

48 

47 

% 

18 

16 

15 

15 

11 

5 

4 

4 

4 

4 

2 

2 

2053 

100 

Question 2: How many persons are employed in your company / 
business? 

Company size (n=2053) 

Number 

% 

Micro 

1 person (i.e. self-employed / independent) 

2 to 9 persons 

Small 

10 to 49 persons 

Medium  50 to 249 persons 

Large 

250 or more persons 

TOTAL 

308 

527 

506 

383 

329 

41 

25 

19 

16 

2053 

100 

Question 3: What types of construction activities are conducted by your 

company/ business? 

Multiple replies possible 

Number 

Share of 

Share of 

Number 

Share of 

Sector of activity 

of 

total 

respondents 

exclusively 

exclusive 

(n=2053) 

responses 

responses 

undertaking 

in all 

activity 

responses  

Construction and 

995 

28% 

48% 

358 

36% 

renovation of 

buildings 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Construction 

603 

17% 

29% 

237 

39% 

engineering and 

other construction-

related technical 

services 

Building completion 

599 

17% 

29% 

195 

33% 

and finishing 

Electrical, plumbing, 

499 

14% 

24% 

195 

39% 

and other 

construction 

installation activities 

Architectural 

activities 

386 

11% 

19% 

136 

35% 

Demolition and site 

272 

8% 

13% 

preparation 

Other  

TOTAL 

159 

5% 

8% 

3513 

100% 

0* 

41 

1162 

n.a. 

26% 

Number 

Share of 

Share of 

Number 

Share of 

of 

total 

respondents 

exclusively 

exclusive 

Grouped sector of 

grouped 

grouped 

undertaking 

in 

activity (n=2053) 

responses 

responses 

activity 

number 

Construction and 

1280 

46% 

62% 

renovation 

Installation services 

Architecture and 

engineering 

Other 

TOTAL 

499 

822 

159 

2760 

18% 

30% 

6% 

100% 

24% 

40% 

8% 

778 

199 

418 

82 

1477 

Question 4: What are your main tasks in your professional work? 

Multiple replies possible.  

of 

responses  

61% 

40% 

51% 

52% 

Number 

Share of 

Share of 

Number 

Share of 

of 

total 

respondents 

exclusively 

exclusive 

responses 

responses 

undertaking 

in 

682 

17% 

33% 

215 

32% 

activity 

number 

of 

responses  

616 

16% 

30% 

185 

30% 

Main tasks of 

respondents 

(n=2053) 

Repairing or 

maintaining 

buildings 

Installation of 

construction 

products in buildings 

Designing buildings  

609 

15% 

30% 

217 

36% 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Managing 

568 

14% 

28% 

159 

28% 

construction sites  

Purchasing 

construction 

products for your 

company 

501 

13% 

24% 

80 

16% 

Calculating specific 

406 

10% 

20% 

83 

20% 

building 

performances (e.g. 

structural integrity, 

fire safety) 

Building control for 

330 

8% 

16% 

40 

12% 

your company/for 

the building owner 

Other 

TOTAL 

Grouped tasks of 

respondents 

(n=2053) 

248 

3960 

6% 

100% 

12% 

222 

1201 

90% 

Number 

Share of 

Share of 

Number 

Share of 

of 

total 

respondents 

exclusively 

exclusive 

grouped 

grouped 

undertaking 

in 

responses 

responses 

activity 

number 

Construction & 

1297 

41% 

63% 

installation 

Design & 

performance  

Purchasing  

Building control  

Other 

TOTAL 

799 

25% 

39% 

501 

330 

248 

16% 

10% 

8% 

3175 

100% 

24% 

16% 

12% 

of 

responses  

50% 

42% 

16% 

12% 

90% 

647 

338 

80 

40 

222 

1327 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PART I: ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE OF OBTAINING TECHNICAL INFORMATION (OR 
DATA) ON CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS 

Question 5: During the past 5 years, have you needed to obtain technical information 

on construction products; for example, because you have not used the product before 

or because of a different intended use of an already known product?  

Indicate the response that best corresponds to your situation 

All respondents (n=2052) 

Responses 

Yes, frequently (e.g. on a daily or weekly basis) 

Yes, regularly (e.g. monthly or multiple times in a year) 

Yes, occasionally (e.g. a few times throughout a year) 

No, or only very occasionally  

Total 

545 

713 

450 

344 

2052 

Per sector 

Number of respondents 

Yes, frequently (e.g. on a daily or weekly 
basis) 

Yes, regularly (e.g. monthly or multiple times 
in a year) 

Yes, occasionally (e.g. a few times throughout 
a year) 

No, or only very occasionally 

Construction 
& 
renovation  

1280 

354 

420 

295 

211 

Installation 
services  

Architecture 
& 
engineering 

499 

128 

183 

106 

82 

822 

252 

314 

145 

111 

Per size 

Number of respondents 

Yes, frequently (e.g. on a daily or weekly basis) 

Yes, regularly (e.g. monthly or multiple times in a 
year) 

Yes, occasionally (e.g. a few times throughout a year) 

No, or only very occasionally  

Micro  Small   Medium   Large  

834 

176 

506 

147 

283 

230 

145 

171 

111 

77 

383 

115 

141 

67 

60 

329 

107 

118 

42 

62 

Per task 

Construction 
& installation  

Design & 
performance   

Purchasing  

Building 
control   

Number of respondents 

1297 

Yes, frequently (e.g. on a daily or 
weekly basis) 

Yes, regularly (e.g. monthly or 
multiple times in a year) 

Yes, occasionally (e.g. a few 
times throughout a year) 

No, or only very occasionally  

346 

464 

311 

176 

799 

320 

321 

111 

47 

501 

163 

187 

112 

39 

330 

107 

124 

72 

27 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 6: For which types of construction products (or product groups) 

have you needed to obtain technical information? 

Multiple replies possible - Question open to respondents who signalled they needed 

to obtain product information in the past 5 years (Question 5) 

Number of selected construction products  

Responses 

1 product 

2-4 products 

5-9 products 

10-19 products 

20-29 products 

30-34 products 

All respondents (n=1706) 

Thermal insulating products 

Doors, windows 

Concrete, mortar & grout 

Cement 

Roof coverings 

Floorings (all materials) 

Sanitary appliances 

Wall and ceiling finishes 

Masonry products 

Space heating appliances 

Adhesives 

Wood based panels 

Gypsum products 

Precast concrete products 

Power, control and communication cables 

Pipes, tanks (for fuels, gas, water, drinking water) 

External Thermal Insulation Composites Systems (ETICS) 

Reinforcing steel 

Membranes 

Structural metallic products 

Glass products 

Sealants for non-structural use in joints in buildings and pedestrian 
walkways 

Fixed fire-fighting equipment 

Waste water disposal products 

Structural timber products and ancillaries 

Geotextile products 

Aggregates 

Curtain walling products 

Anchors 

Chimneys 

Structural bearings 

Road construction products 

Circulation fixtures 

Other* 

Total 

266 

602 

493 

260 

24 

61 

Responses 

572 

495 

489 

466 

458 

413 

406 

399 

396 

373 

373 

358 

358 

357 

333 

326 

325 

322 

319 

317 

291 

274 

268 

263 

262 

248 

247 

245 

221 

196 

179 

164 

131 

84 

10928 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
*If other, please specify 

Out  of  the  84  replies  (5%,  of  total  respondents),  33  respondents  did  not  specify  any  specific 
product. Therefore 3% of respondents actually quoted other specific products. 

These include closures (mentioned by 11 respondents), paints and paintings (mentioned by 10 
respondents), electrical products (mentioned by 6 respondents). Less quoted responses included 
ventilation, energy products, composites, safety devices, plastics and miscellaneous construction 
material. 

Per sector 

Construction & 
renovation  

Installation 
services 

Architecture & 
engineering  

Number of respondents 

1067 

417 

710 

Thermal insulating products 

Doors, windows 

Concrete, mortar & grout 

Cement 

Roof coverings 

Floorings (all materials) 

Sanitary appliances 

Wall and ceiling finishes 

Masonry products 

Space heating appliances 

Adhesives 

Wood based panels 

Gypsum products 

Precast concrete products 

Power, control and communication 
cables 

Pipes, tanks (for fuels, gas, water, 
drinking water) 

External Thermal Insulation 
Composites Systems (ETICS) 

Reinforcing steel 

Membranes 

Structural metallic products 

Glass products 

Sealants for non-structural use in 
joints in buildings and pedestrian 
walkways 

Fixed fire-fighting equipment 

Waste water disposal products 

Structural timber products and 
ancillaries 

Geotextile products 

Aggregates 

Curtain walling products 

Anchors 

Chimneys 

Structural bearings 

Road construction products 

Circulation fixtures 

Other    

388 

327 

339 

344 

304 

269 

240 

271 

272 

207 

270 

253 

277 

226 

184 

187 

233 

215 

203 

197 

193 

192 

151 

157 

173 

151 

168 

156 

145 

124 

120 

100 

101 

44 

152 

114 

117 

111 

107 

92 

148 

95 

88 

150 

112 

86 

95 

91 

166 

141 

87 

94 

76 

81 

72 

71 

101 

102 

57 

60 

70 

62 

64 

59 

50 

39 

41 

14 

307 

289 

232 

221 

262 

257 

222 

217 

222 

208 

157 

200 

170 

206 

159 

177 

186 

204 

184 

204 

177 

146 

165 

156 

161 

147 

141 

162 

125 

111 

118 

107 

67 

34 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
101 

Thermal insulating productsDoors, windowsConcrete, mortar & groutCementRoof coveringsFloorings (all materials)Sanitary appliancesWall and ceiling finishesMasonry productsSpace heating appliancesAdhesivesWood based panelsGypsum productsPrecast concrete productsPower, control and communication cablesPipes, tanks (for fuels, gas, water, drinkingwater)External Thermal Insulation CompositesSystems (ETICS)Reinforcing steelMembranesStructural metallic productsGlass productsSealants for non-structural use in joints inbuildings and pedestrian walkwaysFixed fire-fighting equipmentWaste water disposal productsStructural timber products and ancillariesGeotextile productsAggregatesCurtain walling productsAnchorsChimneysStructural bearingsRoad construction productsCirculation fixturesOtherConstruction & renovationInstallationArchitecture & engineering 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Per size 

Micro  

Small    Medium   

Large  

Number of respondents 

Thermal insulating products 

Doors, windows 

Concrete, mortar & grout 

Cement 

Roof coverings 

Floorings (all materials) 

Sanitary appliances 

Wall and ceiling finishes 

Masonry products 

Space heating appliances 

Adhesives 

Wood based panels 

Gypsum products 

Precast concrete products 

Power, control and communication cables 

Pipes, tanks (for fuels, gas, water, drinking 
water) 

External Thermal Insulation Composites 
Systems (ETICS) 

Reinforcing steel 

Membranes 

Structural metallic products 

Glass products 

Sealants for non-structural use in joints in 
buildings and pedestrian walkways 

Fixed fire-fighting equipment 

Waste water disposal products 

Structural timber products and ancillaries 

Geotextile products 

Aggregates 

Curtain walling products 

Anchors 

Chimneys 

Structural bearings 

Road construction products 

Circulation fixtures 

Other    

688 

269 

235 

181 

150 

221 

216 

187 

193 

159 

179 

173 

160 

151 

124 

131 

121 

133 

107 

135 

122 

120 

122 

104 

106 

122 

85 

86 

106 

97 

102 

62 

49 

33 

47 

428 

129 

111 

118 

111 

83 

82 

88 

86 

96 

72 

89 

83 

80 

88 

63 

76 

72 

69 

63 

60 

63 

58 

38 

53 

58 

55 

50 

55 

53 

51 

33 

32 

26 

22 

323 

267 

98 

77 

98 

113 

83 

54 

67 

59 

72 

66 

52 

55 

69 

70 

69 

68 

67 

75 

58 

67 

56 

52 

66 

53 

37 

53 

47 

35 

32 

27 

37 

42 

37 

6 

76 

72 

92 

92 

71 

61 

64 

61 

69 

56 

59 

60 

58 

75 

70 

61 

53 

71 

63 

68 

52 

42 

60 

51 

45 

55 

64 

49 

39 

16 

47 

41 

35 

9 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
103 

Thermal insulating productsDoors, windowsConcrete, mortar & groutCementRoof coveringsFloorings (all materials)Sanitary appliancesWall and ceiling finishesMasonry productsSpace heating appliancesAdhesivesWood based panelsGypsum productsPrecast concrete productsPower, control and communication cablesPipes, tanks (for fuels, gas, water, drinkingwater)External Thermal Insulation CompositesSystems (ETICS)Reinforcing steelMembranesStructural metallic productsGlass productsSealants for non-structural use in joints inbuildings and pedestrian walkwaysFixed fire-fighting equipmentWaste water disposal productsStructural timber products and ancillariesGeotextile productsAggregatesCurtain walling productsAnchorsChimneysStructural bearingsRoad construction productsCirculation fixturesOtherMicroSmallMediumLarge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Per task 

Number of respondents 

Thermal insulating products 

Doors, windows 

Concrete, mortar & grout 

Cement 

Roof coverings 

Floorings (all materials) 

Sanitary appliances 

Wall and ceiling finishes 

Masonry products 

Space heating appliances 

Adhesives 

Wood based panels 

Gypsum products 

Precast concrete products 

Power, control and 
communication cables 

Pipes, tanks (for fuels, gas, 
water, drinking water) 

External Thermal Insulation 
Composites Systems (ETICS) 

Reinforcing steel 

Membranes 

Structural metallic products 

Glass products 

Sealants for non-structural 
use in joints in buildings and 
pedestrian walkways 

Fixed fire-fighting equipment 

Waste water disposal products 

Structural timber products and 
ancillaries 

Geotextile products 

Aggregates 

Curtain walling products 

Anchors 

Chimneys 

Structural bearings 

Road construction products 

Circulation fixtures 

Other    

Construction 
& installation  

Design & 
performance  

Purchasing   

Building 
control   

1119 

751 

461 

302 

397 

315 

339 

308 

300 

284 

283 

279 

251 

259 

295 

232 

249 

238 

256 

243 

242 

236 

229 

228 

193 

204 

202 

193 

165 

165 

180 

147 

174 

136 

123 

107 

100 

50 

322 

282 

236 

259 

271 

242 

234 

221 

228 

222 

145 

215 

190 

201 

160 

168 

199 

187 

187 

179 

182 

133 

162 

153 

157 

143 

137 

174 

116 

123 

117 

94 

80 

32 

204 

169 

164 

151 

145 

139 

134 

131 

130 

134 

167 

127 

135 

115 

121 

116 

155 

138 

129 

112 

125 

114 

112 

110 

120 

105 

107 

105 

97 

96 

93 

90 

121 

108 

130 

105 

110 

102 

115 

90 

89 

96 

80 

83 

84 

81 

77 

78 

57 

54 

13 

103 

85 

89 

85 

92 

67 

79 

85 

67 

80 

81 

72 

65 

57 

49 

42 

10 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 7: For the construction products (or product groups) for which 

you have needed technical information, which of the following types of 

information were you looking for? 

Multiple replies possible - Question open to respondents who signalled they 

needed to obtain product information in the past 5 years (Question 5) 

All respondents (n=1706) 

Intended use of the product 

Mechanical strength (data or class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. resistance or reaction to fire -performance class) 

Guidance/manual for installation 

Thermal conductivity (data or class) 

Sound insulation properties 

Contents of dangerous substances 

Guidance/manual for maintenance or repair work 

Contact details of manufacturer 

Recyclability (e.g. manufacturer’s declaration, availability of recycling 
infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for dismantling 

General Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air (values or classes) 

Leaking into soil and water (values or classes) 

Contact details of testing facility/Technical Assessment Body (for ETAs) 

Other* 

Total 

*If other, please specify 

Responses 

860 

815 

677 

607 

600 

581 

474 

414 

408 

347 

279 

274 

271 

242 

178 

44 

7071 

Out of the 44 replies (3%, of total respondents), 6 respondents did not specify any specific 
type of information. Therefore 2% of respondents actually quoted other specific types of 
information. 

These include the price of products (mentioned by 5 respondents) and miscellaneous types of 
technical information (mentioned by less than 5 respondents) such as certifications, test reports, 
durability,  basis  of  calculation,  viscosities,  densities,  reaction  time,  thermal  insulation  and 
permeability. 

Per sector 

Construction 
& renovation  

Installation 
services 

Architecture 
& 
engineering 

Number of respondents 

Intended use of the product 

Mechanical strength (data or class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. resistance or reaction 
to fire -performance class) 

Guidance/manual for installation 

Thermal conductivity (data or class) 

Sound insulation properties 

Contents of dangerous substances 

1067 

556 

523 

433 

367 

365 

382 

302 

417 

204 

195 

175 

203 

165 

141 

125 

710 

380 

405 

335 

279 

321 

305 

241 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Guidance/manual for maintenance or repair 
work 

Contact details of manufacturer 

Recyclability (e.g. manufacturer’s 
declaration, availability of recycling 
infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for dismantling 

General Environmental Product Declarations 
(EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air (values or classes) 

Leaking into soil and water (values or 
classes) 

Contact details of testing facility/Technical 
Assessment Body (for ETAs) 

Other    

257 

252 

230 

179 

183 

177 

154 

110 

20 

141 

104 

83 

75 

91 

75 

71 

42 

9 

195 

231 

178 

149 

151 

148 

143 

107 

23 

Per size 

Micro 

Small 

Medium 

Number of respondents 

Intended use of the product 

Mechanical strength (data or class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. resistance or 
reaction to fire -performance class) 

Guidance/manual for installation 

Thermal conductivity (data or 
class) 

Sound insulation properties 

Contents of dangerous substances 

Guidance/manual for maintenance 
or repair work 

Contact details of manufacturer 

689 

377 

337 

292 

262 

301 

282 

177 

193 

176 

427 

220 

193 

159 

138 

148 

136 

104 

97 

101 

323 

133 

152 

127 

90 

83 

105 

102 

70 

67 

Large  

267 

130 

133 

99 

91 

75 

77 

91 

54 

64 

106 

Intended use of the productMechanical strengthBehaviour in fireGuidance/manual forinstallationThermal conductivitySound insulation propertiesContents of dangeroussubstancesGuidance/manual formaintenance or repair workContact details ofmanufacturerRecyclabilityReusability/possibility fordismantlingGeneral EnvironmentalProduct Declarations (EPD)Emissions into indoor airLeaking into soil and waterContact details of testingfacility/TechnicalAssessment Body (for…OtherConstruction & renovationInstallationArchitecture & engineering 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recyclability (e.g. manufacturer’s 
declaration, availability of recycling 
infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental Product 
Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air (values or 
classes) 

Leaking into soil and water (values 
or classes) 

Contact details of testing 
facility/Technical Assessment Body 
(for ETAs) 

Other    

111 

76 

86 

91 

97 

84 

66 

24 

67 

58 

58 

50 

42 

12 

85 

64 

68 

59 

51 

27 

5 

75 

57 

62 

57 

57 

43 

3 

Per task 

Number of respondents 

Intended use of the product 

Mechanical strength (data or 
class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. 
resistance or reaction to fire -
performance class) 

Guidance/manual for 
installation 

Thermal conductivity (data or 
class) 

Sound insulation properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair work 

Contact details of 
manufacturer 

Construction 
& 
installation 

1119 

572 

548 

Design & 
performance 

Purchasing 

Building 
control 

751 

417 

398 

461 

266 

252 

302 

174 

183 

461 

358 

216 

157 

450 

410 

391 

345 

316 

267 

252 

320 

319 

231 

165 

212 

214 

199 

195 

173 

157 

136 

145 

157 

142 

128 

108 

104 

107 

Intended use of the productMechanical strengthBehaviour in fireGuidance/manual forinstallationThermal conductivitySound insulation propertiesContents of dangeroussubstancesGuidance/manual formaintenance or repair workContact details ofmanufacturerRecyclabilityReusability/possibility fordismantlingGeneral EnvironmentalProduct Declarations (EPD)Emissions into indoor airLeaking into soil and waterContact details of testingfacility/Technical…OtherMicroSmallMediumLarge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recyclability (e.g. 
manufacturer’s declaration, 
availability of recycling 
infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental 
Product Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air 
(values or classes) 

Leaking into soil and water 
(values or classes) 

Contact details of testing 
facility/Technical Assessment 
Body (for ETAs) 

Other    

243 

200 

111 

203 

194 

192 

166 

103 

21 

146 

145 

159 

137 

99 

22 

97 

117 

99 

94 

70 

7 

91 

66 

79 

73 

70 

61 

9 

Question 8: For the construction products (or product groups) for which 

you have needed technical information, which of the following sources 

did you use to obtain the needed information? 

Multiple replies possible - Question open to respondents who signalled they 

needed to obtain product information in the past 5 years (Question 5) 

All respondents (n=1704) 

Product data sheet 

Product information supplied on the product or accompanying the product (e.g. 
Declaration of performance or CE marking) 

Certificates provided by authorities (including specific technical data) 

Certificates provided by authorities (without any specific technical data) 

Other* 

Total 

*If other, please specify 

Responses 

1318 

911 

528 

434 

62 

3253 

Out  of  the  62  replies  (4%,  of  total  respondents),  8  respondents  did  not  provide  any  specific 
sources  of  information.  Therefore  3%  of  respondents  actually  quoted  other  specific  source  of 
information. 

These include the internet (mentioned by 22 respondents), the manufacturer (mentioned by 17 
respondents),  and  miscellaneous  sources  (mentioned  by  less  than  5  respondents)  such  as 
authorities (but not certificates) or other undefined third parties. 

Per sector 

Number of respondents 

Product data sheet 

Construction 
& renovation 
(n=1066) 

Installati
on 
services 
(n=416) 

Architectur
e & 
engineering 
 (n=710) 

1066 

811 

416 

334 

710 

607 

Product information supplied on the product or 
accompanying the product (e.g. Declaration of 
performance or CE marking) 

Certificates provided by authorities (including 
specific technical data) 

Certificates provided by authorities (without any 
specific technical data) 

587 

244 

413 

327 

287 

139 

130 

285 

196 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Other 

32 

16 

24 

Per size 

Micro 

Small  Medium 

Large  

Number of respondents 

Product data sheet 

687 

576 

428 

328 

323 

213 

266 

201 

Product information supplied on the product or 
accompanying the product (e.g. Declaration of 
performance or CE marking) 

Certificates provided by authorities (including 
specific technical data) 

Certificates provided by authorities (without 
any specific technical data) 

Other 

349 

223 

192 

147 

197 

133 

101 

135 

38 

102 

11 

111 

9 

97 

86 

4 

Question 9: For the construction products (or product groups) for which 

you have needed technical information, were you able to obtain the 

information that you were looking for? 

Indicate the response that best corresponds to your situation - Question open to 

respondents who signalled they needed to obtain product information in the past 

5 years (Question 5) 

All respondents 

Type of information 

Intended use of the product 

Mechanical strength (data or class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. resistance or 
reaction to fire -performance class) 

Guidance/manual for installation 

Thermal conductivity (data or 
class) 

Sound insulation properties 

Contents of dangerous substances 

Guidance/manual for maintenance 
or repair work 

Contact details of manufacturer 

Recyclability (e.g. manufacturer’s 
declaration, availability of recycling 
infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental Product 
Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air (values or 
classes) 

Leaking into soil and water (values 
or classes) 

Contact details of testing 
facility/Technical Assessment Body 
(for ETAs) 

Other (as specified in Q7)    

YES 
relatively 
easily 

1058 

702 

650 

803 

693 

623 

499 

509 

902 

429 

430 

472 

399 

406 

499 

125 

YES 
but with 
some effort 
required 

NO 
unable to 
find 
information 

n=1706 

Not 
relevant 

495 

640 

578 

481 

490 

533 

545 

509 

397 

513 

462 

472 

474 

403 

462 

133 

50 

95 

148 

129 

120 

133 

204 

133 

102 

68 

201 

253 

215 

317 

328 

355 

310 

212 

199 

448 

215 

177 

208 

221 

479 

450 

496 

539 

190 

431 

55 

413 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Construction & renovation 

Type of information 

Intended use of the product 

Mechanical strength (data or 
class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. 
resistance or reaction to fire -
performance class) 

Guidance/manual for 
installation 

hermal conductivity (data or 
class) 

Sound insulation properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair work 

Contact details of 
manufacturer 

Recyclability (e.g. 
manufacturer’s declaration, 
availability of recycling 
infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental 
Product Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air 
(values or classes) 

Leaking into soil and water 
(values or classes) 

Contact details of testing 
facility/Technical Assessment 
Body (for ETAs) 

Other  (as specified in Q7) 

Installation services  

Type of information 

Intended use of the product 

Mechanical strength (data or 
class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. 
resistance or reaction to fire -
performance class) 

Guidance/manual for 
installation 

Thermal conductivity (data or 
class) 

Sound insulation properties 

YES 
relatively 
easily 

YES 
but with 
some effort 
required 

NO 
unable to find 
information 

 n=1067 

Not 
relevant 

695 

467 

284 

395 

447 

345 

521 

467 

425 

349 

319 

572 

299 

301 

334 

339 

319 

254 

31 

58 

91 

79 

76 

82 

115 

88 

66 

39 

106 

140 

126 

178 

179 

206 

172 

125 

295 

313 

130 

262 

304 

303 

287 

286 

340 

85 

287 

303 

306 

249 

287 

93 

124 

105 

126 

131 

119 

29 

YES 
relatively 
easily 

YES 
but with 
some effort 
required 

NO 
unable to find 
information 

251 

170 

133 

146 

151 

162 

229 

170 

152 

113 

127 

123 

8 

21 

24 

26 

28 

35 

282 

256 

276 

324 

252 

250 

 n=417 

Not 
relevant 

13 

60 

58 

38 

71 

80 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair work 

Contact details of 
manufacturer 

Recyclability (e.g. 
manufacturer’s declaration, 
availability of recycling 
infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental 
Product Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air 
(values or classes) 

Leaking into soil and water 
(values or classes) 

Contact details of testing 
facility/Technical Assessment 
Body (for ETAs) 

Other  (as specified in Q7)  

Architecture & engineering 

Type of information 

Intended use of the product 

Mechanical strength (data or 
class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. 
resistance or reaction to fire -
performance class) 

Guidance/manual for 
installation 

Thermal conductivity (data or 
class) 

Sound insulation properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair work 

Contact details of 
manufacturer 

Recyclability (e.g. 
manufacturer’s declaration, 
availability of recycling 
infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental 
Product Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air 
(values or classes) 

Leaking into soil and water 
(values or classes) 

113 

130 

220 

130 

130 

96 

106 

134 

108 

133 

97 

108 

122 

30 

121 

133 

124 

101 

113 

26 

45 

27 

27 

44 

43 

37 

45 

42 

47 

11 

102 

57 

50 

105 

115 

102 

120 

131 

103 

106 

YES 
relatively 
easily 

YES 
but with 
some effort 
required 

NO 
unable to find 
information 

n=710 

Not 
relevant 

433 

294 

221 

290 

279 

264 

332 

310 

277 

192 

229 

402 

213 

215 

231 

259 

229 

171 

171 

242 

164 

209 

152 

170 

214 

209 

211 

184 

15 

35 

60 

47 

38 

52 

86 

45 

33 

81 

105 

74 

95 

92 

29 

71 

91 

85 

117 

122 

143 

132 

77 

182 

190 

181 

208 

216 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
Contact details of testing 
facility/Technical Assessment 
Body (for ETAs) 

Other(as specified in Q7)    

210 

59 

215 

51 

77 

21 

168 

162 

Sum of ‘YES relatively easily’ and ‘YES but with some effort required’ out of total respondents 
(excluding ‘Not relevant’) 

Micro 

Type of information 

Intended use of the product 

Mechanical strength (data or 
class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. 
resistance or reaction to fire 
-performance class) 

Guidance/manual for 
installation 

Thermal conductivity (data or 
class) 

Sound insulation properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair work 

Contact details of 
manufacturer 

Recyclability (e.g. 
manufacturer’s declaration, 
availability of recycling 
infrastructures) 

YES 
relatively 
easily 

YES 
but with 
some effort 
required 

NO 
unable to 
find 
information 

n=688 

Not relevant 

433 

260 

179 

243 

228 

223 

320 

271 

226 

152 

190 

353 

190 

188 

213 

190 

190 

135 

105 

165 

15 

27 

59 

45 

38 

46 

81 

53 

28 

90 

36 

113 

131 

92 

140 

148 

202 

149 

111 

259 

112 

Intended use of the productMechanical strengthBehaviour in fireGuidance/manual forinstallationThermal conductivitySound insulation propertiesContents of dangeroussubstancesGuidance/manual formaintenance or repair workContact details ofmanufacturerRecyclabilityReusability/possibility fordismantlingGeneral EnvironmentalProduct Declarations (EPD)Emissions into indoor airLeaking into soil and waterContact details of testingfacility/TechnicalAssessment Body (for…OtherConstruction & renovationInstallationArchitecture & engineering 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental 
Product Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air 
(values or classes) 

Leaking into soil and water 
(values or classes) 

Contact details of testing 
facility/Technical Assessment 
Body (for ETAs) 

Other (as specified in Q7)   

Small 

Type of information 

Intended use of the product 

Mechanical strength (data or 
class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. 
resistance or reaction to fire 
-performance class) 

Guidance/manual for 
installation 

Thermal conductivity (data or 
class) 

Sound insulation properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair work 

Contact details of 
manufacturer 

Recyclability (e.g. 
manufacturer’s declaration, 
availability of recycling 
infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental 
Product Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air 
(values or classes) 

Leaking into soil and water 
(values or classes) 

Contact details of testing 
facility/Technical Assessment 
Body (for ETAs) 

Other (as specified in Q7)   

Medium 

Type of information 

109 

171 

112 

97 

139 

40 

167 

171 

164 

135 

180 

51 

87 

64 

75 

88 

69 

19 

255 

237 

262 

286 

225 

182 

YES 
relatively 
easily 

YES 
but with 
some effort 
required 

NO 
unable to 
find 
information 

 n=428 

Not relevant 

272 

183 

114 

147 

182 

129 

215 

184 

179 

146 

113 

229 

96 

110 

107 

124 

113 

94 

119 

122 

115 

113 

111 

116 

108 

113 

99 

90 

130 

100 

37 

35 

16 

29 

32 

35 

37 

39 

46 

31 

28 

54 

51 

43 

54 

50 

47 

15 

18 

46 

61 

54 

69 

77 

80 

80 

50 

94 

114 

105 

119 

125 

111 

101 

YES 
relatively 
easily 

YES 
but with 
some effort 
required 

NO 
unable to 
find 
information 

 n=323 

Not relevant 

Intended use of the product 

186 

118 

10 

7 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
Mechanical strength (data or 
class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. 
resistance or reaction to fire 
-performance class) 

Guidance/manual for 
installation 

Thermal conductivity (data or 
class) 

Sound insulation properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair work 

Contact details of 
manufacturer 

Recyclability (e.g. 
manufacturer’s declaration, 
availability of recycling 
infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental 
Product Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air 
(values or classes) 

Leaking into soil and water 
(values or classes) 

Contact details of testing 
facility/Technical Assessment 
Body (for ETAs) 

Other (as specified in Q7)   

Large 

Type of information 

Intended use of the product 

Mechanical strength (data or 
class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. 
resistance or reaction to fire 
-performance class) 

Guidance/manual for 
installation 

Thermal conductivity (data or 
class) 

Sound insulation properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair work 

Contact details of 
manufacturer 

Recyclability (e.g. 
manufacturer’s declaration, 
availability of recycling 
infrastructures) 

132 

148 

120 

135 

143 

136 

113 

109 

120 

160 

106 

105 

124 

121 

120 

99 

107 

128 

107 

107 

92 

103 

123 

30 

107 

107 

120 

105 

96 

24 

19 

27 

30 

24 

26 

47 

29 

31 

32 

41 

38 

44 

42 

43 

10 

24 

37 

36 

53 

55 

39 

40 

29 

49 

60 

54 

60 

66 

53 

60 

YES 
relatively 
easily 

YES 
but with 
some effort 
required 

NO 
unable to 
find 
information 

 n=267 

Not relevant 

167 

127 

120 

125 

102 

105 

92 

86 

160 

98 

84 

102 

91 

89 

87 

89 

110 

86 

69 

98 

9 

20 

30 

19 

21 

22 

30 

20 

15 

23 

7 

18 

24 

33 

55 

48 

34 

41 

22 

46 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental 
Product Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air 
(values or classes) 

Leaking into soil and water 
(values or classes) 

Contact details of testing 
facility/Technical Assessment 
Body (for ETAs)  

Other (as specified in Q7)   

99 

81 

84 

90 

107 

18 

80 

81 

91 

73 

86 

23 

36 

32 

35 

41 

31 

11 

50 

54 

55 

62 

42 

70 

Sum of ‘YES relatively easily’ and ‘YES but with some effort required’ out of total 
respondents (excluding ‘Not relevant’) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. resistance or reaction to fire -performance class) 

 n=1629 

Country 

Austria 

Belgium 

Denmark 

France 

Germany 

Ireland 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Romania 

Spain 

United Kingdom 

YES 
relatively 
easily 

YES 
but with 
some 
effort 
required 

NO 
unable to find 
information 

Not 
relevant 

15 

30 

13 

130 

112 

24 

125 

21 

25 

6 

83 

66 

15 

16 

25 

92 

87 

25 

101 

20 

17 

29 

72 

79 

6 

13 

3 

19 

16 

4 

22 

12 

8 

5 

16 

24 

5 

7 

19 

35 

35 

8 

31 

11 

12 

2 

24 

64 

115 

Intended use of the productMechanical strengthBehaviour in fireGuidance/manual forinstallationThermal conductivitySound insulation propertiesContents of dangeroussubstancesGuidance/manual formaintenance or repair workContact details ofmanufacturerRecyclabilityReusability/possibility fordismantlingGeneral EnvironmentalProduct Declarations (EPD)Emissions into indoor airLeaking into soil and waterContact details of testingfacility/Technical…OtherMicroSmallMediumLarge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mechanical strength (data or class) 

 N=1638 

Country 

Austria 

Belgium 

Denmark 

France 

Germany 

Ireland 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Romania 

Spain 

United Kingdom 

YES 
relatively 
easily 

YES 
but with 
some 
effort 
required 

NO 
unable to find 
information 

Not 
relevant 

16 

33 

18 

142 

114 

24 

130 

28 

31 

11 

82 

73 

16 

21 

22 

98 

90 

28 

113 

24 

29 

20 

86 

93 

5 

4 

1 

17 

13 

1 

11 

5 

2 

4 

14 

18 

4 

9 

20 

27 

33 

8 

25 

7 

5 

3 

12 

48 

Recyclability (e.g. manufacturer’s declaration, availability of recycling 
infrastructures) 

n=1589 

YES 
relatively 
easily 

YES 
but with 
some 
effort 
required 

NO 
unable to find 
information 

Not 
relevant 

Country 

Austria 

Belgium 

Denmark 

France 

Germany 

Ireland 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Romania 

Spain 

United Kingdom 

15 

18 

2 

98 

52 

25 

80 

17 

7 

6 

58 

51 

13 

21 

6 

81 

72 

22 

115 

25 

9 

6 

74 

69 

4 

12 

11 

36 

29 

4 

27 

8 

11 

10 

19 

28 

Reusability/possibility for dismantling 

Country 

Austria 

Belgium 

Denmark 

France 

YES 
relatively 
easily 

YES but 
with some 
effort 
required 

NO unable to 
find 
information 

11 

15 

4 

92 

16 

19 

5 

80 

4 

12 

10 

37 

9 

15 

39 

57 

78 

10 

57 

13 

34 

12 

43 

81 

n=1586 

Not 
relevant 

10 

19 

40 

63 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
Germany 

Ireland 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Romania 

Spain 

United Kingdom 

57 

23 

76 

21 

9 

8 

64 

50 

49 

21 

105 

19 

6 

10 

64 

68 

34 

5 

36 

9 

11 

11 

23 

23 

88 

12 

62 

14 

35 

9 

43 

84 

Question 10: In your opinion, what could be done to make technical information on 

construction products more easily available for your work? 

Open text answers - Question open to respondents who signalled they needed to obtain 

product information in the past 5 years (Question 5) 

Full sample 

Responded, indicating they are satisfied 

Responded, without providing a suggestion 

Provided a suggestion 

Total Responses 
n=1321 

56 

221 

1044 

More specifically responses providing suggestions (1044) were grouped in suggestions for:  

Uploading information or improve manufacturers’ websites (174 respondents – 17%); 
Improving availability of information online (146 respondents – 14%); 

•  Online construction products databases (214 respondents – 20%); 
• 
• 
•  Making more information available (121 respondents – 12%); 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Improving accessibility of information (50 respondents – 5%) ; 
Improving quality of information (48 respondents – 5%) ; 
Standardisation of information (37 respondents – 4%) ; 
Improving availability and quality of data sheets (31 respondents – 3%) ; 
Improving access to digital information (22 respondents – 2%). 

Other suggestions (201 respondents – 20%), included regulatory considerations (quoted by 21 
respondents  –  2%),  suggestions  related  to  trainings  (quoted  by  12  respondents  –  1%), 
suggestions related to availability of information in local language (quoted by 7 respondents – 
1%) and miscellaneous suggestions (mentioned by less than 5 respondents). 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question 11: For the construction products (or product groups) for 

which you have obtained technical information, was the information 

sufficiently precise for the purposes of your work? 

Indicate the response that best corresponds to your situation - Question open to 

respondents who signalled they needed to obtain product information in the past 

5 years (Question 5) 

All respondents 

Type of information 

Intended use of the product 

Mechanical strength (data or class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. resistance or 
reaction to fire -performance class) 

Guidance/manual for installation 

Thermal conductivity (data or 
class) 

Sound insulation properties 

Contents of dangerous substances 

Guidance/manual for maintenance 
or repair work 

Contact details of manufacturer 

Recyclability (e.g. manufacturer’s 
declaration, availability of recycling 
infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental Product 
Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air (values or 
classes) 

Leaking into soil and water (values 
or classes) 

Contact details of testing 
facility/Technical Assessment Body 
(for ETAs) 

Other (as specified in Q7) 

YES 
sufficiently 
precise 

YES but 
could be 
better 

NO not 
sufficient 

Not 
relevant 

n=1691 

911 

720 

633 

699 

621 

580 

500 

614 

818 

435 

407 

468 

397 

380 

489 

115 

611 

595 

553 

567 

559 

550 

516 

530 

448 

506 

468 

517 

494 

484 

500 

154 

61 

121 

189 

134 

146 

157 

222 

169 

122 

77 

192 

248 

212 

288 

323 

354 

282 

448 

227 

414 

253 

190 

212 

201 

449 

396 

468 

505 

182 

398 

42 

402 

Construction & renovation 

 n=1057 

Type of information 

Intended use of the product 

Mechanical strength (data or 
class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. resistance 
or reaction to fire -performance 
class) 

Guidance/manual for installation 

Thermal conductivity (data or 
class) 

YES 
sufficiently 
precise 

YES but could 
be better 

NO not 
sufficient 

Not 
relevant 

588 

463 

423 

457 

406 

377 

388 

363 

358 

360 

32 

76 

98 

80 

88 

41 

94 

135 

113 

159 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sound insulation properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair work 

Contact details of manufacturer 

Recyclability (e.g. manufacturer’s 
declaration, availability of 
recycling infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental Product 
Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air (values 
or classes) 

Leaking into soil and water 
(values or classes) 

Contact details of testing 
facility/Technical Assessment 
Body (for ETAs) 

Other (as specified in Q7)   

Installation services 

Type of information 

Intended use of the product 

Mechanical strength (data or 
class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. resistance 
or reaction to fire -performance 
class) 

Guidance/manual for installation 

Thermal conductivity (data or 
class) 

Sound insulation properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair work 

Contact details of manufacturer 

Recyclability (e.g. manufacturer’s 
declaration, availability of 
recycling infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental Product 
Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air (values 
or classes) 

Leaking into soil and water 
(values or classes) 

Contact details of testing 
facility/Technical Assessment 
Body (for ETAs) 

Other (as specified in Q7)    

388 

341 

409 

526 

293 

288 

316 

276 

260 

333 

86 

359 

336 

335 

280 

328 

295 

330 

325 

321 

318 

96 

91 

125 

93 

74 

175 

199 

164 

280 

134 

241 

154 

119 

129 

113 

258 

222 

260 

294 

115 

222 

20 

245 

 n=414 

YES 
sufficiently 
precise 

YES but could 
be better 

NO not 
sufficient 

Not 
relevant 

235 

174 

156 

183 

152 

139 

120 

171 

203 

110 

101 

114 

103 

99 

118 

27 

140 

139 

142 

146 

141 

131 

135 

138 

111 

130 

123 

128 

128 

117 

122 

38 

14 

24 

42 

34 

31 

38 

43 

42 

37 

50 

53 

46 

43 

42 

49 

8 

17 

59 

56 

39 

70 

82 

90 

46 

111 

97 

110 

96 

113 

127 

96 

106 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
Architecture & engineering 

n=703 

Type of information 

Intended use of the product 

Mechanical strength (data or 
class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. resistance 
or reaction to fire -performance 
class) 

Guidance/manual for installation 

Thermal conductivity (data or 
class) 

Sound insulation properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair work 

Contact details of manufacturer 

Recyclability (e.g. manufacturer’s 
declaration, availability of 
recycling infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental Product 
Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air (values 
or classes) 

Leaking into soil and water 
(values or classes) 

Contact details of testing 
facility/Technical Assessment 
Body (for ETAs) 

Other  (as specified in Q7)  

YES 
sufficiently 
precise 

YES but could 
be better 

NO not 
sufficient 

Not 
relevant 

368 

324 

275 

286 

288 

255 

203 

255 

358 

173 

166 

198 

163 

157 

208 

49 

263 

244 

232 

251 

229 

236 

223 

219 

192 

227 

202 

226 

204 

206 

227 

61 

27 

50 

87 

51 

61 

67 

104 

73 

46 

33 

67 

92 

89 

103 

122 

142 

124 

192 

103 

167 

118 

88 

101 

100 

74 

18 

179 

154 

196 

203 

157 

155 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
Sum of ‘Yes, sufficiently precise’ and ‘YES but could be better’ out of total respondents (excluding 
‘Not relevant’) 

Micro 

Type of information 

Intended use of the 
product 

Mechanical strength 
(data or class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. 
resistance or reaction to 
fire -performance class) 

Guidance/manual for 
installation 

Thermal conductivity 
(data or class) 

Sound insulation 
properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair 
work 

Contact details of 
manufacturer 

Recyclability (e.g. 
manufacturer’s 
declaration, availability 

YES sufficiently 
precise 

YES but could 
be better 

NO not 
sufficient 

n=678 

Not 
relevant 

381 

273 

233 

274 

252 

210 

153 

220 

315 

124 

208 

211 

199 

216 

202 

196 

176 

198 

151 

167 

29 

44 

77 

51 

52 

70 

97 

65 

49 

92 

38 

108 

125 

93 

129 

153 

190 

140 

151 

231 

121 

Intended use of the productMechanical strengthBehaviour in fireGuidance/manual forinstallationThermal conductivitySound insulation propertiesContents of dangeroussubstancesGuidance/manual formaintenance or repair workContact details ofmanufacturerRecyclabilityReusability/possibility fordismantlingGeneral EnvironmentalProduct Declarations (EPD)Emissions into indoor airLeaking into soil and waterContact details of testingfacility/TechnicalAssessment Body (forETAs)OtherConstruction & renovationInstallationArchitecture & engineering 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of recycling 
infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental 
Product Declarations 
(EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air 
(values or classes) 

Leaking into soil and 
water (values or classes) 

Contact details of testing 
facility/Technical 
Assessment Body (for 
ETAs) 

Other  (as specified in 
Q7)  

Small 

Type of information 

Intended use of the 
product 

Mechanical strength 
(data or class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. 
resistance or reaction to 
fire -performance class) 

Guidance/manual for 
installation 

Thermal conductivity 
(data or class) 

Sound insulation 
properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair 
work 

Contact details of 
manufacturer 

Recyclability (e.g. 
manufacturer’s 
declaration, availability 
of recycling 
infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental 
Product Declarations 
(EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air 
(values or classes) 

Leaking into soil and 
water (values or classes) 

Contact details of testing 
facility/Technical 
Assessment Body (for 
ETAs) 

106 

240 

119 

146 

119 

103 

144 

167 

155 

150 

146 

169 

35 

50 

77 

92 

83 

72 

18 

YES sufficiently 
precise 

YES but could 
be better 

NO not 
sufficient 

221 

178 

174 

183 

152 

148 

128 

163 

210 

159 

153 

126 

130 

138 

141 

120 

114 

99 

17 

28 

48 

34 

36 

40 

59 

48 

34 

217 

241 

269 

215 

173 

 n=424 

Not 
relevant 

21 

45 

59 

51 

71 

72 

90 

68 

99 

124 

104 

63 

99 

107 

124 

103 

103 

100 

121 

106 

112 

127 

118 

70 

45 

60 

50 

44 

112 

97 

116 

120 

97 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
Other (as specified in 
Q7)  

Medium 

Type of information 

Intended use of the 
product 

Mechanical strength 
(data or class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. 
resistance or reaction to 
fire -performance class) 

Guidance/manual for 
installation 

Thermal conductivity 
(data or class) 

Sound insulation 
properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair 
work 

Contact details of 
manufacturer 

Recyclability (e.g. 
manufacturer’s 
declaration, availability 
of recycling 
infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental 
Product Declarations 
(EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air 
(values or classes) 

Leaking into soil and 
water (values or classes) 

Contact details of testing 
facility/Technical 
Assessment Body (for 
ETAs) 

Other (as specified in 
Q7)    

Large 

Type of information 

Intended use of the 
product 

Mechanical strength 
(data or class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. 
resistance or reaction to 
fire -performance class) 

Guidance/manual for 
installation 

Thermal conductivity 
(data or class) 

33 

42 

12 

103 

YES sufficiently 
precise 

YES but could 
be better 

NO not 
sufficient 

 n=323 

Not 
relevant 

160 

144 

118 

130 

121 

120 

118 

123 

162 

144 

129 

132 

119 

124 

122 

124 

122 

110 

6 

27 

32 

29 

28 

26 

34 

30 

24 

11 

22 

37 

37 

45 

49 

39 

40 

110 

103 

126 

42 

44 

102 

111 

93 

94 

125 

124 

136 

128 

116 

121 

25 

34 

42 

37 

33 

32 

40 

5 

YES sufficiently 
precise 

YES but could 
be better 

NO not 
sufficient 

149 

125 

108 

112 

96 

100 

102 

96 

102 

95 

9 

22 

32 

20 

30 

47 

41 

54 

62 

39 

60 

 n=266 

Not 
relevant 

7 

17 

27 

31 

43 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
Sound insulation 
properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair 
work 

Contact details of 
manufacturer 

Recyclability (e.g. 
manufacturer’s 
declaration, availability 
of recycling 
infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental 
Product Declarations 
(EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air 
(values or classes) 

Leaking into soil and 
water (values or classes) 

Contact details of testing 
facility/Technical 
Assessment Body (for 
ETAs) 

Other (as specified in 
Q7)   

102 

101 

108 

131 

84 

79 

87 

82 

80 

100 

22 

91 

96 

96 

88 

21 

32 

26 

15 

49 

35 

34 

88 

109 

30 

40 

99 

105 

97 

94 

92 

28 

35 

31 

27 

36 

26 

7 

50 

41 

57 

54 

47 

66 

Sum of ‘Yes, sufficiently precise’ and ‘YES but could be better’ out of total respondents 
(excluding ‘Not relevant’) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. resistance or reaction to fire -performance class) 

 n=1623 

Country 

Austria 

Belgium 

YES 
sufficiently 
precise 
17 

YES but 
could be 
better 
14 

27 

19 

NO not 
sufficient 

Not relevant 

5 

12 

5 

8 

124 

Intended use of the productMechanical strengthBehaviour in fireGuidance/manual forinstallationThermal conductivitySound insulation propertiesContents of dangeroussubstancesGuidance/manual formaintenance or repair workContact details ofmanufacturerRecyclabilityReusability/possibility fordismantlingGeneral EnvironmentalProduct Declarations (EPD)Emissions into indoor airLeaking into soil and waterContact details of testingfacility/Technical…OtherMicroSmallMediumLarge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Denmark 

France 

Germany 

Ireland 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Romania 

Spain 

United Kingdom 

17 

113 

88 

33 

129 

19 

25 

11 

77 

77 

20 

106 

89 

18 

99 

19 

14 

16 

70 

69 

2 

26 

28 

2 

19 

15 

13 

14 

27 

26 

20 

32 

43 

8 

32 

10 

10 

2 

21 

57 

Mechanical strength (data or class) 

Country 

Austria 

Belgium 

Denmark 

France 

Germany 

Ireland 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Romania 

Spain 

United Kingdom 

YES 
sufficiently 
precise 
19 

YES but 
could be 
better 
17 

35 

22 

141 

100 

26 

139 

27 

38 

13 

73 

87 

19 

14 

96 

104 

24 

99 

24 

17 

17 

90 

74 

 N=1628 

Not relevant 

NO not 
sufficient 

2 

7 

5 

22 

19 

1 

14 

5 

7 

3 

17 

19 

3 

4 

17 

23 

28 

10 

27 

7 

4 

3 

14 

52 

Recyclability (e.g. manufacturer’s declaration, availability of recycling 
infrastructures) 

n=1582 

Country 

Austria 

Belgium 

Denmark 

France 

Germany 

Ireland 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Romania 

Spain 

United Kingdom 

YES 
sufficiently 
precise 

YES but 
could be 
better 

NO not 
sufficient 

Not relevant 

12 

19 

5 

83 

49 

25 

94 

16 

13 

5 

52 

62 

16 

15 

4 

101 

69 

22 

99 

21 

6 

7 

80 

66 

4 

15 

11 

34 

36 

5 

33 

12 

12 

15 

28 

22 

9 

16 

35 

55 

77 

9 

53 

13 

30 

6 

34 

77 

Reusability/possibility for dismantling 

n=1577 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Austria 

Belgium 

Denmark 

France 

Germany 

Ireland 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Romania 

Spain 

United Kingdom 

YES 
sufficiently 
precise 

YES but 
could be 
better 

NO not 
sufficient 

Not relevant 

11 

17 

4 

75 

51 

19 

91 

18 

10 

6 

46 

59 

16 

14 

3 

82 

57 

22 

98 

22 

9 

5 

78 

62 

5 

17 

11 

48 

35 

5 

37 

10 

15 

14 

33 

23 

9 

16 

37 

65 

89 

15 

53 

12 

28 

8 

37 

80 

Question 12: Please describe and give any specific details or examples of your 

experience of product information that is not sufficiently precise and/or could be 

improved.  

Open text answers - Question open to respondents who signalled they needed to obtain 

product information in the past 5 years (Question 5) 

All respondents (n=1266) 

Responded, indicating they are satisfied 

Responded, without providing a suggestion 

Provided a suggestion 

Responses 

75 

429 

762 

More specifically responses providing suggestions (762) were grouped in suggestions 
for/related to:  

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Insufficient details on types of technical information (178 respondents – 23%); 
Insufficient (technical) information for specific products (66 respondents – 9%); 
Availability and accessibility of information (61 respondents – 8%); 
Clarity and complexity of information (61 respondents – 8%); 
Insufficient information on manuals/instructions/maintenance (42 respondents – 6%); 
Comparability of information (31 respondents – 4%); 
Language of information (30 respondents – 4%); 
Reliability of information (30 respondents – 4%); 
Insufficient information on safety (27 respondents – 4%); 
Insufficient  information  on  environmental  characteristics  and  recyclability  (26 
respondents – 3%); 
Insufficient information on testing, certificates and markings (21 respondents – 3%); 
Insufficient information on contact details (10 respondents – 1%); 

• 
• 
•  Miscellaneous types of insufficient information (60 respondents – 8%), mentioned by 

less than 5 respondents; 

Miscellaneous issues (119 respondents – 16%), mentioned by less than 5 respondents. 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PART II: ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS ON THE TECHNICAL INFORMATION (OR DATA) ON 
CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET FROM MANUFACTURERS. 
AND WHERE (OR HOW) THIS INFORMATION SHOULD BE AVAILABLE 

Question 13: What level of detail of information on construction products 

is necessary for it to be useful for your work? 

Indicate the response that best corresponds to your situation 

All respondents 

Type of information 

Intended use of the 
product 

Mechanical strength (data 
or class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. 
resistance or reaction to 
fire -performance class) 

Guidance/manual for 
installation 

Thermal conductivity 
(data or class) 

Sound insulation 
properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair 
work 

Recyclability (e.g. 
manufacturer’s 
declaration, availability of 
recycling infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental 
Product Declarations 
(EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air 
(values or classes) 

Leaking into soil and 
water (values or classes) 

Other 

If other, please specify 

Specific 
values 

Performance 
classes 

Passing minimum 
requirements 

Not 
relevant 

n=2024 

832 

774 

596 

583 

647 

617 

766 

738 

729 

691 

478 

523 

512 

449 

714 

460 

307 

293 

338 

320 

288 

294 

357 

340 

248 

309 

354 

386 

402 

417 

441 

423 

478 

470 

443 

528 

467 

487 

541 

505 

563 

525 

169 

478 

478 

156 

413 

387 

331 

331 

103 

556 

487 

584 

584 

503 

Out of the 931 replies (46%, of total respondents), 915 respondents did not specify any specific 
types  of  information.  Therefore  1%  of  respondents  (16  respondents)  actually  quoted  other 
specific  type  of  information.  These  include  miscellaneous  types  of  information  (mentioned  by 
less than 5 respondents).  

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Construction & renovation 

Type of information 

Specific 
values 

Performance 
classes 

Passing 
minimum 
requirements 

 n=1262 

Not 
relevant 

537 

462 

369 

401 

397 

394 

455 

455 

468 

447 

325 

345 

335 

294 

439 

307 

186 

190 

235 

206 

200 

197 

225 

214 

150 

170 

197 

229 

222 

225 

249 

250 

315 

304 

274 

308 

Intended use of the 
product 

Mechanical strength (data 
or class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. 
resistance or reaction to 
fire -performance class) 

Guidance/manual for 
installation 

Thermal conductivity (data 
or class) 

Sound insulation 
properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair 
work 

Recyclability (e.g. 
manufacturer’s 
declaration, availability of 
recycling infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental 
Product Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air 
(values or classes) 

Leaking into soil and water 
(values or classes) 

Other 

Installation 

304 

368 

366 

337 

110 

317 

312 

307 

307 

105 

Type of information 

Specific 
values 

Performance 
classes 

Intended use of the 
product 

Mechanical strength (data 
or class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. 
resistance or reaction to 
fire -performance class) 

Guidance/manual for 
installation 

Thermal conductivity (data 
or class) 

Sound insulation 
properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair 
work 

212 

188 

139 

121 

155 

156 

224 

186 

178 

171 

108 

126 

121 

103 

214 

97 

258 

238 

212 

212 

67 

326 

286 

345 

345 

314 

Passing 
minimum 
requirements 

 n=492 

Not 
relevant 

67 

74 

73 

79 

67 

69 

82 

87 

58 

90 

88 

69 

95 

103 

113 

75 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
Recyclability (e.g. 
manufacturer’s 
declaration, availability of 
recycling infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental 
Product Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air 
(values or classes) 

Leaking into soil and water 
(values or classes) 

Other 

130 

93 

116 

125 

126 

135 

145 

152 

41 

99 

114 

89 

89 

30 

110 

92 

77 

77 

22 

132 

122 

146 

146 

126 

Architecture & engineering 

Type of information 

Specific 
values 

Performance 
classes 

Passing 
minimum 
requirements 

n=813 

Not 
relevant 

Intended use of the 
product 

Mechanical strength (data 
or class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. 
resistance or reaction to 
fire -performance class) 

Guidance/manual for 
installation 

Thermal conductivity (data 
or class) 

Sound insulation 
properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair 
work 

Recyclability (e.g. 
manufacturer’s 
declaration, availability of 
recycling infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental 
Product Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air 
(values or classes) 

Leaking into soil and water 
(values or classes) 

Other 

320 

383 

258 

216 

309 

238 

313 

356 

345 

317 

203 

201 

191 

183 

317 

166 

133 

102 

133 

118 

100 

103 

131 

131 

88 

96 

117 

158 

135 

152 

159 

178 

204 

200 

186 

196 

196 

232 

260 

248 

73 

200 

225 

208 

208 

60 

175 

154 

128 

128 

45 

214 

171 

201 

201 

188 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
Sum of ‘Specific values’ and ‘Performance classes’ out of total respondents 
(excluding ‘Not relevant’) 

Micro 

Type of information 

Intended use of the 
product 

Mechanical strength (data 
or class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. 
resistance or reaction to 
fire -performance class) 

Guidance/manual for 
installation 

Thermal conductivity (data 
or class) 

Sound insulation 
properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair 
work 

Recyclability (e.g. 
manufacturer’s 
declaration, availability of 
recycling infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental 
Product Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air 
(values or classes) 

Specific 
values 

Performance 
classes 

Passing minimum 
requirements 

Not 
relevant 

n=818 

347 

331 

206 

198 

262 

240 

349 

326 

310 

276 

139 

171 

168 

139 

297 

149 

128 

103 

115 

124 

93 

102 

138 

128 

107 

144 

158 

166 

185 

193 

215 

194 

169 

145 

166 

276 

184 

203 

225 

145 

168 

159 

150 

152 

116 

282 

234 

291 

130 

Intended use of the productMechanical strengthBehaviour in fireGuidance/manual forinstallationThermal conductivitySound insulation propertiesContents of dangeroussubstancesGuidance/manual formaintenance or repair workRecyclabilityReusability/possibility fordismantlingGeneral EnvironmentalProduct Declarations (EPD)Emissions into indoor airLeaking into soil and waterOtherConstruction & renovationInstallationArchitecture & engineering 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Leaking into soil and water 
(values or classes) 

Other 

Small 

Type of information 

Intended use of the 
product 

Mechanical strength (data 
or class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. 
resistance or reaction to 
fire -performance class) 

Guidance/manual for 
installation 

Thermal conductivity (data 
or class) 

Sound insulation 
properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair 
work 

Recyclability (e.g. 
manufacturer’s 
declaration, availability of 
recycling infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental 
Product Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air 
(values or classes) 

Leaking into soil and water 
(values or classes) 

Other 

Medium 

Type of information 

Intended use of the 
product 

Mechanical strength (data 
or class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. 
resistance or reaction to 
fire -performance class) 

Guidance/manual for 
installation 

Thermal conductivity (data 
or class) 

Sound insulation 
properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair 
work 

191 

82 

159 

57 

116 

40 

291 

213 

 n=497 

Specific 
values 

Performance 
classes 

Passing minimum 
requirements 

Not 
relevant 

207 

168 

132 

146 

163 

136 

170 

169 

175 

164 

178 

116 

123 

118 

105 

95 

83 

86 

97 

88 

80 

83 

90 

88 

67 

75 

85 

96 

99 

98 

110 

107 

121 

105 

121 

117 

108 

128 

130 

121 

41 

126 

114 

109 

109 

43 

97 

94 

85 

85 

33 

132 

126 

148 

148 

113 

 n=382 

Specific 
values 

Performance 
classes 

Passing minimum 
requirements 

Not 
relevant 

136 

146 

155 

126 

116 

139 

134 

134 

124 

129 

123 

118 

131 

119 

131 

123 

53 

63 

68 

60 

68 

65 

74 

65 

36 

46 

53 

59 

59 

60 

54 

57 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
Recyclability (e.g. 
manufacturer’s 
declaration, availability of 
recycling infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental 
Product Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air 
(values or classes) 

Leaking into soil and water 
(values or classes) 

Other 

Large 

Type of information 

Intended use of the 
product 

Mechanical strength (data 
or class) 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. 
resistance or reaction to 
fire -performance class) 

Guidance/manual for 
installation 

Thermal conductivity (data 
or class) 

Sound insulation 
properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair 
work 

Recyclability (e.g. 
manufacturer’s 
declaration, availability of 
recycling infrastructures) 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental 
Product Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air 
(values or classes) 

Leaking into soil and water 
(values or classes) 

Other 

106 

115 

91 

120 

111 

112 

21 

123 

119 

118 

118 

33 

90 

92 

76 

72 

72 

18 

64 

69 

62 

72 

72 

84 

n=327 

Specific 
values 

Performance 
classes 

Passing minimum 
requirements 

Not 
relevant 

142 

129 

103 

113 

106 

102 

113 

109 

120 

122 

108 

82 

84 

90 

97 

101 

25 

100 

111 

95 

86 

93 

105 

93 

104 

92 

92 

23 

43 

41 

58 

48 

47 

44 

55 

59 

66 

74 

65 

58 

58 

12 

38 

44 

58 

65 

59 

66 

62 

65 

71 

73 

65 

73 

73 

93 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
Sum of ‘Specific values’ and ‘Performance classes’ out of total respondents 
(excluding ‘Not relevant’) 

Question 14: How relevant for your work are the following types of 

information? 

Indicate the response that best corresponds to your situation 

All respondents (n=2027) 

Responses 

Type of information 

Very relevant 

Relevant 

Not relevant 

Name and contact details of manufacturer 

1023 

Name and contact details of testing 
facility/Technical Assessment Body 

Period of validity of product information 
(e.g. expiry date of certificate, new 
technical standards in preparation) 

Other* 

*If other, please specify 

998 

720 

123 

787 

742 

884 

162 

210 

277 

402 

446 

Out of the 731 replies (36%, of total respondents), 684 respondents did not specify any specific 
type  of  information.  Therefore  2%  of  respondents  actually  quoted  other  specific  types  of 
information (47 respondents). These include miscellaneous types of information (mentioned by 
less than 5 respondents). 

Per Sector 

Construction & 
renovation  

Installation 
services  

Architecture & 
engineering  

Number of respondents 

1263 

491 

818 

Name and contact details of 
manufacturer 

Name and contact details of 
testing facility/Technical 
Assessment Body 

VR 

R 

NR 

VR 

R 

NR 

VR 

R 

NR 

639 

493 

126 

259 

184 

44 

425 

318 

73 

620 

475 

163 

250 

176 

63 

445 

283 

87 

133 

Intended use of the productMechanical strengthBehaviour in fireGuidance/manual forinstallationThermal conductivitySound insulation propertiesContents of dangeroussubstancesGuidance/manual formaintenance or repair workRecyclabilityReusability/possibility fordismantlingGeneral Environmental ProductDeclarations (EPD)Emissions into indoor airLeaking into soil and waterOtherMicroSmallMediumLarge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Period of validity of product 
information (e.g. expiry date of 
certificate, new technical 
standards in preparation) 

454 

554 

241 

162 

240 

81 

312 

358 

143 

Other 

89 

118 

279 

31 

30 

115 

42 

58 

155 

Per Size 

Micro 

Small  

Medium 

Large 

Number of 
respondents 

Name and contact 
details of 
manufacturer 

Name and contact 
details of testing 
facility/Technical 
Assessment Body 

Period of validity of 
product information 
(e.g. expiry date of 
certificate, new 
technical standards 
in preparation) 

821 

498 

382 

326 

VR  R 

NR  VR 

R 

NR  VR 

R  NR  VR 

R  NR 

429  305 

82 

238  205 

53 

192  152  38  164  125  37 

384  304  128  227  201 

65 

210  131  41  177  106  43 

228  378  201  161  218  112  173  166  43  158  122  46 

Other 

46 

57 

188 

36 

41 

104 

22 

41 

80 

19 

23 

74 

Question 15: From which source(s) would you prefer to get technical 

information on construction products? 

Multiple replies possible 

All responses (n=2035) 

Responses 

Product information accompanying a Declaration of Performance/CE marking: 
on the website of the manufacturer or supplier 

Product data sheets provided by the manufacturer or supplier: on the website 
of the manufacturer or supplier 

Product data sheets provided by the manufacturer or supplier: on paper 

Product information accompanying a Declaration of Performance/CE marking: 
on paper 

Website/database/publications of scheme providers for General 
Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) 

Specific logos (e.g. quality marks) attached to product: with accompanying 
specific technical data 

Personal feedback from experts/companies 

Specific logos (e.g. quality marks) attached to product: without any specific 
technical data 

Other*  

Total 

*If other, please specify 

1070 

1050 

915 

835 

742 

528 

446 

339 

59 

5984 

Out  of  the  59 replies  (3%, of  total  respondents),  12  respondents  did  not  specify  any  specific 
source  of  information.  Therefore  2%  of  respondents  actually  quoted  other  specific  sources  of 
information (47 respondents). These include miscellaneous types of information (mentioned by 
less than 5 respondents). 

Per sector 

Construction 
& renovation  

Installation 
services  

Architecture 
& 
engineering 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Number of respondents 

1268 

493 

818 

Product information accompanying a 
Declaration of Performance/CE marking: 
on the website of the manufacturer or 
supplier 

Product data sheets provided by the 
manufacturer or supplier: on the website 
of the manufacturer or supplier 

Product data sheets provided by the 
manufacturer or supplier: on paper 

Product information accompanying a 
Declaration of Performance/CE marking: 
on paper 

Website/database/publications of scheme 
providers for General Environmental 
Product Declarations (EPD) 

Specific logos (e.g. quality marks) 
attached to product: with accompanying 
specific technical data 

Personal feedback from 
experts/companies 

Specific logos (e.g. quality marks) 
attached to product: without any specific 
technical data 

Other  

Per size 

641 

272 

494 

612 

581 

543 

290 

269 

219 

487 

384 

345 

438 

203 

362 

333 

271 

229 

34 

145 

108 

100 

13 

236 

217 

144 

29 

Micro 

Small  Medium  

Large  

Number of respondents 

823 

503 

382 

327 

Product information accompanying a 
Declaration of Performance/CE marking: on 
the website of the manufacturer or supplier 

Product data sheets provided by the 
manufacturer or supplier: on the website of 
the manufacturer or supplier 

Product data sheets provided by the 
manufacturer or supplier: on paper 

Product information accompanying a 
Declaration of Performance/CE marking: on 
paper 

Website/database/publications of scheme 
providers for General Environmental Product 
Declarations (EPD) 

Specific logos (e.g. quality marks) attached to 
product: with accompanying specific technical 
data 

Personal feedback from experts/companies 

Specific logos (e.g. quality marks) attached to 
product: without any specific technical data 

Other  

445 

264 

198 

163 

459 

262 

171 

158 

364 

217 

180 

154 

323 

197 

143 

172 

298 

170 

140 

134 

227 

130 

83 

88 

199 

117 

22 

117 

89 

12 

69 

65 

6 

61 

68 

19 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PART III: ABOUT YOUR PROCEDURES FOR CHECKING PRODUCT PERFORMANCE 
DECLARATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS. 

Question 16: For construction products that you have been using for 

more than five years, which of the following are you still usually doing to 

check on product performance? 

Multiple replies possible 

All respondents (n=2039) 

Responses 

Checking for the manufacturer's Declaration of Performance for the product 

Checking for a CE marking accompanying the manufacturer's Declaration of 
Performance for the product 

Relying on your/your company's experience with the construction product to 
know its performance and how to install it 

Checking for certificates or logos accompanying the manufacturer's Declaration of 
Performance for the product 

Not relevant 

Other*  

Total 

*If other, please specify 

867 

758 

671 

562 

448 

28 

3334 

Out  of  the  28  replies  (1%,  of  total  respondents),  20  respondents  did  not  specify  any  specific 
action.  Therefore  0.5%  of  respondents  actually  quoted  other  actions  (8  respondents).  These 
include miscellaneous types of information (mentioned by less than 5 respondents). 

Per sector 

Number of respondents 

Checking for the manufacturer's 
Declaration of Performance for the product 

Checking for a CE marking accompanying 
the manufacturer's Declaration of 
Performance for the product 

Relying on your/your company's 
experience with the construction product 
to know its performance and how to install 
it 

Checking for certificates or logos 
accompanying the manufacturer's 
Declaration of Performance for the product 

Not relevant 

Other  

Construction & 
renovation 

Installation 
services 

Architecture 
& engineering 

1269 

566 

495 

225 

818 

374 

471 

213 

348 

432 

186 

281 

348 

273 

15 

178 

105 

6 

275 

163 

15 

Per size 

Micro  

Small  

Medium  

Large  

Number of respondents 

826 

504 

381 

328 

Checking for the manufacturer's 
Declaration of Performance for the 
product 

Checking for a CE marking 
accompanying the manufacturer's 

321 

209 

192 

145 

256 

174 

166 

162 

136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Declaration of Performance for the 
product 

Relying on your/your company's 
experience with the construction product 
to know its performance and how to 
install it 

Checking for certificates or logos 
accompanying the manufacturer's 
Declaration of Performance for the 
product 

Not relevant 

Other  

323 

168 

108 

72 

190 

123 

127 

122 

203 

12 

110 

5 

59 

4 

76 

7 

Question 17: If you were using construction products for the first time, 

which of the following would you usually do to check on product 

performance? 

Multiple replies possible 

All respondents (n=2036) 

Responses 

Check for the manufacturer's Declaration of Performance for the product 

Check for a CE marking accompanying the manufacturer's Declaration of 
Performance for the product 

Collect information/feedback from other experts/companies with enough 
experience with the product to know its performance and how to install it 

Check for trademarks (e.g. rely on positive experience of already used 
construction products as an indication of product performance) 

Check for certificates or logos accompanying the manufacturer's 
Declaration of Performance for the product 

Not relevant 

Other*  

Total 

*If other, please specify 

970 

862 

723 

702 

626 

301 

39 

4223 

Out  of  the  39  replies  (2%,  of  total  respondents),  26  respondents  did  not  specify  any  specific 
action.  Therefore  1%  of  respondents  actually  quoted  other  specific  actions  (13  respondents). 
These include miscellaneous types of information (mentioned by less than 5 respondents). 

Per sector 

Number of respondents 

Check for the manufacturer's Declaration 
of Performance for the product 

Check for a CE marking accompanying the 
manufacturer's Declaration of Performance 
for the product 

Collect information/feedback from other 
experts/companies with enough 
experience with the product to know its 
performance and how to install it 

Check for trademarks (e.g. rely on 
positive experience of already used 
construction products as an indication of 
product performance) 

Check for certificates or logos 
accompanying the manufacturer's 
Declaration of Performance for the product 

Construction 
& renovation 

Installation 
services 

Architecture & 
engineering 

1270 

605 

496 

271 

817 

436 

531 

234 

404 

436 

197 

344 

467 

197 

295 

391 

183 

302 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Not relevant 

183 

64 

103 

Per size 

Micro 

Small  

Medium  

Large 

Number of respondents 

824 

502 

382 

328 

Check for the manufacturer's Declaration 
of Performance for the product 

Check for a CE marking accompanying 
the manufacturer's Declaration of 
Performance for the product 

Collect information/feedback from other 
experts/companies with enough 
experience with the product to know its 
performance and how to install it 

Check for trademarks (e.g. rely on 
positive experience of already used 
construction products as an indication of 
product performance) 

Check for certificates or logos 
accompanying the manufacturer's 
Declaration of Performance for the 
product 

393 

233 

185 

159 

322 

206 

171 

163 

358 

167 

104 

94 

280 

172 

134 

116 

218 

162 

134 

112 

Not relevant 

115 

82 

48 

56 

Question 18: For construction products for which you have obtained 

performance information in the past, the information may become 

outdated (e.g. new test methods, expiry of certificates). Do you normally 

check the validity of previously obtained information? 

Indicate the response that best corresponds to your situation 

All responses (n=2037) 

Yes, systematically 

Yes, when I am in doubt or I have been informed about changes 

No, I do not expect any significant changes in the products I am using 

Responses 

580 

1023 

434 

2037 

Total 

Per Sector 

Number of respondents 

Yes, systematically 

Yes, when I am in doubt or I 
have been informed about 
changes 

No, I do not expect any 
significant changes in the 
products I am using 

Per Size 

Number of 
respondents 

Yes, systematically 

Construction & 
renovation  

Installation 
services 

Architecture & 
engineering  

1270 

373 

623 

496 

137 

263 

274 

96 

817 

263 

423 

131 

Micro  

Small  

Medium 

Large 

824 

180 

503 

136 

382 

140 

328 

124 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Yes, when I am in doubt 
or I have been informed 
about changes 

No, I do not expect any 
significant changes in 
the products I am using 

435 

261 

182 

145 

209 

106 

60 

59 

With Question 5 

Frequently  

Regularly 

Occasionally  

234 

255 

184 

429 

102 

233 

No/very 
occasionally 

60 

106 

Yes, systematically 

Yes, when I am in doubt 
or I have been informed 
about changes 

No, I do not expect any 
significant changes in 
the products I am using 

With Question 7 

Intended use of the product 

Mechanical strength 

Behaviour in fire 

Guidance/manual for 
installation 

Thermal conductivity 

Sound insulation properties 

Contents of dangerous 
substances 

Guidance/manual for 
maintenance or repair work 

Contact details of manufacturer 

Recyclability 

Reusability/possibility for 
dismantling 

General Environmental Product 
Declarations (EPD) 

Emissions into indoor air  

Leaking into soil and water  

Contact details of testing 
facility/Technical Assessment 
Body (for ETAs) 

Other    

234 

184 

102 

60 

Yes, 
systematically 

Yes, when I am in 
doubt or I have 
been informed 
about changes 

No, I do not 
expect any 
significant 
changes in the 
products I am 
using 

266 

260 

229 

152 

181 

173 

162 

125 

137 

144 

111 

121 

119 

111 

82 

17 

467 

457 

344 

337 

339 

324 

257 

226 

215 

175 

148 

130 

131 

112 

82 

16 

120 

91 

97 

111 

74 

79 

52 

61 

55 

26 

20 

20 

20 

17 

13 

10 

With Question 15 

Product information accompanying a 
Declaration of Performance/CE marking: 
on the website of the manufacturer or 
supplier 

Yes, 
systematically 

Yes, when I 
am in doubt or 
I have been 
informed 
about changes 

No, I do not 
expect any 
significant 
changes in 
the products 
I am using 

337 

572 

159 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Product data sheets provided by the 
manufacturer or supplier: on the website 
of the manufacturer or supplier 

Product data sheets provided by the 
manufacturer or supplier: on paper 

Product information accompanying a 
Declaration of Performance/CE marking: 
on paper 

Website/database/publications of 
scheme providers for General 
Environmental Product Declarations 
(EPD) 

Specific logos (e.g. quality marks) 
attached to product: with accompanying 
specific technical data 

Personal feedback from 
experts/companies 

Specific logos (e.g. quality marks) 
attached to product: without any specific 
technical data 

Other  

295 

297 

301 

573 

458 

407 

179 

157 

124 

225 

408 

108 

176 

108 

134 

13 

280 

240 

158 

8 

72 

98 

47 

37 

With Question 16 

Checking for the manufacturer's 
Declaration of Performance for the 
product 

Checking for a CE marking 
accompanying the manufacturer's 
Declaration of Performance for the 
product 

Relying on your/your company's 
experience with the construction 
product to know its performance and 
how to install it 

Checking for certificates or logos 
accompanying the manufacturer's 
Declaration of Performance for the 
product 

Not relevant 

Other  

Yes, 
systematically 

Yes, when I am 
in doubt or I 
have been 
informed about 
changes 

No, I do not 
expect any 
significant 
changes in 
the products 
I am using 

329 

452 

282 

408 

86 

68 

168 

370 

133 

212 

83 

13 

298 

155 

8 

52 

204 

7 

Question 19: Do you have a preferred source for obtaining information on 

construction product performance? 

Indicate the response that best corresponds to your situation 

All respondents (n=2034) 

Responses 

No preferred source 

Yes* 

*If yes, please 
specify 

Internet 

Manufacturer 

Expert 

1797 

237 

75 

48 

32 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supplier 

Other 

25 

57 

Per Sector 

Number of respondents 

No preferred source 

Yes* 

*If Yes, please 
specify: 

Internet 

Manufacturer 

Expert 

Supplier 

Other 

Construction 
& renovation 

Installation 
services 

Architecture 
& 
engineering 

1268 

1119 

149 

46 

28 

21 

19 

35 

495 

433 

62 

20 

16 

4 

10 

12 

816 

714 

102 

44 

21 

21 

4 

12 

Per Size 

Number of respondents 

No preferred source 

Yes* 

*If Yes, please 
specify 

Internet 
Manufacturer 
Expert 
Supplier 
Other 

Micro 

Small 

Medium 

Large 

822 

707 

115 
37 
29 
15 
14 
20 

502 

447 

55 
18 
8 
6 
8 
15 

382 

352 

30 
10 
2 
2 
3 
13 

328 

291 

37 
10 
9 
9 
0 
9 

Question 20: Are there any other issues concerning information availability and data 

quality for construction products that are not addressed so far in this survey but that 

you consider as relevant? 

If yes, please specify below 

All respondents (n=615) 

Responded, without specifying any issues 

Provided additional inputs 

Responses 

517 

98 

More specifically responses quoting additional issues (98) were grouped in issues related to: 

Need for additional information (33 respondents – 5%); 
Standardisation of information (10 respondents – 2%) 
Information through the manufacturers (8 respondents – 1%) ; 
Construction products database(s) (8 respondents – 1%); 
Lack of transparency/Verification of information: (9 respondents – 1%); 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•  Miscellaneous issues (30 respondents – 5%), mentioned by less than 5 respondents. 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex  C:  Survey  questionnaire,  EN 
version 

Questionnaire on information needs 

The aim of this survey is to examine the technical information (or data) on 
construction products that is needed by construction professionals when working on 
design, calculation and installation. And, to identify where (or how) such information 
is available, or is lacking. 

The survey is being undertaken by Ecorys on behalf of the European Commission. 

The survey findings will support a review of the Construction Products Regulation (CPR). 

The survey consists of a maximum of 20 questions and should take around 10 minutes to 
complete 

RESPONDENT INFORMATION 

1. 

2. 

3. 

In which country is your company / business located? 

a. 

[Drop down menu with list of EU countries] 

How many persons are employed in your company / business? 

b. 

1 person (i.e. self-employed / independent) 

c. 
2 to 9 persons 

d. 
10 to 49 persons 

e. 
50 to 249 persons 

f. 

250 or more persons 

What types of construction activities are conducted by your company/ business? 

Multiple replies possible 

g. 

Construction and renovation of (residential & non-residential) buildings  

h. 

Demolition and site preparation 

i. 

Electrical, plumbing, and other construction installation activities 

j. 

Building completion and finishing (e.g. plastering, joinery, floor covering, painting, 
glazing, roofing, etc.) 

k. 

Architectural activities 

l. 

Construction engineering and other construction-related technical services 

m.   

Other (please specify): 

[Open text answers] 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. 

What are your main tasks in your professional work? 

Multiple replies possible 

n. 

Designing buildings (e.g. residential, offices) 

o. 

Calculating specific building performances (e.g. structural integrity, fire safety) 

p. 

Repairing or maintaining buildings  

q. 

Managing construction sites (e.g. engineer, foreman) 

r. 

Installation of construction products in buildings  

s. 

Purchasing construction products for your company 

t. 

Building control for your company/for the building owner 

u. 

Other (please specify): 

[Open text answers] 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

PART I: ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE OF OBTAINING TECHNICAL INFORMATION 
(OR DATA) ON CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS 

5. 

During the past 5 years, have you needed to obtain technical information on 
construction products; for example, because you have not used the product before or 
because of a different intended use of an already known product? 

Indicate the response that best corresponds to your situation 

v. 

Yes, frequently (e.g. on a daily or weekly basis) 

w. 

Yes, regularly (e.g. monthly or multiple times in a year) 

x. 

Yes, occasionally (e.g. a few times throughout a year) 

y. 

No, or only very occasionally (e.g. you are generally familiar with all the construction 
products that you work with and do no need to obtain new information about them)  

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

If Yes, frequently, regularly or occasionally: go to Question 6 

If No: go to Question 13 

144 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6. 

For which types of construction products (or product groups) have you needed to obtain 
technical information? 

Multiple replies possible 

Cement 

z. 

Gypsum products 
aa.   

Concrete, mortar & grout 

bb.   

Precast concrete products 

cc.   

Masonry products 
dd.   

Aggregates 
ee.   

Road construction products 

ff. 

Circulation fixtures 
gg.   

Reinforcing steel 

hh.   

Structural metallic products 

ii. 

Structural bearings 

jj. 

Structural timber products and ancillaries 

kk.   

Wood based panels 

ll. 

Roof coverings 

mm. 

External Thermal Insulation Composites Systems (ETICS)   

nn.   

Thermal insulating products 

oo.   

Geotextile products 
pp.   

Membranes 
qq.   

Wall and ceiling finishes 

rr. 

Curtain walling products 

ss.   

Floorings (all materials) 

tt. 

Glass products 

uu.   

Doors, windows 

vv.   

Chimneys 

ww.  

Pipes, tanks (for fuels, gas, water, drinking water) 

xx.   

Fixed fire-fighting equipment 

yy.   

Sanitary appliances 
zz.   

Space heating appliances 

aaa.  

Waste water disposal products 

bbb.  

Power, control and communication cables 

ccc.  

Anchors 

ddd.  

Adhesives 

eee.  

Sealants for non-structural use in joints in buildings and pedestrian walkways 

fff.   

Other (please specify): 

ggg.  

[Open text answers] 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

145 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7. 

For the construction products (or product groups) for which you have needed technical 
information, which of the following types of information were you looking for? 

Multiple replies possible 

Intended use of the product 

hhh. 

Mechanical strength (data or class) 

iii. 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. resistance or reaction to fire -performance class) 

jjj.   

Recyclability (e.g. manufacturer’s declaration, availability of recycling infrastructures) 

kkk.  

Reusability/possibility for dismantling 

lll. 

Contents of dangerous substances 

mmm. 

Emissions into indoor air (values or classes) 

nnn. 

Leaking into soil and water (values or classes) 

ooo.  

Sound insulation properties 

ppp.  

Thermal conductivity (data or class) 

qqq.  

General Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) 

rrr.   

Guidance/manual for installation 

sss.  

Guidance/manual for maintenance or repair work 

ttt.   

Contact details of manufacturer 

uuu. 

Contact details of testing facility/Technical Assessment Body (for ETAs) 

vvv.  

Other (please specify): 

www. 

[Open text answers] 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

8. 

For the construction products (or product groups) for which you have needed technical 
information, which of the following sources did you use to obtain the needed 
information? 

Multiple replies possible 

xxx.  
Product data sheet 

Product information supplied on the product or accompanying the product (e.g. 
Declaration of performance or CE marking) 

yyy.  

Certificates provided by authorities (without any specific technical data) 

zzz.  

Certificates provided by authorities (including specific technical data) 

aaaa. 

Other (please specify): 

bbbb. 

[Open text answers] 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9. 

For the construction products (or product groups) for which you have needed technical 
information, were you able to obtain the information that you were looking for? 

Indicate the response that best corresponds to your situation 

Type of information 

Intended use of the product 

cccc. 

Mechanical strength (data or class) 

dddd. 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. resistance or 
reaction to fire -performance class) 

eeee. 

Recyclability (e.g. manufacturer’s 
declaration, availability of recycling 
infrastructures) 

ffff.   

Reusability/possibility for dismantling 

gggg. 

Contents of dangerous substances 

hhhh. 

Emissions into indoor air (values or 
classes) 

iiii.   

Leaking into soil and water (values or 
classes) 

jjjj.   

Sound insulation properties 

kkkk. 

Thermal conductivity (data or class) 

llll.   

General Environmental Product 
Declarations (EPD) 

mmmm.   

Guidance/manual for installation 

nnnn. 

Guidance/manual for maintenance or 
repair work 

oooo. 

Contact details of manufacturer 

pppp. 

Contact details of testing facility/Technical 
Assessment Body (for ETAs) 

qqqq. 

Other (as specified in Question 7): 

rrrr.  

YES 

YES 

NO 

relatively 
easily 

but with 
some 
effort 
required 

unable to 
find 
informatio
n 

Not 
relevant 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

If any answer  is “YES but with some effort required” or “NO unable to find information”, go to Question 10 

Otherwise go to Question 11 

10.   

In your opinion, what could be done to make technical information on construction 
products more easily available for your work? 

ssss. 
[Open text answers] 

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11.   

For the construction products (or product groups) for which you have obtained technical 
information, was the information sufficiently precise for the purposes of your work? 

Indicate the response that best corresponds to your situation 

Type of information 

Intended use of the product 

tttt.  

Mechanical strength (data or class) 

uuuu. 

Behaviour in fire (e.g. resistance or 
reaction to fire -performance class) 

vvvv. 

Recyclability (e.g. manufacturer’s 
declaration, availability of recycling 
infrastructures) 

wwww. 

Reusability/possibility for dismantling 

xxxx. 

Contents of dangerous substances 

yyyy. 

Emissions into indoor air (values or 
classes) 

zzzz. 

Leaking into soil and water (values or 
classes) 

aaaaa. 

Sound insulation properties 

bbbbb. 

Thermal conductivity (data or class) 

ccccc. 

General Environmental Product 
Declarations (EPD) 

ddddd. 

Guidance/manual for installation 

eeeee. 

Guidance/manual for maintenance or 
fffff.  
repair work 

Contact details of manufacturer 

ggggg. 

Contact details of testing facility/Technical 
Assessment Body (for ETAs) 

hhhhh. 

Other (as specified in Question 7): 

iiiii.   

YES 

YES 

NO 

sufficiently 
precise 

but could 
be better 

not 
sufficient 

Not 
relevan
t 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

If any answer is “YES but could be better” or “NO not sufficient”, go to Question 12 

Otherwise go to Question 13 

12.   

Please describe and give any specific details or examples of your experience of product 
information that is not sufficiently precise and/or could be improved. 

jjjjj.  
[Open text answers] 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PART II: ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS ON THE TECHNICAL INFORMATION (OR 
DATA) ON CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET FROM 
MANUFACTURERS. AND WHERE (OR HOW) THIS INFORMATION SHOULD BE 
AVAILABLE 

13.    What level of detail of information on construction products is necessary for it to be useful 

for your work? 

Indicate the response that best corresponds to your situation 

Type of information 

Intended use of the product 

kkkkk. 

Mechanical strength (data or class) 

lllll.   

Behaviour in fire (e.g. resistance or 
reaction to fire -performance class) 

mmmmm. 

Recyclability (e.g. manufacturer’s 
declaration, availability of recycling 
structures) 

nnnnn. 

Reusability/possibility for dismantling 

ooooo. 

Contents of dangerous substances 

ppppp. 

Emissions into indoor air (values or 
classes) 

qqqqq. 

Leaking into soil and water (values or 
classes) 

rrrrr. 

Sound insulation properties 

sssss. 

Thermal conductivity (data or class) 

ttttt. 

General Environmental Product 
Declarations (EPD) 

uuuuu. 

Guidance/manual for installation 

vvvvv. 

Guidance/manual for maintenance or 
repair work 

wwwww.   

Other (please specify): 

[Open text answers] 
xxxxx. 

Specific 
values 

Performance 
class 

Satisfies 
minimum 
requirement
s 

Not 
relevant 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
14.   

How relevant for your work are the following types of information? 

Indicate the response that best corresponds to your situation 

Type of information 

Name and contact details of manufacturer 

yyyyy. 

Name and contact details of testing facility/Technical 
Assessment Body 

zzzzz. 

Period of validity of product information (e.g. expiry 
date of certificate, new technical standards in 
preparation) 

aaaaaa. 

Other (please specify): 

[Open text answers] 
bbbbbb. 

Very 
relevant 

Relevant 

Not 
relevant 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

15.   

From which source(s) would you prefer to get technical information on construction 
products?  

Multiple replies possible 

Product information accompanying a Declaration of Performance/CE marking: 

cccccc. 

on paper 

Product information accompanying a Declaration of Performance/CE marking: 

dddddd. 

on the website of the manufacturer or supplier 

Product data sheets provided by the manufacturer or supplier: 

eeeeee. 

on paper 

Product data sheets provided by the manufacturer or supplier:  

ffffff. 

on the website of the manufacturer or supplier 

Website/database/publications of scheme providers for General Environmental Product 
Declarations (EPD) 

gggggg. 

Specific logos (e.g. quality marks) attached to product: 

hhhhhh. 

without any specific technical data 

Specific logos (e.g. quality marks) attached to product: 

iiiiii.  

with accompanying specific technical data 

Personal feedback from experts/companies 

jjjjjj. 

Other (please specify): 
kkkkkk. 

[Open text answers] 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

150 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PART III: ABOUT YOUR PROCEDURES FOR CHECKING PRODUCT PERFORMANCE 
DECLARATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS. 

16.   

For construction products that you have been using for more than five years, which of 
the following are you still usually doing to check on product performance? 

Multiple replies possible 

nnnnnn. 

Not relevant 
llllll.  
Checking for the manufacturer's Declaration of Performance for the product 
mmmmmm. 
Checking for a CE marking accompanying the manufacturer's Declaration of 
Performance for the product 
Checking for certificates or logos accompanying the manufacturer's Declaration of 
Performance for the product 
Relying on your/your company's experience with the construction product to know its 
performance and how to install it 
Other (please specify): 
qqqqqq. 

[Open text answers] 

pppppp. 

oooooo. 

⃝ 
⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

17.   

If you were using construction products for the first time, which of the following would 
you usually do to check on product performance? 

Multiple replies possible 

tttttt. 

ssssss. 

Not relevant 
rrrrrr. 
Check for trademarks (e.g. rely on positive experience of already used construction 
products as an indication of product performance) 
Check for the manufacturer's Declaration of Performance for the product 
Check for a CE marking accompanying the manufacturer's Declaration of Performance 
uuuuuu. 
for the product 
Check for certificates or logos accompanying the manufacturer's Declaration of 
Performance for the product 
Collect information/feedback from other experts/companies with enough experience 
with the product to know its performance and how to install it 
Other (please specify): 
xxxxxx. 

[Open text answers] 

wwwwww. 

vvvvvv. 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

⃝ 

18.   

For construction products for which you have obtained performance information in the 
past, the information may become outdated (e.g. new test methods, expiry of 
certificates). Do you normally check the validity of previously obtained information?  

Indicate the response that best corresponds to your situation 

Yes, systematically 
Yes, when I am in doubt or I have been informed about changes 
No, I do not expect any significant changes in the products I am using 

yyyyyy. 
zzzzzz. 
aaaaaaa.   

19.    Do you have a preferred source for obtaining information on construction product 

performance?  

Indicate the response that best corresponds to your situation 

No preferred source 

bbbbbbb.   

ccccccc. 
Yes preferred source/s 

If Yes please specify: 

ddddddd.   

[Open text answers] 

⃝ 
⃝ 
⃝ 

⃝ 

O 

20.    Are there any other issues concerning information availability and data quality for 

construction products that are not addressed so far in this survey but that you consider 
as relevant? 

If yes, please specify below 

[Open text answers] 

eeeeeee.   

YOU HAVE NOW COMPLETED THE SURVEY. 

WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATION 

151 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E
T
-
0
1
-
1
8
-
0
0
7
-
E
N
-
N

doi: 10.2873/87907 

ISBN: 978-92-79-77344-0