COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT [ ] Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products, , amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and repealing Regulation (EU) 305/2011
Date: 2022-03-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: EC conformity marking, European standard, building materials, green economy, harmonisation of standards, market approval, market supervision, quality standard, single market, technical standard

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.3.2022  SWD(2022) 88 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  […] Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council  laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products, , amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and repealing Regulation (EU) 305/2011         {COM(2022) 144 final} - {SEC(2022) 167 final} - {SWD(2022) 87 final} - {SWD(2022) 89 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ............................................................... 1 

PROBLEM DEFINITION .................................................................................................................... 4 

2.1.  What are the problems? ..................................................................................... 4 

3.  WHAT ARE THE PROBLEM DRIVERS? ....................................................................................... 12 

3.1.  Problem drivers ............................................................................................... 12 
3.2.  How will the problems evolve? ....................................................................... 15 

4.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? ........................................................................................................ 19 

4.1.  Legal basis ....................................................................................................... 19 
4.2.  Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action ............................................................... 20 
4.3.  Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action .......................................................... 20 

5.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ............................................................................... 21 

6.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? .................................................................... 22 

6.1.  What is the baseline from which options are assessed? .................................. 23 
6.2.  Description of the policy options .................................................................... 24 
6.3.  Options discarded at an early stage ................................................................. 39 

7.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ........................................................... 39 

7.1.  Option A – baseline (no revision) ................................................................... 40 
7.2.  Option B - Repairing the CPR ......................................................................... 42 
7.3.  Option C - Focusing the CPR .......................................................................... 45 
7.4.  Option D - Enhancing the CPR ....................................................................... 48 
7.5.  Option E – Repealing the CPR ........................................................................ 50 

8.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? ............................................................................................ 53 

8.1.  Comparison of the options ............................................................................... 53 
8.2.  Preferred option ............................................................................................... 56 

9. 

REFIT (SIMPLIFICATION AND IMPROVED EFFICIENCY) ....................................................... 56 

10.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .................................. 57 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 60 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ....................................................................................... 70 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? .......................................................................................... 81 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ..................................................................................................... 86 

ANNEX 5: THE SME TEST – SUMMARY OF RESULTS ....................................................................... 90 

ANNEX 6: DESCRIPTION OF THE CPR FRAMEWORK ....................................................................... 96 

ANNEX  7:  THE  EUROPEAN  TECHNICAL  ASSESSMENT  (ETA)  SYSTEM  (THE  EOTA 

ROUTE) ............................................................................................................................................ 101 

ANNEX 8: SIMPLIFICATION PROVISIONS UNDER THE CURRENT CPR ...................................... 104 

1 

 
 
 
ANNEX  9:  THE  ENVIRONMENTAL  AND  CLIMATE  IMPACT  OF  CONSTRUCTION 

PRODUCTS ...................................................................................................................................... 106 

ANNEX  10:  ARTICULATION  WITH  OTHER  EXISTING  EU  LEGISLATION  AND  OTHER 

INITIATIVES ................................................................................................................................... 108 

ANNEX 11: INTERACTION BETWEEN THE FUTURE CPR AND THE SPI ...................................... 112 

ANNEX 12: REFINED INDICATIVE OPTIONS PAPER, APRIL 2020 ................................................. 119 

ANNEX 13: OPTIONS AND ELEMENTS DISCARDED ....................................................................... 156 

ANNEX 14: JAMES ELLIOTT JUDGMENT (C-613/14) ........................................................................ 158 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Glossary 

AVCP 

BWRs 

CEN 

Cenelec 

CPD 

CPR 

DoP 

EAD 

EDD 

EGD 

ELD 

EOTA 

EPBD 

ETA 

ETAG 

EU 

Assessment and verification of constancy of performance 

Basic requirements for construction works or Basic Work Requirements 

European Committee for Standardisation (Comité européen de Normalisation) 

European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation (Comité européen de 
normalisation en électronique et en électrotechnique) 

Construction Products Directive (repealed) 

Construction Products Regulation 

Declaration of performance 

European Assessment Document 

Ecodesign Directive 

European Green Deal 

Energy Labelling Directive 

European Organisation for Technical Assessment 

Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 

European Technical Assessment 

Guidelines for European technical approval 

European Union 

NB/NBs 

Notified body/Notified Bodies 

NGO 

NLF 

OIOO 

OJEU 

PCPC 

REACH 

Non-governmental organisation 

New Legislative Framework, formerly New Approach 

one in, one out approach 

Official Journal of the European Union 

Product Contact Point for Construction 

Regulation concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of 
Chemicals 

REFIT 

Regulatory fitness and performance programme 

RSB 

SME 

SPI 

TAB 

Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

Small and medium-sized enterprise 

Sustainable Products Initiative 

Technical Assessment Body 

3 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

The  construction  products  industry  encompasses  around  430,000  companies  with  a 
turnover  of  around  800  billion  Euros  and  a  gross  value  added  of  around  240  billion 
Euros.1  It  mainly  serves  the  construction  industry,  which  is  one  of  the  14  industrial 
ecosystems  identified in  the updated industrial  strategy2, with  a significant contribution 
to the EU economy, accounting for 1,200 billion Euros gross value added (10 % of total 
value  added)  and  25  million  people  employed.  Both  sectors,  the  producers  of 
construction  products  and  the  construction  ecosystem  as  principal  user  of  the  products 
mainly consist of micro-enterprises.  

Regulation  (EU)  No  305/2011  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  laying 
down  harmonised  conditions  for 
the  marketing  of  construction  products3  (the 
‘Construction Products Regulation’ or CPR) was adopted in 2011 and has applied in full 
since  July  2013.  The  Regulation’s  main  objective,  like  that  of  the  earlier  Construction 
Products Directive4 (‘CPD’), is to improve the functioning of the single market and the 
free movement of construction products in the EU by laying down harmonised conditions 
for their marketing. 

Unlike  most  internal  market  legislation,  the  CPR  does  hardly  set  any  product 
requirements that construction products would be required to meet. Instead, it mainly sets 
harmonised  rules  on  how  to  express  their  performance  in  relation  to  their  essential 
characteristics5  (e.g.  reaction  to  fire,  thermal  conductivity  or  sound  insulation)  and 
provides harmonised rules on the CE marking6 of these products. Since the construction 
products  merely  contribute  to  the  construction  works7  –  these  latter  falling  within  the 
remit  of  national  competences  –  the  Member  States  remain  fully  responsible  for  the 
safety,  environmental  and  energy  requirements  applicable  to  buildings  and  civil 
engineering works.  

The  Commission’s  July  2016  implementation  report  on  the  CPR8  identified  certain 
shortcomings  in  its  implementation.  The  report  also  identified  a  significant  number  of 

1  Data  source:  Eurostat,  figures  for  2018,  Classification  of  economic  activities  -  NACE  Rev.2:  C162, 

C222, C231, C232, C233, C234, C235, C236, C237, C242, C251, C259. 

2  Communication  "Updating  the  2020  New  Industrial  Strategy:  Building  a  stronger  Single  Market  for 
Europe’s  recovery  ",  COM(2021)350  final,  adopted  by  the  Commission  on  5  May  2021.  See  also 
Annual Single Market Report 2021, SWD(2021) 351. 

3  Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying 
down  harmonised  conditions  for  the  marketing  of  construction  products  and  repealing  Council 
Directive 89/106/EEC, OJ L 88, 4.4.2011, p. 5-43. 

4  Council  Directive  89/106/EEC  of  21 December  1988  on  the  approximation  of  laws,  regulations  and 
administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products, OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 
12-26. 

5  ‘Essential  characteristics’  are  set  in  harmonised  technical  specifications  in  relation  to  the  basic 
requirements for construction works (Basic Work Requirements or BWRs),  defined in Annex I to the 
CPR. 

6  CE Marking of Construction Products Step by Step, 

https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/12308?locale=en. 

7 Construction works means buildings and civil engineering works, as defined in Article 2(3) of the CPR. 
8  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  implementation  of 
Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council  of 9 March 2011 laying 

1 

 
 
                                                           
 
challenges going beyond mere implementation and deserving further serious examination 
and  discussion,  including  issues  linked  to  standardisation,  market  surveillance  and 
enforcement, and simplification provisions for micro-enterprises.  

The  November  2016  Clean  Energy  for  all  Europeans9  Communication  mentioned  the 
need  to  unlock  the  construction  sector’s  growth  and  jobs  potential  by  improving  the 
functioning of markets, in particular the still fragmented internal market for construction 
products.  The  Communication  also  highlighted  the  need  to  reinforce  the  focus  of  the 
policy  on  products  with  the  highest  savings  potential  in  terms  of  energy  and  circular 
economy.  It  referred to the consultation process  that followed the 2016 implementation 
report,  mentioning  that  this  could  lead  to  a  revision  of  the  Construction  Products 
Regulation within the mandate of the 2014-2019 Commission. 

the  evidence  collected 

To meet this timetable, the  Commission  initiated a back-to-back  evaluation and impact 
assessment to provide a solid basis for any possible future adaptation. The approach was 
presented  in  the  inception  impact  assessment10  published  in  June  2017.  However, 
considering 
the  supporting  studies  and  public 
through 
consultation,  the  Commission  decided  to  decouple  the  retrospective  and  prospective 
assessments. The assessment proved to be more complicated than expected: partly due to 
the complexity of the CPR itself, but also due to the high expectations expressed by the 
stakeholders  and  Member  States.  These  combined  factors  made  clear  that  it  was 
necessary to  establish  a clear and comprehensive picture of the present  situation  before 
identifying all of the key horizontal issues and the assessment of potential options for the 
future. 
Hence, the evaluation of the CPR11 was published on 24 October 201912.  

In  the  meantime,  several  new  policy  initiatives  with  direct  impacts  on  the  CPR  were 
adopted  by  the  Commission.  In  December  2019,  the  European  Green  Deal  (EGD) 
Communication13  mentioned  the  review  of  the  CPR  as  part  of  the  efforts  towards 
building and renovating in an energy- and resource-efficient way.  
Later in March 2020, in the Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP)14, the Commission 
underlined  the  objective  of  addressing  the  sustainability  performance  of  construction 

down  harmonised  conditions  for  the  marketing  of  construction  products  and  repealing  Council 
Directive 89/106/EEC, COM/2016/0445 final, 7.7.2016. 

9  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee,  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  and  the  European  Investment  Bank, 
Clean Energy For All Europeans, COM(2016) 860 final, 30.11.2016, Annex 1, p. 9.  

10    https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2017-3070078_en. 
11  Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of 
89/106/EEC,  SWD(2019)1770, 
repealing  Council  Directive 

and 

construction 
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/37827. 

products 

12  The report was accompanied by a Report on the relevance of the tasks of the European Organisation for 
Technical Assessment (EOTA): Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the 
Council on the outcome of the evaluation of the relevance of the tasks set out in Article 31(4) that 
receive Union financing pursuant to Article 34(2) of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011COM/2019/800 
final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1571917158693&uri=COM:2019:800:FIN. 
13  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, 
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, the European Green 
Deal, 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2019%3A640%3AFIN. 

COM(2019) 

11.12.2019, 

640, 

14  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A new Circular Economy Action 

2 

 
                                                                                                                                                                            
 
products in the context of the revision of the CPR, including the possible introduction of 
recycled content requirements for certain construction products, taking into account their 
safety and functionality. 
A  similar  concept  was  also  included  in  the  Renovation  Wave15,  where  revision  of  the 
CPR  was  mentioned  as  one  of  the  areas  of  interventions  addressing  the  sustainability 
performance  of  construction  products.  It  was  announced  that  the  Commission  will 
consider, in the framework of the CPR revision, how sustainability criteria could support 
the uptake of more sustainable construction products in construction works and foster the 
uptake  of  the  latest  technologies.  The  Renovation  Wave  also  recognised  the  need  for 
using low-carbon materials in order to render buildings more climate-friendly. 

As  announced  in  CEAP,  a  Sustainable  Products  Initiative  (SPI)16  is  currently  under 
preparation with the aim of making products fit for a climate-neutral, resource-efficient 
and  circular  economy.  The  initiative  will  widen  the  scope  of  the  Ecodesign  Directive 
(EDD) to all products and to provide for the setting of specific requirements linked to a 
list of aspects set out in the CEAP. These include durability, reusability, the presence of 
hazardous  chemicals,  energy  and  resource  efficiency;  carbon  and  environmental 
footprints, as well as recycled content, while ensuring products’ performance and safety. 
It will aim to improve products sustainability, to give access to sustainability information 
along  the  supply  chain,  to  incentivise  more  sustainable  products  and  business  models. 
For  construction  products,  SPI  goals  shall  be  mainly  realised  by  means  of  the 
Construction Products Regulation (CPR) also to avoid double burden. The CPR shall be 
able  to  mirror  all  obligations  and  requirements  able  to  be  set  through  the  SPI,  but  for 
construction products. 

By aiming to improve safety, sustainability and circularity of construction products, the 
CPR  would  also  support  the  objectives  of  the  New  European  Bauhaus17  initiative, 
namely a healthy and safe living environment as well as sustainability and circularity. As 
announced  in  the  Communication,  and  following  the  Communication  on  the  update  of 
the  2020  New  Industrial  Strategy18,  the  Commission  is  in  the  process  of  co-creating  a 
transition pathway for a green, digital and resilient construction ecosystem19.  

The  Council,  in  its  conclusions  on  "Circular  Economy  in  the  Construction  Sector"  of 
28 November  2019  acknowledged  the  potential  of  circular  economy  in  construction 
activities from an environmental and economic viewpoint and urged the Commission to 
undertake action to promote circularity further20. In December 2020 the German Council 
Presidency presented suggestions on the Future of the Construction Products Regulation 
regarding the further development of the current CPR and regarding a revised CPR21. 

In March 2021 the European Parliament adopted an own initiative report prepared by the 
Committee  on  Internal  Market  and  Consumer  Protection  on  the  Implementation  of  the 

Plan  For  a  cleaner  and  more  competitive  Europe,  COM/2020/98  final,  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1583933814386&uri=COM:2020:98:FIN. 

15  COM(2020) 662 final. 
16 See Annex 11. https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12567-

Sustainable-products-initiative_en. 

17  COM(2021) 573 final, COM(2021)_573_EN_ACT.pdf (europa.eu) 
18 COM(2021) 350 final, communication-new-industrial-strategy.pdf (europa.eu) 
19 SWD(2021) 419 final, https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/47996  
20 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/41508/st14523-en19.pdf. 
21 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13596-2020-INIT/en/pdf. 

3 

 
                                                                                                                                                                            
Construction  Products  Regulation22.  The  Parliament  welcomed  the  revision  of  the  CPR 
with a view to further addressing barriers in the internal market for construction products 
and contributing to the objectives of the EGD and CEAP. 

2.  PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1.  What are the problems? 

The  main  objective  of  the  Construction  Products  Regulation23  has  been  to  foster  a 
smooth  functioning  of  the  internal  market  for  construction  products,  through  providing 
for  a  common  technical  language,  based  predominantly  on  harmonised  standards.  The 
CPR ensures that reliable information is available to professionals, public authorities, and 
consumers, so they can compare the performance of construction products from different 
manufacturers  in  different  EU  Member  States.  Standards  provide  a  common  basis  for 
testing  and  communicating  the  performance  of  construction  products,  allowing 
manufacturers  to  prepare  a  single  declaration  of  performance  (DoP)  for  their  products, 
affix the CE mark and eventually put their products on the EU internal market.  

The  evaluation  of  the  CPR,  as  well  as  feedback  received  from  the  Member  States  and 
stakeholders  point  clearly  to  the  underperformance  of  the  framework,  hindering  the 
functioning of the single market for the construction products, and so failing to achieve 
the  CPR’s  objectives24.  This,  together  with  the  need  for  the  construction  sector  to 
contribute  to  the  European  Green  Deal  objectives  of  transforming  towards  a  modern, 
resource-efficient  and  competitive  economy,  are  the  main  underlying  reasons  for  the 
Commission to consider a revision of the framework. 

The framework’s underperformance is due to a number of overarching issues with regard 
to the functioning of the CPR, as identified in the evaluation. The main problems are: 

Problem 1: Internal market for construction products not achieved 

The  product  performance  information  system  under  the  CPR  requires  uniform 
application  in  order  to  be  efficient.  Hence  the  crucial  role  of  harmonised  standards  as 
essential element of the common technical language. The use of standards in support of 
the  CPR  is  mandatory  if  they  are  cited  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union 
(OJEU).  Such  harmonised  standards,  developed  by  the  European  Standardisation 
Organisations25 (ESOs), are necessary for testing and communicating the performance of 
construction  products.  As  such,  harmonised  standards  in  support  of  the  CPR  form  a 
common technical language that acts as a link between the performance of construction 
products  and  the  basic  requirements  for  construction  works  (also  called  Basic  Work 
Requirements  or  BWRs)  set  out  in  Annex  I  of  the  CPR,  depending  on  their  essential 
characteristics and intended use.  

22 Implementation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing 

of construction products (the Construction Products Regulation), 2020/2028(INI). 

23 See Annex 6 Description of the CPR for more details. 
24 See Annex 6 Description of the CPR for more details. 
25  Predominantly  by  the  European  Committee  for  Standardisation  (CEN),  recognised  as  one  of  the  three 
European  Standardisation  Organisations  pursuant  to  Regulation  (EU)  No  1025/2012  (Standardisation 
Regulation). 

4 

 
 
                                                           
When  harmonised  standards  in  support  of  the  CPR  are  cited  in  the  OJEU,  products 
covered  by  such  standards  have  to  be  CE  marked  –  this  indicates  that  they  have  been 
assessed to be in conformity with  their declared performance26. The Member States are 
then  obliged  to  allow  the  marketing  of  CE  marked  construction  products,  without 
requiring  any  additional  marks,  certificates  or  testing27.  Up-to-date  and  comprehensive 
harmonised  standards  cited  in  the  OJEU  are  therefore  essential  for  the  functioning  of 
the  internal  market,  as  they  provide  the  manufacturers  with  a  single  framework  for 
testing  their  products,  thereby  facilitating  market  access  and  creating  a  level-playing 
field.  

In fact, while at the time of the 2008 Impact Assessment, it was expected that the (then) 
new  CPR  would  lead  to  increased  levels  of  competition28,  the  statistical  analysis  could 
not  demonstrate  any  overall  impact  of  the  CPR  on  cross-border  trade  for  construction 
products29. 

To date, the standardisation process at the core of the CPR has been underperforming. 
In the recent years, draft harmonised standards developed by the ESOs have rarely been 
cited in the Official Journal (OJEU) mainly due to legal issues, such as contradiction with 
the  requirements  of  the  CPR  or  trespassing  the  scope  of  the  mandate/standardisation 
request. Since early 2019, despite multiple efforts, not a single standard in support of the 
CPR  has  been  cited  in  the  Official  Journal  (OJEU).  The  lack  of  citation  of  up-to-date 
harmonised  standards  for  construction  products  is  considered  a  key  factor  undermining 
the internal market, with outdated harmonised standards causing direct or indirect costs 
for the businesses, particularly SMEs30. This  problem  was frequently  underlined by the 
stakeholders who observed that the lengthiness of the standardisation process has serious 
consequences for the realisation of the internal market31. The process is too slow to keep 
pace with the developments in the sector. The resulting standards may then not always be 
market-relevant32  as  well  as  do  not  fulfil  the  regulatory  needs  of  Member  States.  Five 
technical  bodies,  four  business  representatives,  three  public  authorities,  and  one  SME 

26 European Commission (2017) Declaration of Performance (DoP) and CE marking, Available at:  
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/construction/product-regulation/performance-declaration_en. 

27 European Commission, CE marking of construction products step by step. Available at:  

http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents?tags=ce-guide. 

28 COM(2008)1900, p. 15, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52008SC1900&from=EN. 

29  VVA  Economics  &  Policy,  Joint  Institute  for  Innovation  Policy  (JIIP),  Danish  Technological  Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study  for the Review of the  Construction 
Products Regulation: Evaluation, p. 70. 

30  Evaluation  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  305/2011  laying  down  harmonised  conditions  for  the  marketing  of 
construction  products  and  repealing  Council  Directive  89/106/EEC,  SWD(2019)1770,  Page  46, 
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/37827. 
Report on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 laying down harmonised conditions for 
the marketing of construction products (the Construction Products Regulation) (2020/2028(INI)) 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2021-0012_EN.pdf. 

31 See e.g. Discussion Paper “The future of the standardisation system within the CPR” of 7 September 
2020, by European Builders Confederation (EBC), the European Construction Industry Federation (FIEC), 
Construction Products Europe and Small Business Standards (SBS), 
https://www.fiec.eu/application/files/6516/0015/6944/2020-09-
07_Discussion_Paper_on_the_Revision_of_the_CPR.pdf. 
32 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study for the Review of the Construction 
Products Regulation: Impact Assessment, p.26. 

5 

 
                                                           
representative participated in the semi-structured interviews stressed the need to address 
the problem of the slow citation of harmonised standards under the CPR.33   

The CPR provides for an alternative route for CE marking for construction products not 
covered or not fully covered by harmonised standards – the EOTA route – by providing 
the  possibility  for  manufacturers  to  request  a  European  Technical  Assessment  (ETA). 
The manufacturer may issue a Declaration of Performance and affix the CE marking on 
the basis of an ETA. ETAs are issued by Technical Assessment Bodies on the basis of 
European  Assessment  Documents  (EADs),  developed  by  European  Organisation  for 
Technical Assessment (EOTA) and cited by the Commission in the OJEU (see Annex 7 
on  the  functioning  of  the  EOTA  route).  The  underperformance  of  the  standardisation 
system leads also to putting the EOTA route under strain. More details on this are further 
developed in section “3.2 How will the problems evolve?” 

Furthermore,  while  the  CPR  lays  down  no  specific,  direct  requirements  in  terms  of 
product safety, manufacturers declare the performance of products with regard to their 
essential  characteristics,  which  include  safety.  However,  this  is  not  in  all  cases 
appropriate.  Product  safety  related  requirements  are  often  hidden  as  product 
“description”  in  the  mandatory  standards  and  may  not  cover  inherent  safety  risks. 
Examples  of  inherent  safety  risks  for  construction  products  are  mechanical  risks 
(squeezing,  cutting,  slipping),  mechanical  failure  (e.g.  locks  of  escape  doors  not 
opening),  physical  failure  (e.g.  too  wet/too  dry  wood  installed),  risks  of  electric  failure 
(sensibility of fire detectors, risk of short-cuts and thus fire) or risks of incompatibility of 
substances/materials  (glues  for  floorings  and  flooring  materials)34.  All  in  all,  inherent 
product safety (safety aspects not related to the safety of construction works), is not dealt 
with in a consistent manner for construction products and is largely left  to the Member 
States, despite Article 114 TFEU (the legal basis for the current CPR) requiring to strive 
for a high level of protection of safety and consumers. Requirements linked to inherent 
safety defined at national  level  risk adding to the trade barriers within  the internal 
market for construction products.  

Further obstacles to the internal market remain, among others, in the form of continued 
existence of the national marks, certifications and approvals.35 This creates additional 
barriers,  e.g.  through  national  requirements  for  additional  testing  or  national  product 
approval  for  a  product  to  be  marketed/used  in  a  given  Member  States,  and  leads  to 
additional costs. The existence of national marks, certifications and approvals is clearly 
linked  to  the  incomplete  character  of  harmonisation  under  the  CPR,  the  latter  not 
including a possibility for standards to cover  environmental nor safety requirements for 
products. 

33 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study for the Review of the Construction 
Products Regulation: Impact Assessment, p. 54. 

34 Crucial to acknowledge is that data on safety incidents and other data needed for a quantification of risks 
on health and safety with regard to construction products is missing. In general, quantified evidence on 
health and safety incidents resulting from construction products is scarce, particularly since it is also of 
importance to take into account the way that construction products are used/put in place/combined with 
other products. 

35 https://wayback.archive-it.org/12090/20200221170910/https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-

process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/refit-making-eu-law-simpler-and-less-costly/refit-
platform/refit-platform-recommendations-and-other-work_en. 

6 

 
                                                           
In  a  nutshell,  if  the  CPR  remained  unrevised,  there  would  be  no  significant  changes  to 
market  opportunities  as  a  result  of  the  CPR,  thus  leaving  the  potential  for  European 
legislation on construction products  to  stimulate further growth  in  cross-border trade in 
the sector unexploited36.  

Problem 2: Implementation challenges at national level  

Despite improved cooperation among market surveillance authorities, it became apparent 
during  the  implementation  of  the  CPR  that  market  surveillance  activities  are  broadly 
seen  as  ineffective  and  widely  varying  in  quality  and  effectiveness  from  one  Member 
State to another37. Ineffective market surveillance nurtures limited trust in the regulatory 
framework and is thus a disincentive for companies to comply with the legislation, either 
because there is little risk of getting caught, and/or because companies feel that they are 
exposed  to  unfair  competition38.  Insufficient  market  surveillance  and  enforcement 
prevents  benefits  in  terms  of  opening  up  markets  and  levelling  the  playing  field  for 
competitors from materialising fully39.  

Furthermore, some drawbacks with regard to the functioning of Notified Bodies (NBs) 
and  Notifying  Authorities  were  identified  in  the  report  on  the  implementation  of  the 
CPR, indicating that relevant CPR provisions would benefit from more accuracy, e.g. on 
requirements for NBs (Article 43), on operational obligations for NBs (Article 52) and on 
coordination of NBs (Article 55).   

Problem 3: Complexity of the legal framework /simplification not achieved 

Certain features of the CPR differ from the ones used in most internal market legislation. 
Particularly,  the  meaning of the CE marking refers to  assessing the  performance  of  a 
construction product instead of its conformity with product requirements. However, it is 
importers, 
to  several  stakeholders  (even  manufacturers,  distributors, 
not  clear 
professional end users and raw material suppliers) that the CE marking under the CPR is 
not a quality mark and does not indicate product safety or that a product complies with 
national  building  requirements.  The  confusion  created  by  the  misunderstanding  or 
misinterpretation of the CE marking creates significant legal uncertainty40 . 

The  simplification  provisions  (see  Annex  8  for  details)  within  the  CPR  are  aimed 
predominantly  at  SMEs  and  include  Article  5  (derogations  from  drawing  up  a 

36 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study for the Review of the Construction 
Products Regulation: Impact Assessment, p. 49. 

37  Evaluation  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  305/2011  laying  down  harmonised  conditions  for  the  marketing  of 
construction  products  and  repealing  Council  Directive  89/106/EEC,  SWD(2019)1770,  page  23, 
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/37827. 
See Annex 2 on consultation activities. 

38 This due to “all the others are doing it” behaviour; see also p.62 of Supporting study for the review of the 

Construction Products Regulation: Evaluation, final report, 2018,  
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e0ead9bc-ed3f-11e8-b690-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-195168178. 

39  VVA  Economics  &  Policy,  Joint  Institute  for  Innovation  Policy  (JIIP),  Danish  Technological  Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study  for the Review of the Construction 
Products Regulation: Evaluation, p.73. 

40 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study for the Review of the Construction 
Products Regulation: Evaluation, p. 52, 55. 

7 

 
                                                           
Declaration of Performance - DoP), Article 36 (intended to avoid unnecessary repetition 
of  testing),  Article  37  (simplified  procedures  for  micro-enterprises)  and  Article  38 
(simplified procedures for products individually manufactured or custom-made in a non-
series process). The uptake of these  Articles, with the  exception of Article 36,  remains 
very limited. These provisions were expected to lead to a simplification effect, reducing 
the  administrative  cost  of  placing  the  construction  products  on  the  market  without 
compromising  the  level  of  safety  of  construction  works.  However,  various  assessments 
and  feedback  from  the  stakeholders41  show  a  low  uptake  of  these  simplification 
provisions mainly due to low awareness and lack of clarity of the provisions, particularly 
with respect to what actually constitutes “equivalent” documentation. The attempt to “level 
the  playing  field”  for  the  smaller  companies  particularly  through  Article  37  has  not  been 
successful.  Furthermore, the justification of measures that allow some manufacturers to 
implement  such  “lighter”  procedures  are  called  into  question,  considering  that  this 
creates uncertainty for end-users, who may justifiably expect that all products bearing the 
CE mark are subject to the same procedural requirements.42 The evaluation showed that 
while  some  simplification  has  been  achieved  by  the  CPR,  this  has  been  less  than 
expected.   

While  the  expectation  for  the  CPR  was  a  reduction  in  costs  and  administrative 
burdens, the result is  in fact  increased costs.43 Moreover, the estimate provided by the 
Study on the economic impacts of the CPR44, indicates that the smallest companies bear 
the largest administrative burden. 

Furthermore,  some  CPR  provisions  are  insufficiently  clear  or  create  overlaps,  either 
within  the  CPR  framework  itself,  or  between  the  CPR  and  other  EU  legislation.  As  an 
example, Article 9(2) of the CPR includes a list of information that has to accompany the 
CE marking45, most of which the manufacturer has already presented in the Declaration 
of  Performance  (DoP).  This  situation  has  been  subject  to  heavy  criticism  since  the 
beginning of the CPR implementation. The overlap between the information required in 
the DoP and in the CE marking generates redundant administrative and financial burdens 
and constitutes a clear inefficiency46.  

41 As indicated in the 2016 Implementation report, in the 2016 Supporting study for the fitness check on the 

construction sector and in the 2018 Evaluation supporting study. 

42  VVA  Economics  &  Policy,  Joint  Institute  for  Innovation  Policy  (JIIP),  Danish  Technological  Institute 
(DTI),  Global  Data  Collection  Company  (2018).  Supporting  study  for  the  Review  of  the  Construction 
Products Regulation: Evaluation, p. 70. 

43 As shown by the results of the two studies (the Supporting study for the fitness check of the construction 
sector and the study on Economic Impacts of the Construction Products Regulation), these were mainly 
due to administrative costs. 

44 VVA Europe, the Danish Technological Institute (DTI) & the Netherlands Organisation for applied 

scientific research (TNO) (2016). Final Report: Economic Impacts of the Construction Products 
Regulation. 

45 I.e. the two last digits of the year in which it was first affixed, the name and the registered address of the 
manufacturer,  or  the  identifying  mark  allowing  identification  of  the  name  and  address  of  the 
manufacturer  easily  and  without  any  ambiguity,  the  unique  identification  code  of  the  product-type,  the 
reference number of the declaration of performance, the level or class of the performance declared, the 
reference  to  the  harmonised  technical  specification  applied,  the  identification  number  of  the  notified 
body, if applicable, and the intended use as laid down in the harmonised technical specification applied. 
46  While  there  is  no  information  available  on  the  cost  of  this  overlap,  the  analysis  confirmed  that  it 
constitutes  a  clear  inefficiency.  The  results  of  the  study,  conducted  in  2015,  show  that  these  overlaps 
have  resulted  in  various  impacts,  including  the  legal  value  of  the  CE  marking  being  unclear  for 
stakeholders,  problems  in  affixing  the  CE  marking  (either  to  the  construction  product  itself  or  to  the 

8 

 
                                                           
 
With  respect  to  clarity  and  coherence  between  the  CPR  and  other  pieces  of  EU 
legislation,  there  are  a  number  of  areas  where  they  overlap  and/or  are  in  conflict  with 
each  other, 
several  other 
product/technical  directives48.  This  creates  potential  overlaps  with  respect  to  the 
procedures  established  for  construction  products,  in  particular  regarding  parallel  routes 
for CE marking.   

the  Ecodesign  Directive47 

(EDD)  and 

including 

The supporting study for the fitness check49 carried out an analysis of the coherence  of 
selected  EU  acts  applying  to  the  construction  sector.  The  study  considered  the  legal 
overlaps  between  the  CPR  and  EDD  (2009),  and  Energy  Labelling  Directive50  (ELD), 
which  may  also  apply  to  construction  products,  and  confirmed  the  inconsistencies  in 
definitions, lack of cross-references and overlaps between the three pieces of legislation. 
The precise costs of these legal overlaps could not be quantified but may be significant 
for  manufacturers  of  those  specific  products.  Existing  overlaps  between  the  EDD  and 
CPR  for  specific  product  categories  currently  relate  to  five  product  categories,  namely 
solid fuel boilers, (solid fuel) local space heaters and space/water heaters, as regulated by 
Commission  Regulations  (EU)  2015/1185,  2015/1188,  2015/1189,  813/2013,  and 
814/201351.  In  its  opinion  XII.8.a52,  the  REFIT  platform  also  recommended  that  the 
Commission  gives  priority  to  addressing  the  problems  of  overlapping  and  repetitive 
requirements. 

Problem  4:  Inability  of  the  current  CPR  to  deliver  on  broader  policy  priorities, 
particularly the green and digital53 transition 

With  a  view  to  reducing  emissions  and  reaching  climate  neutrality  by  2050,  there  is  a 
need  to  mobilise  industry  to  move  towards  a  climate-neutral  and  circular  economy, 
particularly  in  resource-intensive  sectors  such  as  construction.  The  building  stock, 
currently  responsible  for  40%  of  final  energy  and  36%  of  greenhouse  gas  emissions  in 
the EU, has  a large cost-effective potential to  reduce emissions.  The European Climate 
Pact  recognised  the  need  for  using  low-carbon  materials  in  order  to  render  buildings 
more  climate-friendly.  The  analysis  underpinning  the  European  Climate  Pact  has 
identified  that  in  order  to  achieve  the  proposed  55%  climate  target  by  2030,  around 

accompanying packaging) and costs to industry (See RPA (2015). Analysis of the implementation of the 
Construction Products Regulation, p. 151). These findings were confirmed by the evaluation study (see 
VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study  for the Review of the Construction 
Products Regulation: Evaluation, p. 85). 

47 Directive 2009/125/EC. 
48 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study for the Review of the Construction 
Products Regulation: Evaluation, p.115. 

49 Economisti Associati, Milieu & CEPS (2016). Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the 

construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation. 

50 Directive 2010/30/EU. 
51 Economisti Associati, Milieu & CEPS (2016). Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the 

construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation, p. 92. 

52 https://wayback.archive-it.org/12090/20200221170910/https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-
process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/refit-making-eu-law-simpler-and-less-costly/refit-
platform/refit-platform-recommendations-and-other-work_en  

53 Digital transition in the form of digitalisation of information via digital solutions/tools e.g. digital 

database. 

9 

 
                                                                                                                                                                            
275 billion EUR of additional investments are needed per year in buildings renovation54. 
Construction  products  will  constitute  a  substantial  part  of  these  additional  investments, 
especially  as  in  renovation  the  share  of  the  construction  products  (such  as  insulation 
materials,  wooden  engineered  boards,  metal  structures  or  glass)  on  the  turnover  of 
projects is higher than in new construction. Therefore, a substantially rising demand for 
construction products can be expected in the next  years. Underperformance of the CPR 
framework could affect the implementation of the renovation wave, highlighting the need 
for  a  frictionless  and  innovative  internal  market  for  construction  products  to  fulfil  the 
targets of the EGD and especially for the renovation wave.  

Minimising the climate footprint of buildings requires, among others, resource efficiency 
and  circularity.  It  also  requires  shifting  the  focus  from  the  environmental  impacts55 
during the use phase to the entire life cycle of the building. In such a holistic approach, 
the choice of construction products will play a key role. However, so far it is difficult to 
compare  performance  of  construction  products  and  materials  across  various  circular 
design  related  aspects,  such  as  ease  of  disassembly,  future  reuse  potential,  maximum 
technical  service  life,  whole  life  cycle  cost/carbon,  material  intensity/waste  and 
reparability56.  

The climate resilience of specific infrastructure, buildings and civil engineering works is 
determined by local circumstances and building codes in the Member States, and where 
relevant other EU legislation. This is therefore outside the scope of the CPR. But in order 
to properly design, maintain and renovate the construction works also under the changing 
climate conditions, there is a need to provide accurate information on the performance of 
construction products.  

There  is  significant  mitigation  potential  to  be  achieved  in  the  manufacturing  of 
construction products.57 For instance, for steel the shift away from blast furnace (BF) to 
electric arc furnace (EAF) (using scrap metal) can lead to sector emissions reduction  of 
around  25-30%  compared  to  2010.  In  the  cases  of  hydrogen,  electrolysis  or  CCS  and 
CCU, the reductions can be much higher. If the direct reduced iron is produced via either 
hydrogen  or  electrolysis  iron  ore  reduction,  it  allows  for  electrification  of  the  most 
energy-intense step in iron making , leading to reductions up to 85-95%.58 Similarly, also 
for the chemicals and cement sector, large emission reduction potential exist. 

Other  products  can  even  have  net-negative  CO2  emissions  and  thus  store  CO2  in 
construction.  To  stimulate  the  incentives  and  demand  for  low-carbon  construction 

54 Commission Staff Working Document, Preliminary analysis of the long-term renovation strategies of 

13 Member States, 2021, 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/default/files/swd_commission_preliminary_analysis_of_member_state
_ltrss.pdf. 

55 See annex Annex 9 on the environmental impact of construction products for further details. 
56 Deloitte, Building Research Establishment, In Extenso Innovation Croissance (2021), Study on circular 

economy principles for buildings’ design, p.60. 

57 IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT OF THE COMMISSION COMMUNICATION COM(2018) 
773: A Clean Planet for all A European long-term strategic vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive 
and climate neutral economy; https://ec.europa.eu/clima/system/files/2018-
11/com_2018_733_analysis_in_support_en.pdf, section 7.6 
58 EUROFER (2014), A Steel Roadmap for a low carbon Europe 2050, 
http://www.nocarbonnation.net/docs/roadmaps/2013-Steel_Roadmap.pdf ; ECOFYS & Fraunhofer ISI 
(2018), Impact on the Environment and the Economy of Technological Innovations for the Innovation 
Fund (IF), https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/669226c7-b6ff-11e8-99ee-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-77120765 

10 

 
                                                           
products at the construction works level, coherent and transparent information on the 
climate, environmental and sustainability performance of the construction products 
is needed, but currently not covered by the harmonised system under the CPR. 

In  this  context,  Annex  I  to  the  current  CPR  provides  for  basic  requirements  for 
construction  works  (BWRs),  among  which  BWR3  already  refers  to  the  environmental 
impacts, and BWR7 refers to sustainable use of natural resources. However, the current 
harmonised standards under the CPR cover only some elements of BWR3 (e.g. emissions 
of  dangerous  substances  into  the  air,  emissions  into  soil  or  ground  water)  and  none  of 
BWR7. This is because there was a lack of agreement among the standardisers about how 
to apply these BWRs across different construction products. Additionally, it has not been 
prioritised, especially as in the past the regulatory needs of the Member States were less 
obvious  when  it  came  to  environmental  aspects,  as  opposed  to  e.g.  fire  safety  or 
structural  stability.  The  amount  of  energy  consumed,  the  CO2  emissions  and  other 
negative environmental impacts are mostly significant in the process of the production of 
construction  products59.  In  this  view,  the  performance  approach  can  at  best  indirectly 
regulate the production stage. Therefore, the harmonisation provided by the CPR and the 
legal instruments adopted under it fall short of covering these elements. The construction 
products  are  thus  not  yet  subject  to  harmonised  assessment  and  verification  of  the 
constancy of performance in this area.  This significantly limits the possibilities for the 
sector  to  declare,  in  a  consistent  and  harmonised  way,  the  performance  of  their 
products and to differentiate the products with regard to climate, environment and 
sustainability  performances.  It  also  significantly  limits  the  possibilities  for  Member 
States to define national requirements or to include criteria in public procurement for the 
purposes of sustainability objectives without putting at risk the functioning of the internal 
market.   

The CPR is also not fit to take account of the new business models stemming from the 
progressing  digitisation  of  the  sector,  such  as  e.g.  3D  printing.  Moreover,  without  a 
transition  of  the  construction  sector  towards  more  digitalised  approach  to  data 
registration,  storage  and  sharing,  the  objectives  of  the  European  Green  Deal  risk  being 
undermined as gaps may occur when it comes to the product information, rendering the 
information available along the supply chain incoherent and not transparent. Under the 
current  CPR,  digital  information  is  not  available.  This  will  become  a  challenge 
particularly as reliable product information, from manufacturing to the installation in the 
building  and  demolition  will  be  necessary  to  live  up  to  the  goals  of  circularity  and 
sustainability, and will be required by other linked legislation (e.g. Energy Performance 
of Buildings or SPI). Similarly, the current CPR does not encompass the application of a 
Digital Product Passport60, which could be used in digital building logbooks61, Level(s)62 
or other tools for assessing and reporting on the sustainability performance of buildings.  

59 Material Economics, ‘Circular Economy – A Powerful Force for Climate Mitigation’, 2018, p.12. 
60 A Digital Product Passport (DPP) is a method of digitally recording information about a product. The 
main purpose of this is to provide an easy to access, centralized bank of information. https://www.re-
tek.co.uk/re-tek-news/digital-product-passports/. 

61 A digital building logbook is a dynamic tool that allows a variety of data, information and documents to 
be recorded, accessed, enriched and organised under specific categories. It represents a record of major 
events and changes over a building’s life cycle, such as change of ownership, tenure or use, 
maintenance, refurbishment and other interventions. Definition of the digital building logbook - 
Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu). 

62 Level(s) is an assessment and reporting tool, developed by the European Commission, for sustainability 

performance of buildings, firmly based on circularity: Level(s) (europa.eu)  

11 

 
                                                           
Other issues not linked with the four problems presented above 

The following issue has been also identified as important to be addressed in the revision, 
while not explicitly covered in the evaluation: 

As  the  price  of  construction  materials  and  output  price  index  have  increased,  the 
construction sector is challenged by increasing building costs. At the same time housing 
affordability  and  energy  poverty  are  a  challenge  for  many  European  citizens,  as  house 
prices  have  risen  faster  than  the  incomes  in  most  Member  States.63  Overall,  these 
increasing  costs  make  it  challenging  for  the  construction  industry  to  build  affordable 
houses for low-income households64. At the moment, each building, even when they are 
just replicated, would need at least one permit in each Member State. A European market 
for (types of) prefabricated small houses65 would allow reaching economies of scale to 
drive  down  building  costs,  if  standards  for  such  houses  would  be  developed  under  the 
CPR  (in  line  with  Member  States  regulatory  needs  and  the  local  demand).  In  addition, 
national  and  local  authorities  could  potentially  grant  building  permits  in  a  fast  track 
procedure. 

3.  WHAT ARE THE PROBLEM DRIVERS? 

3.1. 

Problem drivers 

The main problems above are driven by regulatory failures.  

[Drivers for Problem 1]  

On the one hand, the internal market for construction products cannot function properly 
without  up-to-date  harmonised  standards  in  support  of  the  CPR  cited  in  the  OJEU. 
Because of their mandatory character and the exhaustive nature of harmonisation under 
the CPR,66 when no new  standards are cited, the  market  needs and regulatory needs of 
the Member States cannot be addressed. Lack of citation is due to a mismatch between 
the legal criteria applied by the Commission when assessing the harmonised standards 
under  the  CPR  and  the  ability  of  standardisers  to  deliver  requested  outputs.  In  the 
recent past, new standards could not have been cited in the Official Journal mainly due to 
legal issues, such as contradiction of the standards with the requirements of the CPR or 
trespassing  the  scope  of  the  mandate/standardisation  request.  Several  judgments  of  the 
Court of Justice of the EU67 underlining the role of the Commission in  monitoring and 
management of the standards development have resulted in a more stringent approach of 
Commission services when assessing draft harmonised standards. 

63 E.g. https://www.oecd.org/housing/policy-toolkit/ 
64  Housing  affordability  and  sustainability  in  the  EU,  Analytical  Report,  European  Construction  Sector 

Observatory, November 2019, page 50, https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/38481. 

65 Up to 180 m2 usable surface and 100 m2 ground floor. 
66 See judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 October 2014 — European Commission v Federal Republic 
of Germany (Case C-100/13), para. 62.   
67 Judgment of 27 October 2016 in case C-613/14 James Elliott Construction Limited v Irish Asphalt 

Limited, ECLI:EU:C:2016:821, EUR-Lex - 62014CJ0613 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu).  

     Judgment of 26 January 2017 in case T-474/15 Global Garden Products Italy SpA (GGP Italy) v 

European Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2017:36, EUR-Lex - 62015TJ0474 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu).  
     Judgment of the Court of 14 December 2017 in Case C-630/16 Request for a preliminary ruling from 
the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus - Anstar Oy, EUR-Lex - 62016CJ0630 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu). 

12 

 
 
                                                           
At the same time, under the current CPR,  the Commission has no alternative whenever 
the  standardisation  process  is  not  delivering.  It  lacks  empowerment  to  rely  on  an 
alternative solution (‘safety net’) when standards are not delivered, or are  not delivered 
within a reasonable timeframe or are considered to be of insufficient quality.  

Further,  in  contrast  to  the  former  CPD,  under  the  current  CPR  standards  should  not 
address the inherent product safety of essential characteristics. This also creates “gaps” in 
the standards, particularly in  view of the Member States. 

The incomplete character of harmonised standards under the CPR has contributed to 
a  number  of  Member  States  setting  additional  requirements  for  construction  products, 
including the reliance on national approvals, certifications and marks, in order to fill the 
“gaps”  in  harmonised  standards  and  be  able  to  fully  regulate  the  safety  of  construction 
works.  Member  States  added  further  performance  requirements  not  covered  by  the 
harmonised standards, thereby being in conflict with the principle of “exhaustiveness”68 
of  the  harmonised  system  under  the  CPR.  Several  CJEU  rulings69  have  confirmed  the 
exhaustiveness  of  the  harmonised  system  created  under  the  CPR,  thereby  leaving  no 
room for any other (national) system to deal with the marketing of construction products, 
within 
the  harmonised  sphere,  presenting  economic  operators  with  additional 
requirements  which  add  costs  and  act  as  obstacles  to  the  internal  market”70.  However, 
harmonised  standards  currently  cited  in  the  OJEU  cover  only  some  of  the  Basic  Work 
Requirements  set  out  in  Annex  I  of  the  CPR  (serving  as  a  reference  for  the  Member 
States  to  lay  down  requirements  for  construction  works  on  their  territory),  or  are  out-
dated  and  do  not  any  more  contain  all  elements  necessary  to  fulfil  Member  States’ 
regulatory needs. The national marks, certifications and approvals are therefore expected 
to  persist,  as  the  incomplete  character  of  the  harmonised  standards  adopted  under  the 
CPR  prevents the Member  States from  relying on harmonised  performance  criteria  and 
assessment methods. 
[Drivers for Problem 2]  
As presented in the evaluation71, the implementation of the CPR and multiple feedback 
from  the  stakeholders  confirm  that  the  market  surveillance  in  many  Member  States  is 
insufficient  and  so  ineffective.  Moreover,  several  stakeholders  noted  that  there  is  no 
clarity which organisations are responsible for market surveillance and enforcement and 
also  there  is  a  lack  of  reporting  mechanisms.72  The  main  area  where  stakeholders  have 
identified  inconsistencies  in  terms  of  implementation  was  in  relation  to  the  level  of 
market  surveillance  in  Member  States.73  While  it  is  largely  because  of  the  lack  of 
appropriate  resources  to  tackle  the  non-compliance  effectively,  the  lack  of  clarity  of 
the  current  CPR  provisions  on  market  surveillance  also  plays  a  significant  role.  This 

68 For construction products covered by harmonised standards, the Member States are not allowed to set 
any additional requirements outside the existing harmonised structure and must allow market access. 

69 Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 — European Commission v Federal 

Republic of Germany (Case C-100/13), para 62 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/0771274f-89a6-11e4-b8a5-01aa75ed71a1. 

70 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study for the Review of the Construction 
Products Regulation: Evaluation, p.101. 

71 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study for the Review of the Construction 
Products Regulation: Evaluation, pp.23-24. 

72 RPA (2015), Analysis of implementation of the CPR, page 166. 
73 RPA (2015), Analysis of implementation of the CPR, page 179. 

13 

 
                                                           
results  in  a  diverging  application  of  these  provisions  because  of  varying  interpretations 
by national authorities.  

[Drivers for Problem 3]  
The uptake of simplification provisions74 under the CPR  remains very limited. Various 
assessments and feedback from the stakeholders75 show that the driver for this problem is 
low awareness and lack of clarity of the provisions, particularly with respect to what 
actually  constitutes  “equivalent”  documentation76.  The  notion  of  “equivalence”  is  not 
explained,  the  conditions  for  practical  implementation  of  the  simplified  procedures 
remain therefore unclear, with small enterprises and other actors, including Member State 
authorities,  struggling  to  implement  the  rules.  The  lack  of  clarity  is  backed  by  the 
presence  of  a  very  strong  support  for  general  clarification  (redrafting)  of  the 
simplification  provisions77.  The  lack  of  clarity  prevents  achieving  simplification  and 
reduced  costs  for  specific  types  of  products  and  economic  operators,  particularly  for 
micro-enterprises/craft enterprises.78 

[Drivers for Problem 4]  

The  current  CPR  is  not  able  to  deliver  on  the  policy  objectives  stemming  from  the 
European  Green  Deal  and  the  Circular  Economy  Action  Plan,  as  these  new  policy 
objectives  are  not  reflected  therein.  In  particular,  the  CPR  does  not  permit  to  establish 
product requirements which are not performance-related. For this reason, the CPR is also 
not  flexible  enough  to  contribute  to  the  ambitious  commitments  proposed  in  the  EGD 
and  the  CEAP.  The  absence  of  references  to  sustainability  performances  in  the 
harmonised standards  adopted under the CPR is  resulting in  Member States unlawfully 
introducing additional national requirements for construction products, putting at risk the 
functioning  of  the  internal  market  and  imposing  additional  costs  on  manufacturers, 
particularly relevant for SMEs.  

The  current  CPR  is  also  unable  to  deliver  on  new  business  models,  in  particular  3D 
printing. The problem linked to 3D printers used for decentralised manufacturing derives 
from the fact that none of the three actors involved (the designer, the client, the owner of 
the  printer)  is  necessarily  a  manufacturer  or  a  producer  in  the  meaning  of  applicable 
product  legislation.  Consequently,  without  a  responsible  manufacturer  3D  printed 
products  escape  the  current  scope  of  product  safety  legislation.  Therefore,  the 
obligations  of  the  CPR,  which  build  on  the  responsibility  of  a  manufacturer,  are  not 
applicable. 3D printed products could be produced in high numbers without undergoing 
any  conformity  assessment  procedure.  This  regulatory  gap  might  lead  to  risks  for 
consumers or other users and create unfair competitive relationships79. Provisions related 

74 See further details in Annex 8 on simplification provisions. 
75 As indicated in the 2016 Implementation report, in the 2016 Supporting study for the fitness check on the 

construction sector and in the 2018 Evaluation supporting study. 

76  VVA  Economics  &  Policy,  Joint  Institute  for  Innovation  Policy  (JIIP),  Danish  Technological  Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study  for the Review of the Construction 
Products Regulation: Evaluation, p. 70. 

77 Copenhagen Economics, Danish Technological Institute and Office for Economic Policy and Regional 
Development Ltd. (2021). Study supporting the Impact Assessment for the CPR revision, Final report, 
p. 60. 

78 Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of 

construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC, SWD(2019)1770, p.40 

79 Regarding the regulatory issues raised by decentralised 3D-printing, see  

https://www.howtoregulate.org/decentralized-3d-printing-a-regulatory-challenge/#more-23.  

14 

 
                                                           
to 3D printing will provide a level playing field to manufacturers using this technology, 
preventing the creation of barriers to trade or unjustified compliance cost.  

Furthermore, the current CPR does not foresee broad application of digital tools e.g. 
digital information sharing and digital information flow.  

3.2.  How will the problems evolve? 

As  previously  explained,  under  the  current  framework  hardly  any  new  standards  or 
amendments of standards in support of the CPR have found their way into the OJEU, and 
none since early 2019 (see also the table and figures below). Economic operators cannot 
realise  the  full  benefits  of  a  consolidated  internal  market  nor  rely  on  a  harmonised 
manner to inform users about the performance of their products. With time, harmonised 
standards  already  cited  in  the  OJEU  become  more  and  more  obsolete  (the  majority  of 
them has been cited more than 10 years ago) and, in addition, often no longer correspond 
to  the  technology  used.  In  the  meantime,  many  of  the  existing  standards  have  been 
updated by the standardisers and were made available to manufacturers. However, these 
updated  versions  have  not  been  cited  in  the  OJEU  as  harmonised  standards  under  the 
CPR because of important legal and content-wise shortcomings. As long as they are not 
cited in the OJEU, they do keep the status of a European Standard (EN)80, hence can be 
voluntarily  used  by  the  manufacturers,  but  cannot  serve  as  a  basis  to  draw  up  a 
declaration  of  performance  and  affix  the  CE  marking.  This  situation  demonstrates  the 
willingness  of  the  industry  and  standardisers  to  continue  developing  state-of-the-art 
standards  for  the  construction  sector.  However,  these  standards  do  not  meet  the 
overriding  legal  framework  requirements  of  the  CPR  to  give  them  the  status  of 
harmonised standards. If this is not addressed, the discrepancy between the needs of the 
Member  States  and  the  market  actors  on  one  hand  and  the  reality  of  the  harmonised 
system under the CPR on the other hand is thus likely to further increase over the years.  

This is also expected to lead to increased burden on the so-called EOTA route81, allowing 
for the CE marking based on European Technical Assessments (ETAs)82 that are issued 
based  on  an  EAD.  This  route  was  originally  intended  to  allow  the  most  innovative 
products  not  (fully)  covered  by  harmonised  standards  gaining  access  to  the  market. 
However,  due  to  the  malfunctioning  of  the  standardisation  system,  in  recent  years  it  is 
more  and  more  frequent  that  the  EADs  are  considered  an  alternative  route  to  (lacking 
new)  harmonised  standards,  consequently  most  of  the  new  EAD  developments  regard 
products  that  slightly  deviate  from  the  scope  of  existing  harmonised  standards.  Such 
practice  benefits  mainly  the  manufacturers  requesting  an  ETA  (and  so  not  all 
manufacturers  of  the  same  type  of  products).  Such  ETAs  are  developed  at  a  cost  to  be 
borne by the manufacturers requesting them. As only the manufacturer having requested 
ETA can affix the CE marking to  the assessed product, this causes unnecessary  cost  to 
many  manufacturers  requesting  ETAs,  instead  of  allowing  all  manufacturers  to  rely  on 

80 https://boss.cen.eu/developingdeliverables/pages/en/pages//. 
81 Further information about the EOTA route can be found in Annex 7. 
82 The CPR provides for an alternative route for CE marking for construction products not covered or not 

fully covered under hENs by providing the possibility for manufacturers to request a European 
Technical Assessment (ETA). The manufacturer may issue a DoP and affix the CE marking on the basis 
of an ETA. ETAs are issued by Technical Assessment Bodies on the basis of European Assessment 
Documents (EADs). The development of EADs is the responsibility of EOTA. 

15 

 
 
                                                           
harmonised  standards  for  CE  marking  purposes.  These  costs  would  not  present 
themselves  in  case  relevant  harmonised  standards  were  cited  in  the  OJEU.  While 
recurring to ETAs is not against the provisions of the CPR, such practice leads to a large 
number of requests to assess draft EADs83 (see Article 19(2) and Annex II of the CPR) 
annually to the Commission and this situation risks becoming dysfunctional as well, due 
to  a  higher  number  of  complex  assessments  to  be  handled  by  limited  Commission 
resources.  Generally,  the  EOTA  route  is  commercially  beneficial  for  companies  with 
innovative products (or other products not covered by a harmonised standard), however 
the  problem  is  that  the  process  of  developing  EADs  and  on  their  basis  ETAs  was  not 
structured to deliver hundreds EADs per year and therefore it has become too slow, and 
slowness is particularly detrimental to innovative products. In fact, manufacturers want to 
CE mark and put their innovative product on the market as quickly as possible, and the 
slow process may sometimes act as a halt to innovation. The fact that a large number of 
ETAs has been issued (more than 6,900 as of end 202084), and that the number of ETAs 
issued each year is growing rapidly, seems to indicate that manufacturers think that this 
CE marking option is worth the time and cost – in other words, that it is effective for all 
products  not  only  innovative,  despite  there  being  room  for  improvement  in  terms  of 
length of the process85. This might be especially true in a situation where no harmonised 
standard is being cited. However, this route to the CE marking brings additional costs for 
each  manufacturer  who  requests  an  ETA,  compared  to  the  situation  if  a  relevant 
harmonised  standard  was  cited  in  OJEU.  Moreover,  it  brings  additional  burden  to  the 
Commissions resources as the number of requests to assess the draft EADs increases.  

The figures below present the evolution of the harmonised standards under the CPR, the 
European Technical Assessments (ETAs) and European Assessment Documents (EADs) 
over the recent years.  

Table 1: The evolution of harmonised standards, ETAs and EADs under the CPR  

2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  

Harmonised 
standards 
(hENs)a) 

hENs 
offered  by 
CEN 

hENs 
published 
in OJEU 

30 

89 

57 

20 

21 

19 

23 

25 

18 

19 

9* 

0 

1 

0 

83  The  European  Assessment  Document  (EAD)  is  a  harmonised  technical  specification  for  construction 
products  developed  by  European  Organisation  for  Technical  Assessment  (EOTA)  for  cases  where  a 
product is not fully covered by a harmonised European standard. EADs are the basis for issuing European 
Technical Assessments (ETAs). 

84 EOTA – 2020 Annual Report, https://www.eota.eu/news/eota-2020-annual-report. 
85 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study for the Review of the Construction 
Products Regulation: Evaluation, p.68. 

16 

 
 
  
                                                           
European 
Technical 
Assessments 
(ETAs)b) 

European 
Assessment 
Documentsb) 

based  on 
ETAGs86 

Based  on 
EADs 

Registered 
as DPs 
(draft 
EADs) 

Cited in 
OJEU 

381 

581 

703 

777 

638 

272 

237 

2 

55 

176 

374 

972 

831 

937 

50 

135 

99 

182 

124 

103 

93 

0 

19 

65 

71 

64 

13 

44 

Source: a) COM internal data; *publication of 6 standards delayed to early 2019; b) EOTA 

86 European Technical Approval Guidelines (ETAGs) were elaborated as common approval guidelines 

under the Construction Products Directive 89/106/EEC (CPD). Since 2013, when the CPD was replaced 
by the Construction Products Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 (CPR), they were in use as European 
Assessment Documents (EAD) in accordance with Article 66 of this Regulation. However, EOTA and 
the European Commission agreed that ETAGs should be converted into EADs. This conversion exercise 
has now been completed. The conversion comprised all ETAGs but ETAG 016, ETAG 021, ETAG 023, 
ETAG 024, ETAG 025, ETAG 031, ETAG 033 and ETAG 035. Please note that the mentioned ETAGs, 
which have come out of use, will only be converted into an EAD if a manufacturer requests an ETA on 
their basis. https://www.eota.eu/etags-archive. 

17 

 
                                                           
Figure 1: Number of hENs offered by CEN and hENs published in the OJEU 

Source: COM internal data 

Figure 2: Number of ETAs based on ETAGs and on EADs 

Source: EOTA 

18 

 
 
 
Figure 3: Number of EADs registered as draft and number of EADs cited in OJEU 

Source: EOTA, COM internal data 

Based on this overview, the expectations are that these issues will become more pressing 
over  time,  with  manufacturers  continuing  to  use  the  EOTA  route  for  CE  marking, 
incurring  unnecessary  additional  costs  on  top  of  putting  under  strain  the  Commissions 
limited resources.  

Finally,  new  political  goals,  namely  stemming  from  the  European  Green  Deal  and  the 
CEAP,  cannot  be  effectively  pursued  under  the  current  CPR  making  it  difficult  if  not 
impossible  to  deliver  on  the  objectives  relevant  for  construction  products,  including 
circularity and environmental impacts. Although the current CPR could address partially 
these  goals  (with  the  BWR3,  referring  to  the  environmental  impacts,  and  BWR7, 
referring  to  sustainable  use  of  natural  resources),  this  is  hardly  achievable  with  the 
blocked  technical  harmonisation  system.  As  consequence,  the  current  CPR  cannot 
address  the  SPI  goals.  Without  a  revision  of  the  CPR,  the  sustainability  aspects  of 
construction  products  would  then  need  to  be  addressed  under  the  SPI  with  a  risk  of 
double  administrative  burden  (the  same  product  regulated  under  two  acts).  This  could 
also put at risk the coherence between safety and sustainability aspects which is crucial 
considering  the  role  of  construction  products  in  construction  works.  Also,  without  an 
overarching  framework  to  ensure  sustainability  of  construction  products  in  the  EU  the 
fragmentation  of  the  EU  Internal  Market  will  gain  further  momentum,  as  individual 
Member  States  will  continue  their  attempts  to  tackle  the  described  issues  at  national 
level. 

4.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

4.1.  Legal basis 

The  first  paragraph  of  Article  114  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European 
Union (TFEU) empowers the European Parliament and the Council to adopt measures for 
the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action 

19 

 
  
 
in  Member  States  which  have  as  their  object  the  establishment  and  functioning  of  the 
internal  market.  Article  114  TFEU  allows  the  EU  to  take  measures  both  to  eliminate 
current  obstacles  to  the  establishment  and  functioning  of  the  internal  market  and  to 
address  barriers  that  dissuade  economic  operators  from  taking  full  advantage  of  the 
benefits of that market.  

Through  the  CPR,  the  EU  has  sought  to  remove  these  obstacles  to  the  circulation  of 
construction products within the European single market – this being an objective since 
the adoption of the Construction  Products  Directive. Article 114 TFEU forms the legal 
basis for the current CPR and is the appropriate legal basis for its revision. 

In  addition  to  pursuing  internal  market  objectives,  the  initiative  aims  to contribute  to  a 
high  level  of  environmental  protection  and  combatting  climate  change  (Article  11  and 
Articles 191 to 193 of the TFEU) as it also aims to contribute to the Circular Economy 
Action Plan, the Renovation Wave and other linked initiatives. However, internal market 
objectives  are  predominant,  as  the  absence  of  adequate  and  comprehensive  internal 
market rules to regulate marketing of construction products in a way to contribute to their 
sustainable production and use leaves room for solutions being developed by the Member 
States or by industries, which contributes to the dysfunctionality of the internal market by 
generating potential barriers, fragmentation and incoherent approaches. 

4.2. 

Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action 

The deficiencies of the current CPR cannot be remedied by Member States’ laws as the 
Member States have no competence for revising the CPR framework nor for correcting 
its failures through national, or even regional, measures. EU action is therefore relevant 
and necessary. Only at EU level conditions to ensure the free circulation of construction 
products  can  be  set  whilst  ensuring  a  level  playing  field.  In  particular,  environmental 
protection  objectives  and  climate  performance  of  construction  products  are  being 
addressed  in  different  ways  in  the  EU,  considering  also  the  different  geographical  and 
local  conditions,  and  this  variance  in  Member  States'  approaches  to  construction 
products’ sustainability and safety causes barriers to trade. An envisaged role for the EU 
should be to  promote the development  of a  competitive internal  market  in construction 
products  by  removing  any  unnecessary  disparities  in  regulation  of  performance  of 
construction  products,  including  environmental  one,  while  allowing  Member  States  to 
reflect their specificities in national building codes. Therefore, coordinated EU action can 
more  effectively  reinforce  and  supplement  national  and  local  actions,  contributing  in 
particular  to  construction  products’  sustainability  regarding  climate  performance  and 
environmental protection. 

4.3. 

Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 

The  revision  of  the  CPR  is  expected  to  improve  the  overall  functioning  of  the  internal 
market for construction products, particularly by addressing the current issues relevant to 
the standardisation system and eradicating further barriers to trade, such as duplication or 
overlapping  of  regulatory  provisions  either  at  the  EU  or  national/regional  levels.  This 
would  in  turn  increase  legal  certainty  as  well  as  predictability  and  improve  the  level 
playing field for the construction industry. Trust in the entire system would be leveraged 
thanks  to  more  streamlined  market  surveillance  practices  across  the  EU.  Finally,  the 

20 

 
 
 
revision  would  address  the  aspects  of  environmental  performance  and  circularity  of 
construction  products,  which  can  only  be  tackled  at  the  EU  level,  where  the  common 
technical language is being developed. 

The proposed measures are proportionate as they will not go beyond what is necessary to 
provide regulatory certainty while ensuring a high level of protection of safety and of the 
environment. EU action is therefore justified and necessary. 

5.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

The two general objectives of the revision are to: 

 1. Achieve a well-functioning internal market for construction products; and to 

 2. Make the framework apt to contribute to the objectives of the green and digital 
transition, particularly the modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy.  

These  general  objectives  respond  to  the  problems  and  the  underlying  drivers,  as 
presented above. They build, on one hand, on the long-term experience gained during the 
implementation,  showing  areas  of  improvement;  and  on  the  other  hand  respond  to  the 
objectives  of  the  industrial  policy87.  The  industry,  operating  in  the  EU  market,  needs 
harmonisation, legal clarity, adequate enforcement and reinforced market surveillance in 
order to benefit from the level-playing field and from the green and digital transition.   

These general objectives are complemented by the following specific objectives: 

1.1. To deblock the technical harmonisation system; 

1.2. To reduce national barriers to trade for products covered by the CPR; 

1.3. To improve enforcement and market surveillance; 

1.4. To provide more clarity (more comprehensive definitions, reducing overlaps, 
collision rules with other legislation) and simplification; 

1.5. To reduce the administrative burden, including through simplification and 
digitalisation; 

1.6. To ensure safe construction products; 

2.1. To contribute to reducing the overall climate and environmental impact of 
construction products, including through the application of digital tools (Digital 
Product Passport). 

The below figure 4 presents the intervention logic. 

87 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions. Updating the 2020 New Industrial Strategy: 
Building a stronger Single Market for Europe’s recovery. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/communication-new-industrial-strategy.pdf.  

21 

 
                                                           
Figure 4: Intervention logic  

6.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? 

The intervention logic presented  in  Figure  4 illustrates the underlying drivers, the links 
between the problems the CPR is expected to address, the objectives assigned to it, the 
CPR’s policy options, and the sub-options. The content of each option88 (i.e. the detailed 
measures that form part of them) were analysed and consulted with the Member States, 
industry and other stakeholders89.  

Not considered explicitly as an element of the options but essential to the delivery of the 
preferred  option,  is  the  question  of  the  Commission’s  administrative  setup  and 
capacity.  Ambitious  solutions  can  only  be  delivered  if  there  are  adequate  resources  in 
place  to  implement  them.  The  current  situation  has,  for  example,  demonstrated  that 
delays  have  accumulated  in  the  evaluation  of  CEN  harmonised  standards  and  EOTA 
deliverables  resulting  in  legal  uncertainty  for  the  market  and  users,  hindering  the  free 
circulation  of  construction  products  in  the  EU  and  impacting  the  competitiveness  of 
manufacturers. 

The  social  dimension  linked  to  the  manufacturing  of  construction  products  (social 
conditions  of  production  of  construction  products  placed  on  the  EU  market)  has  not 
formed part of the options devised for the CPR revision. Firstly, because of their size and 
volume,  the  construction  products  are  predominantly  produced  in  the  EU  where  no 

88 See Annex 12 for the Refined indicative options paper, https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/40762. 
89 See Annex 2 on consultation activities. See also the Results of the Survey on the Refined indicative 

options paper, April-August 2020, https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/43103. 

22 

 
 
 
                                                           
concerns  linked  to  the  social  aspects  of  their  manufacturing  are  known.  Secondly,  the 
envisaged  Sustainable  Corporate  Governance  initiative  (SCGI)  is  considering  the 
possible  introduction  of  a  general  due  diligence  duty  for  companies  of  a  certain  size, 
covering human rights and environmental aspects related to all company activities (not a 
particular product)  including the supply chain. Finally, the upcoming SPI  considers the 
possibility of setting requirements on social aspects along the value chain of products. 

6.1.  What is the baseline from which options are assessed? 

The  baseline  scenario  (referred  to  as  “option  A”  during  stakeholders’  consultations) 
implies  no  revision  of  the  Regulation.  This  means  the  current  CPR  being  in  force, 
together  with  the  entirety  of  the  harmonisation  system  it  put  in  place,  hence  including 
making use of all existing tools already at hand, i.e. Delegated Acts, Implementing Acts 
and harmonised standards90.  

The baseline scenario means therefore a continuation of the harmonisation system and its 
implementation,  e.g.  dialogue  and  efforts  to  provide  further  guidance  and  streamlining 
the  standardisation  work;  actions  taken  upon  the  national  marks91;  promoting  the 
understanding  of  the  CPR;  enhancing  the  market  surveillance,  through  e.g.  by 
recommending  effective  default  market  surveillance  controls,  within  the  framework  of 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 on market surveillance92. 

It is to be noted that the system, under the baseline scenario, would still to a very large 
extent be the one described in  the evaluation  and that some of the actions  suggested in 
the  evaluation  have  been  taken,  but  failed  to  deliver.  The  likely  evolution  under  the 
baseline scenario is reflected in section 3.2 (How will the problems evolve?).  

Under  the  baseline,  it  would  be  at  most  only  partially  possible  to  address  climate  and 
environmental  performance  aspects  of  construction  products  through  the  CPR  (i.e.  no 
reparability,  no  durability,  availability  of  spare  parts).  However,  this  would  require  a 
much  better  performing  harmonisation  system.  Therefore,  more  likely  the  SPI  would 
have  to  address  the  goals  stemming  from  the  European  Green  Deal  and  the  CEAP  for 
construction  products.  Certainly,  it  would  take  a  long  time  to  cover  a  considerable 
number  of  construction  products  owing  to  their  diversity.  This  would  lead  also  to 
unnecessary additional administrative burden, with different aspects of the same product 
being regulated under different acts and through separate procedures. This could also put 
at  risk  the  coherence  between  safety  and  sustainability  aspects  which  is  crucial 
considering the role of construction products in construction works. 

Individual  Member  States  are  also  expected  to  compensate  the  lack  of  an  EU-wide 
framework  for  sustainability  and  safety  requirements  for  construction  products  by 

90 As of 23 October 2021, 21 delegated and implementing acts have been adopted under the CPR. A list of 
implementing and delegated acts adopted by the Commission in accordance with the Construction 
Products Regulation is available on the Commission’s website. See Annex 6 Description of the CPR. 
91 While the number of infringements of the CPR can be vast, the Commission has concentrated its efforts 
on  cases  where  it  can  be  most  effective.  As  the  Commission  won  several  cases  in  the  CJEU,  e.g.  C-
100/13,  joined  cases  C-475/19P  and  C-688/19P,  a  solid  basis  for  effective  judicial  protection  at  the 
national level was provided.   
92 OJ L 169, 25.6.2019, p. 1–44. 

23 

 
 
                                                           
introducing uncoordinated approaches at the national level, thereby further deteriorating 
the internal market for construction products.   

6.2.  Description of the policy options 

This  section  provides  a  detailed  description  of  each  of  the  policy  options  proposed  to 
promote  a  well-functioning  internal  market  for  construction  products  in  the  EU.  The 
policy options, with the exception of Option E, are further able to make the framework 
apt to contribute (to a different extent) to the objectives of the European Green Deal. The 
below graph also presents the content of the different options and how they interact: 

Figure 5: Policy options 

Amid increasing environmental and climate concerns, and particularly in the light of the 
need to support the European Green Deal, in case of a revision, the CPR provisions could 
better  target  the  aspects  of  the  environment  and  sustainable  use  of  natural  resources, 
while  respecting  Member  States’  responsibility  for  the  safety  of  construction  works.  In 
the  2020  survey,  56%  of  participants  in  the  CPR  Revision  Technical  Stakeholders’ 
Conference  showed  preference  for  inherent  environmental  product  requirements  to  be 
integrated into the CPR and its harmonised sphere when asked about the preferred way 
that  construction  products  can  contribute  to  the  transition  towards  a  more  sustainable 
built  environment,  in  the  frame  of  the  European  Green  Deal.  It  was  also  supported  by 
several  participants  that  the  EU  regulatory  requirements  at  the  EU  and  Member  States 
levels  on  information  on  the  characteristics,  contents  and  environmental  impacts  of 
construction  products  need  to  be  strengthened93.  The  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament  also  called  for  stronger  integration  of  circularity  and  environmental 
sustainability into the CPR.94  

93 Deloitte, Building Research Establishment, In Extenso Innovation Croissance (2021). Study on circular 

economy principles for buildings’ design, p.78. 

94 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/41508/st14523-en19.pdf; Implementation of Regulation (EU) 
No 305/2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products (the 
Construction Products Regulation), 2020/2028(INI). 

24 

 
 
 
                                                           
Option B – repairing the CPR 

Option B is designed as a stand-alone option aimed at addressing the issues highlighted 
in  the  evaluation  and  can  thus  be  considered  as  an  option  of  “repairing  the  CPR”.  It 
covers measures aimed at addressing the problems and objectives identified in previous 
sections. These issues are numerous and often interlinked, hence the need of a significant 
revision in order to offer appropriate solutions. Consequently, option B can be regarded 
as an overhaul of the current CPR. 

In the context of option B, the following actions are foreseen: 

-  To  address  the  challenges  of  the  technical  harmonisation  system,  option  B  foresees 
introducing  an  empowerment  for  the  Commission  to  rely  on  a  ‘safety  net’ 
(alternative/fall  back)  solution  in  case  the  standardisation  system  is  not  delivering 
standards  in  time  and  of  sufficient  quality.  Such  empowerment  would  allow  the 
Commission services to draft Commission Acts containing technical specifications 
in  support  of  the  CPR.  A  similar  approach  is  also  available  in  other  sectoral 
legislation, e.g. the Fertilisers Regulation95, the Medical Devices Regulation96, and in 
recent  legislative  proposals,  e.g.  the  proposal  for  the  Machinery  Regulation97. 
Additionally,  the  Member  States  will  be  requested  to  proactively  identify  their 
regulatory  needs  upfront,  in  view  of  reducing  the  number  of  iterations  of  standards 
developed. Furthermore, where delivered standards are incomplete or insufficient, the 
Commission  would  be  empowered  to  act  in  such  situations,  to  render  the  system 
functioning and efficient. Such a solution would imply that the development process 
of  technical  content  will  take  place  in  a  close  dialogue  and  cooperation  with  the 
industry and Member States experts and other relevant stakeholders but will be under 
the  lead  of  the  Commission  services.  These  Commission  Acts  containing  technical 
the  harmonised  standards;  the 
specifications  will  have  a  status  similar  to 
manufacturers of products covered by such specification would thus be able to draw 
up the Declaration of Performance and to acquire the CE marking, allowing to place 
respective products on the market.     

-  Continued  existence  of  national  requirements  and  marks  would  be  mitigated  by 
clearly defining the area regulated at the EU level. In order to respond to new and 
urgent Member States’  regulatory needs,  Option  B would  allow the Commission to 
modify  by  subsequent  legal  acts  the  exact  borderlines  of  the  ‘harmonised  zone’,  to 
quickly  integrate  those  new  issues,  thus  avoiding  the  needs  for  dedicated  national 
marks.  Transitional  provisions  would  ensure  that  the  harmonised  standards  cited 
under  the  current  CPR  would  maintain  their  legal  effect  until  they  are  replaced  by 
new  harmonised  standards  developed  under  the  revised  CPR.  Furthermore, 
introducing provisions clarifying competences of the Member States and the interplay 
between  the  EU  and  the  Member  States’  level,  e.g.  with  regard  to  unsafe  or  non-

95 Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 laying down 
rules on the making available on the market of EU fertilising products and amending Regulations (EC) 
No 1069/2009 and (EC) No 1107/2009 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003. 

96 Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical 
devices,  amending  Directive  2001/83/EC,  Regulation  (EC)  No  178/2002  and  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC. 

97 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on machinery products, EUR-

Lex - 52021PC0202 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu). 

25 

 
                                                           
compliant  products  (e.g.  right 
surveillance), is also part of this option.  

to  sue98,  minimum  benchmarks  for  market 

-  Option  B  is  enabling  a  harmonised  framework  to  assess  and  communicate  the 
environmental  performance  of  construction  products.  This  would  take  place  in 
coherence with a horizontal approach on the environmental performance assessment 
of  products,  as  currently  developed  within  the  SPI.  General  principles  of  such 
assessment  will  form  part  of  the  provisions,  while  the  operationalisation  of  those 
principles per product family would be laid down in subsequent Commission acts, via 
standardisation.  

-  To support the access to and use of the environmental product data, the setting up 
of a digital structure fully compatible with the Digital Product Passport (as foreseen 
by the parallel Sustainable Products Initiative), is of crucial importance. Easy access 
to  coherent  and  transparent  information  on  construction  products  will  also  be 
furthered  through  the  use  of  digital  tools,  notably  the  Single  Digital  Gateway99  by 
Product Contact Points for Construction and by national authorities. 

-  Under  Option  B,  the  revised  CPR  would  also  promote  reuse  of  construction 
products,  particularly  to  reduce  the  overall  climate  and  environmental  impacts.  In 
particular, the CPR would support the placing on the market of certain used or used 
and  remanufactured  construction  products,  allowing  such  products  to  obtain  CE 
marking and gain access to the European market100. 

-  Option B proposes to enhance market surveillance101 by strengthening enforcement 
powers and aligning the performance of different market surveillance authorities. The 
strengthening  of  enforcement  powers  would  entail  the  introduction  of  appropriate 
sector-specific  provisions  to  supplement  the  horizontal  provisions  contained  in 
Regulation  (EU)  2019/1020  on  market  surveillance  and  compliance  of  products. 
Moreover,  it  would  aim  to  dispel  interpretative  confusion  and  facilitate  the  use  of 
safeguard  mechanisms,  by  creating  procedures  that  are  more  streamlined  (see 
Annex 12 with Refined indicative options paper for more details). The Commission 
will also be empowered to adopt delegated acts on the minimum number of checks to 
be performed by the market surveillance authorities of each Member State, as well as 
delegated  acts  on  the  minimum  human  resources  to  be  deployed  by  the  Member 
States  for  purposes  of  market  surveillance  with  regard  to  products  covered  by  this 
Regulation.  These  latter  will  be  accompanied  by  a  specific  assessment  of  the 
resources implications. 

98  E.g.  competitors  are  given  the  right  to  sue  non-compliant  manufacturers  and  their  distributors.  See 

Refined indicative options paper, p.32, https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/40762. 

99  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1724  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  2  October  2018 
establishing a  single digital  gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance 
and  problem-solving  services  and  amending  Regulation  (EU)  No  1024/2012,  OJ  L  295,  21.11.2018, 
p. 1–38. 

100 See Annex 12 on Refined indicative options paper, p.9. 
101 Such provisions would include stronger empowerments for market surveillance authorities related to 
fact-finding (e.g. the right to confiscate samples or to seize documents related to presumably non-
compliant products) and possible punitive measures (e.g. the right to impose financial sanctions or to 
exclude non-compliant operators from public tenders). See p. 32 of Refined indicative options paper, 
Annex 12. 

26 

 
                                                           
- 

In a similar vein, to further improve the enforcement at the national level, option B 
foresees enhancing harmonised decision-making amongst all authorities and Notified 
Bodies102,  striving  for  alignment  across  Member  States  and  across  groups  of 
authorities/bodies. The Notified Bodies103 would also be strengthened with a capacity 
to  assess  the  correctness  of  declared  environmental  impacts  of  construction 
products, through either designating specialised bodies or creating a responsible sub-
group. Option B also foresees that a revised CPR improves the efficacy of Notified 
Bodies104.  

-  With  a  view  to  improve  the  clarity  of  the  provisions,  option  B  would  aim  at 
enhancing the definitions in order to make them more precise and comprehensible. In 
this sense, the provisions in the future CPR would also clarify e.g. the situation of 3D 
printing of construction products, where currently neither the seller of the 3D printing 
dataset nor the 3D printing service provider is a manufacturer in the meaning of the 
CPR.  It  would  thus  render  the  revised  CPR  future-proof  and  create  a  level  playing 
field. 

-  Prefabricated small houses (including built by 3D printing) would also be covered by 
the CPR. This would allow to build the same (types of) affordable houses in several 
Member States.105 

-  Similarly,  overlaps  with  other  EU  legislation  will  be  mitigated  by  introducing 
collision  rules  and  ensuring  coherence;  additionally,  wherever  needed  and  relevant, 
the scope of the applicability  of the future CPR  will be adjusted  (e.g.  in  relation  to 
drinking  water  installations,  currently  covered  under  both  the  CPR  and  Drinking 
Water  Directive  –  see  Annex  10  for  more  details).  To  clarify  the  scope  of 
applicability,  avoid  possible  gaps  and  address  the  circularity  objectives,  option  B 
would make sure  obligations  are extended over the supply chain to  suppliers of the 
construction products and related services106.  

-  As a solution to the lack of clarity around the meaning of the CE marking, option B 
proposes the introduction of a specific marking for construction products (European 
Construction  Product  –  ECP)  to  clarify  that  the  marking  refers  primarily  to 
performance declaration and not to conformity. 

102 A revised CPR would set up a structured mechanism for the exchange of information between the 

relevant actors. See pp. 29-30 of Refined indicative options paper, Annex12. 

103 The current Notified Bodies are not necessarily competent to assess whether the calculation of 

environmental impacts by manufacturers is correct or, subject to the AVCP system, to make such 
calculations from scratch. 

104  Information  from  consultation  on  the  Analysis  of  the  implementation  of  the  Construction  Products 
Regulation (2015) suggests that there is not yet a level playing field for the designation and monitoring 
of notified bodies in Europe and that the common accreditation schemes to determine the competence of 
Conformity  Assessment bodies for areas covered by EU community legislation envisaged in the New 
Legislative Framework are not yet operational. The actions would aim at  strengthening the designation 
process and introducing control mechanisms for the time after the designation. 

105 Up to 180 m2 usable surface and 100 m2 ground floor. Member States would have the possibility to opt 

out of the application of the CPR to such houses.  

106 This is linked to making the CPR application clear with regard to emerging new circular business 

models. 

27 

 
                                                           
-  Option  B  foresees  clarifying  the  simplification  provisions  and  introducing  an 
empowerment  for  the  Member  States  to  exempt  micro-enterprises  not  trading 
across the borders from the obligations of the CPR. 

-  Under option B, with a harmonised framework to assess, communicate and access the 
environmental performance of construction products and the promotion of the reuse 
of  construction  products,  some  of  the  SPI’s  aims  could  be  addressed  in  the  CPR 
framework.  However,  option  B  does  not  allow  to  introduce  product  requirements. 
These  requirements  would  need  to  be  set  under  the  SPI  risking  a  fragmentation  of 
legislation.  

-  Option  B  addresses  the  issue  of  inherent  product  safety  only  indirectly,  as  the 
unblocking  of  the  technical  harmonisation  system  and  an  improved  market 
surveillance would improve the quality of products.  

Option C – Focusing the CPR 

the  CPR, 

Option  C  can  be  described  as  “focusing  the  CPR”  –  or  reducing  the  scope  of  the 
application  of 
the  quality  and 
comprehensiveness  of the remaining harmonised  sphere. This  option  takes Option  B as 
starting point, meaning that it builds on the elements described in Option B. However, in 
Option C the scope of application of the CPR is then limited in certain areas, depending 
on the following three sub-options which can be combined: 

freeing  up  capacity 

improve 

to 

  Sub-option  C1:  Limiting  the  CPR’s  application  to  assessment  methods:  Harmonised 
standards  and  Commission  Acts  containing  technical  specifications  would  include 
only assessment methods for performance calculation, with no performance threshold 
levels, classes nor other requirements to be established at EU level. 

  Sub-option C2: Limiting the scope of the CPR: the scope of the CPR would focus on 
the  core  areas,  identified  according  to  three  criteria:  (1)  the  coherence  of  Member 
States’ regulatory needs, (2) the relevance for the environment or for  product safety, 
and (3) market relevance. These criteria are thus not only applied by the Commission 
when  setting  priorities  for  preparing  harmonised  standards  and  Commission  Acts 
containing  technical  specifications  as  described  under  option  B,  but  already  by  the 
legislator  when  determining  the  overall  scope  of  the  CPR.  Such  an  approach  would 
allow to better focus on the regulatory needs of the Member States, the disadvantage 
being the lack of agility to adjust quickly the scope to respond to new harmonisation, 
safety or environmental needs. Mutual recognition principles would apply outside the 
core areas. 

  Sub-option  C3:  Making  the  common  technical  language  optional  for  manufacturers: 
Member  States  would  have  the  option  to  offer  an  alternative  path  to  market  access 
based  on  national  regulations  and  not  relying  on  harmonised  standards  and 
Commission  Acts  containing  technical  specifications.  In  such  a  case,  manufacturers 
could choose whether they use the common technical language under the CPR or the 
alternative (national) path to market access. However, if a manufacturer would choose 
to use the common technical language to assess and communicate performance of its 
products  and  affix  the  CE  marking,  Member  States  would  remain  obliged  to  offer 
market access to this product.  

28 

 
Sub-option C1 alone  would  relate to  the  SPI similar as option B. However, under sub-
options  C2  and  C3  a  considerable  number  of  construction  products  would  not  be 
regulated  by  the  CPR.  In  particular,  under  sub-option  C2  less  products  would  be 
regulated  under  the  CPR  than  today.  Under  sub-option  C3  the  same  product  could  fall 
under the CPR or national regulations depending on the choice of manufacturer how to 
market it. Therefore, under C2 and C3 the SPI’s aims would have to be addressed by the 
SPI  directly  to  avoid  different  sustainability  approaches.  This  would  lead  to  a  complex 
regulatory structure for construction products with CPR, SPI, national regulations and the 
mutual recognition principle applicable. 

Option D – Enhancing the CPR 

Option  D,  “enhancing  the  CPR”,  is  triggered  predominantly  by  the  goals  of  ensuring  a 
high level of safety and environmental protection, including circularity aspects. Option D 
foresees  a  process  to  introduce  product  requirements  dealing  with  product  inherent 
aspects  when  needed  to  protect  health,  safety  and  the  environment107.  In  this  sense, 
Option D mirrors the expected requirements applicable under the future SPI (see Annex 
11  for  further  details).  While  it  further  builds  on  Option  B,  relying  on  mandatory 
harmonised  standards  relevant  for  the  assessment  of  products’  performance,  it  goes 
beyond  this  through  provisions  that  empower  the  Commission  to  set,  when  needed, 
mandatory (minimum) requirements for products.  

Beyond these horizontal environmental and product safety requirements and obligations 
laid  down  in  an  Annex  of  the  CPR,  this  product-specific  requirements  would  be 
formulated  via  three  sub-options/approaches  (sub-options  D1  and  D2  could  also  be 
combined): 

  Sub-option  D1:  To  complement  the  horizontal  environmental  and  product  safety 
requirements  and  obligations  laid  down  in  an  Annex  of  the  CPR,  sub-option  D1 
would  formulate  more  specific  product  requirements  based  on  the  New  Legislative 
Framework  approach.  For  the  products  or  product  families  concerned,  essential 
requirements would be laid down in standardisation requests addressed to CEN, who 
would be mandated to develop standards providing technical details. These voluntary 
standards would be harmonised by referencing in the OJEU. Following the voluntary 
standards would lead to the presumption of a product's conformity with the relevant 
essential requirements, but other means to prove conformity would remain possible. 
As such, in the absence of essential requirements tailor-made to particular groups of 
products  specified in  Commission  acts,  it may lead to  lack of harmonised approach 
towards  assessing  and  demonstrating  given  performances.  Divergence  in  product 
requirements between products following the harmonised standards path and products 
manufactured  and  tested  according  to  other  methods  would  imply  additional  effort 
needed on the side of the market surveillance authorities.  

107 In this context, important to note that inherent product safety should be distinguished from “construction 
work  safety”,  which  is  framed  by  national  legislation  The  competences  with  respect  to  safety  are 
divided  between  the  EU  and  the  Member  States:  while  the  EU  is  responsible  for  the  rules  relating  to 
access  of  construction  products  to  the  Internal  Market  (the  marketing  of  construction  products),  the 
Member  States  retain  responsibility  for  safety  as  well  as  environmental  and  energy  requirements 
applicable to construction works.  

29 

 
                                                           
  Sub-option  D2:  It  would  formulate  product  requirements  based  on  the  technical 
specifications  approach.  Requirements  would  be  included  in  harmonised  technical 
specifications  and  be  developed  as  under  Option  B,  meaning  either  by  mandatory 
harmonised  standards  (preferred)  or  by  Commission  acts  containing  technical 
specifications  (as  fall  back).  Where  product  requirements  will  be  defined,  the 
Declaration of Performance would be complemented by a Declaration of Conformity, 
and both would be combined in one document. 

  Sub-option  D3:  Based  on  the  feedback  received  during  the  public  consultation  and 
further deeper analysis of the legal constraints, a hybrid solution between sub-option 
D1  and  sub-option  D2  has  been  developed  while  keeping  the  core  elements  of  the 
two other sub-options. These include:  

-  As  in  the  NLF,  the  product  requirements  (“essential  requirements”)  would  be 

established by an Annex of the CPR.  

-  However,  as  the  requirements  have  to  target  more  than  30  widely  differing 
product families encompassing more than 100 product categories, they cannot be 
sufficiently  specific  to  be  applied  without  legal  uncertainty.  Hence,  they  would 
only  become  applicable  once  they  have  been  specified  for  a  certain  product 
family or category by a Commission Act. This is an element stemming from sub-
option D2. 

-  As  these  Commission  Acts  may  not  cover  all  relevant  aspects  of  application, 
voluntary  standards  based  on  standardisation  requests  may  also  be  needed  to 
complement  them  to  providing  more  details  and,  eventually,  presumption  of 
conformity. This is an element stemming from sub-option D1 and the NLF. 

Against  the  ambitions  of  the  European  Green  Deal  and  particularly,  the  transition 
towards a more sustainable built environment, Option D would be the one ensuring that 
all safety, circularity, sustainability and climate related aspects can be assessed under the 
CPR  future  framework,  including  the  possibility  to  put  forward  product  requirements. 
Option D is therefore fully aligned with the SPI and does not require the SPI to prioritise 
the construction products.  

Option E – repealing the CPR 

Option  E  would  imply  relying  on  mutual  recognition  for  the  internal  market  of 
construction  products.  There  would  be  no  harmonisation,  i.e.  no  common  technical 
language, no mandatory harmonised standards, no voluntary harmonised standards either, 
no  basic  work  requirements  for  construction  works,  no  obligation  to  draw  up  a 
Declaration of Performance or communicate it, no CE marking, no classes or thresholds, 
no  AVCP108  systems  and  no  conditions  for  classification  determined  at  EU  level.  This 
would  extend  to  all  construction  products  the  situation  currently  existing  for  the  non-
harmonised sphere. 

108  Assessment and verification  of constancy of performance, corresponding  to conformity assessment in 

classic NLF legislation. 

30 

 
                                                           
Therefore, under option E, climate and environmental performance  requirements at  EU 
level would have to be set by the SPI. As consequence, even without a CPR there would 
be EU requirements targeting construction products, this time stemming from the SPI.  

While Member States would be free to come up with their own national requirements, the 
principle  of  mutual  recognition  would  imply  that  they  cannot  simply  refuse  market 
access, if products from a different Member State do not comply with these requirements. 
Instead,  they  would  need  to  check  whether  the  products  were  marketed  in  accordance 
with the national rules applicable in the Member State in which they were manufactured. 
Additionally,  Member  States  could  adopt  national  regulations  relevant  for  construction 
works where certain performance criteria could be envisaged for certain conditions (e.g. 
reflecting climate change risks). 

31 

 
 
Figure 6: Comparison of options against the specific objectives 

Problem drivers 

Specific Objectives 

Option A 

Option B 

Option C 

Option D 

Option E 

  The same as option 
B in the remaining 
harmonised sphere. 

  The same as option 

B. 

  As there will be no 
harmonisation, only 
mutual recognition, 
no mandatory nor 
voluntary 
harmonised 
standards would be 
necessary. 

Deblocking the 
technical 
harmonisation system 

  Apply the existing 
empowerments and 
procedures. 

Problem 1 drivers  

-Mismatch between the 
legal criteria applied 
by the Commission 
and the ability of 
standardisers to 
deliver requested 
outputs 

- Lack of alternative 
whenever the 
standardisation 
process is not 
delivering  

- Incomplete character 
of harmonisation 

Problem 4 drivers 

- 3D printed products 
escape the scope of 
CPR 

 

Introducing 
empowerment for 
the Commission 
foreseeing 
alternative (safety-
net) solution, to 
draft technical 
specifications 
where no timely 
and/or quality 
standards are 
delivered, i.e. 
developing 
technical content in 
a close dialogue and 
cooperation with 
the industry and 
Member States 
experts and other 
relevant 
stakeholders;  
  Member States will 
be requested to 
proactively identify 
their regulatory 
needs upfront, with 
a view of reducing 
the number of 

32 

 
 
 
To ensure safe 
construction 
products 

  No change.  

iterations of 
standards 
developed. 

 

Indirectly addressed 
with improved 
market surveillance 
and unblocked 
technical 
harmonisation 
system. 
  Bringing 3D-

printed products in 
the scope of CPR   

  The same as option 
B in the remaining 
harmonised sphere.  

Reducing national 
barriers to trade for 
products covered by 
the CPR 

  Problem 2 drivers 

- Lack of clarity of the 
current provisions 

- Lack of appropriate 
resources to tackle the 
non-compliance 

  Act upon national 
marks, ex-ante 
processes and 
verifications, 
including 
infringement 
procedures and 
support for 
economic operators 

 

Introducing 
provisions 
clarifying 
competences of the 
Member States and 
improving the 
interplay between 
the EU and the 
Member States’ 

  The same as option 
B but also with 
changes to the 
scope of the CPR to 
free up capacity and 
improve the quality 
and 
comprehensiveness 
of the remaining 

33 

  The CPR repealed 

and mutual 
recognition 
applying, hence no 
harmonised sphere. 

  The CPR repealed 

and mutual 
recognition 
applying, hence no 
harmonised sphere. 

  Setting a dedicated 
process to introduce 
product inherent 
safety requirements, 
where needed 
complemented by 
more specific 
product 
requirements (per 
categories or group 
of products) by 
either; 
  D1 – New 
Legislative 
Framework 
approach for 
product 
requirements; 

  D2 – Technical 

Specifications 
Approach for 
product 
requirements. 

  D3 – Hybrid of 

D1/D2 

  The same as option 
B but also covering 
inherent product 
safety requirements 
at EU level 
(horizontal 
mandatory 
minimum safety 
requirements for 

 
 
effectively 

acting against 
infringements at 
national courts. 

level, e.g. with 
regard to unsafe or 
incompliant 
products. 

Improving 
enforcement and 
market surveillance 

  Recommending 
highly effective 
default/standard 
market surveillance 
controls. 

  Strengthening 

enforcement powers 
and aligning the 
performance of 
different market 
surveillance 
authorities; 
  Creating more 
streamlined 
procedures to 
address 
interpretative 
confusion and 
facilitate the use of 
safeguard 
mechanisms; 
  Delegated acts on 
minimum number 

34 

harmonised sphere: 

  C1: Scope of the 

CPR limited to 
assessment methods 
only (no thresholds, 
classes nor other 
requirements at EU 
level); 

  C2: Focusing the 

scope on regulatory 
needs of the 
Member States, 
with limited agility 
towards new needs; 

  C3: Giving the 

Member States the 
possibility 
additionally offer 
market access based 
on national 
regulations.   
  The same as option 
B in the remaining 
harmonised 
sphere.B. 

products, where 
needed 
complemented by 
more specific 
product 
requirements per 
categories or group 
of products). 

  D1 – New 
Legislative 
Framework 
approach for 
product 
requirements; 

  D2 – Technical 

Specifications 
Approach for 
product 
requirements; 

  D3 – Hybrid of 

D1/D2. 

  The same as Option 

  No CPR in place, 

B. 

authorities checking 
whether the 
products were 
marketed in 
accordance with the 
national rules 
applicable in the 
Member State in 
which they were 
manufactured. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of checks 
performed by the 
market surveillance; 

  Delegated acts on 
minimum human 
resources to be 
deployed for the 
market surveillance 
of construction 
products; 
  Enhancing 

harmonised 
decision-making 
amongst all 
authorities and 
Notified Bodies, 
striving for 
alignment across 
Member States and 
across groups of 
authorities/bodies; 
  Strengthening the 

capacity of Notified 
Bodies to assess the 
correctness of 
declared 
environmental 
impacts of 
construction 
products. 

35 

 
 
Providing more clarity 
and simplification  

  No change. 

  Problem 3 drivers 

- Low awareness and 
lack of clarity of the 
simplification 
provisions 

Problem 4 drivers 

- CPR does not foresee 
broad application of 
digital tools 

Reducing the 
administrative burden, 
including through 
simplification and 
digitalisation 

  The same as option 

  CPR repealed, no 

B. 

need for 
simplification 
provisions at the 
EU level. 

  Manufacturers have 
to market products 
in accordance of 
national rules.  

  The same as option 
B in the remaining 
harmonised sphere, 
but also: 

  C2: Focusing the 

area of application 
and/or scope to core 
areas, hence 
limiting possible 
overlaps; 

  C3: The possibility 
of an alternative 
national path to 
market access is 
creating new 
regulatory overlaps. 

 

Introducing an 
empowerment for 
the Member States 
to exempt 
conditionally 
certain micro-
enterprises from the 
obligations of the 
CPR; 
  Clarify the 

simplification 
provisions;   
  Eliminating 

information overlap 
between the CE 
marking and the 
Declaration of 
Performance;  
  Combining the 
Declaration of 
Performance with 
the Declaration of 
Conformity; 

  Enhancing the 

definitions in order 
to make them more 
precise, thorough 
and 
comprehensible; 
  Clarifying possible 
loopholes or 
overlaps with other 
legislation, 
including through 
clear collision rules 
and clarifying the 
scope; 
Introducing specific 
marking for 

 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
construction 
products (ECP 
instead of CE 
marking);  

  Ensuring access to 
comprehensive 
information in a 
digitalized manner, 
through Single 
Digital Gateway. 

  Access to a 

common database, 
via Digital Product 
Passport, to ensure 
information is 
stored in a 
comprehensive and 
durable manner. 

  Enabling a 
harmonised 
framework to assess 
and communicate 
the environmental 
performance of 
construction 
products; 

  Possibly additional 
sustainability 
product 
requirements from 
SPI; 

  Promoting and 

incentivising the 
reuse of 
construction 
products, through 
communicating 
their performance 
down the use-chain 

37 

  No environmental 
performance 
requirements at EU 
level stemming 
from CPR but most 
likely from SPI and 
Individual Member 
States might 
introduce additional 
uncoordinated 
approaches at the 
national level. 

  The same as option 
B in the remaining 
harmonised sphere, 
beyond this 
  C1: Enabling a 
harmonised 
framework to assess 
and communicate 
the environmental 
performance of 
construction 
products; 
  C1: Possibly 
additional 
sustainability 
product 
requirements from 
SPI; 

  C2/C3: SPI would 
have to address 
environmental 

  The same as option 

B; plus 

  Setting a dedicated 
process to introduce 
product inherent 
requirements in 
order to enhance 
environmental 
protection 
(horizontal 
mandatory 
minimum 
requirements for 
products, where 
needed 
complemented by 
more specific 
product 
requirements per 
categories or group 
of products) by 

 

Contributing to the 
reduction of the 
climate and 
environmental impact 
of construction 
products, including 
through the 
application of digital 
tools  

It would not be 
possible to address 
environmental 
performance 
aspects of 
construction 
products or product 
requirements 
through the CPR 
but through SPI. 
Individual Member 
States might 
introduce additional 
uncoordinated 
approaches at the 
national level. 

Problem 4 drivers 

- Inability to deliver on 
the policy objectives 
stemming from the 
European Green Deal 
and the Circular 
Economy Action Plan 

-Absence of references 
to sustainability 
performances 

- Unable to cover new 
business models 

- CPR does not foresee 
broad application of 
digital tools 

 
 
until the preparation 
of used products for 
re-use and their 
second making 
available on the 
market. 

performance 
aspects of 
construction 
products or product 
requirements.  

either; 
  D1 – New 
Legislative 
Framework 
approach for 
product 
requirements; 

  D2 – Technical 

Specifications 
Approach for 
product 
requirements; 

  D3 – Hybrid of 

D1/D2. 

38 

 
6.3.  Options discarded at an early stage 

Due  to  an  extremely  critical  feedback  and  the  fact  that  certain  legally  mandatory 
objectives  can,  in  the  case  of  the  CPR,  not  be  reached  by  voluntary  standards,  the 
possibility  of  relying  entirely  on  voluntary  harmonised  standards  has  been  limited  in 
terms of scope to the question whether inherent product requirements shall be established 
by  voluntary  standards,  as  under  option  D1,  and  also  be  functionally  replaced  by  sub-
option C3. 

Moreover,  the  suggestion  of  a  Member  State  to  limit  Option  B  to  only  a  few  core 
elements has been discarded for the following reasons: there are multiple links among the 
problems  and  objectives  to  be  addressed.  Due  to  these  manifold  interrelations,  it  was 
necessary  to  consider  potential  mitigation  for  each  of  the  numerous  horizontal  issues 
identified. For further information, see Annex 13 on the discarded options. 

7.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? 

This section analyses the policy options described in the preceding section, and assesses 
how  they  contribute  to  reaching  the  specific  objectives.  It  presents  particularly  the 
economic, social and environmental impacts, as well as stakeholders’ views. The analysis 
is quantitative whenever possible, otherwise qualitative. 

Regardless  of  the  options,  the  most  relevant  stakeholders  affected  by  the  Regulation  in 
relation  to  obligations  and  compliance  are  the  economic  operators  (manufacturers  of 
construction  products).  Also  affected  is  the  construction  ecosystem  (construction 
companies  and  employed  construction  workers  as  the  main  users  of  the  products).  A 
small  number  of  construction  products  is  sold  in  hardware  stores.  Therefore,  also 
consumers  might  be  directly  affected.  The  options  have  also  an  impact  on  Member 
States’ authorities responsible for the supervision of the safety, environmental and energy 
requirements applicable to buildings and civil engineering works.   

The main costs  for the manufacturers  to  comply with  the Regulation  are administrative 
regulatory  charges109.  While  some 
burden,  substantive  compliance  costs  and 
quantification  of  these  costs  was  presented  in  the  study110  supporting  this  impact 

109 According to the economic impact study conducted in 2016 regulatory charges are fees applicable to the 

activities of the AVCP systems, fees charged by TABs for the ETA procedure etc.  

110 The study supporting this impact assessment provides relevant evidence for the analysis of the impacts 
of the different options envisaged for the revision of the CPR. The study collected and complement the 
available  evidence  for  the  analysis  of  the  options  and  the  assessment  of  their  possible  impacts.The 
options  have  been  explored  in  depth  to  assess  preferences  and  impacts  primarily  via  a  survey  among 
companies and a public consultation. The survey targeted selected experts and aimed at identifying how 
to  address  the  various  horizontal  issues  identified  during  the  evaluation  of  the  CPR.  The  public 
consultation includes a broad range of respondents e.g. companies, business associations, EU citizens, 
NGOs, academic institutions. 

39 

 
 
 
                                                           
assessment111, certain limitations such as low response rate and lack of detailed feedback 
on the nature of the costs incurred, affected the analysis of economic impacts. Wherever 
needed, this analysis is complemented with a qualitative analysis of the options. All other 
costs are presented in a qualitative manner due to the lack of data. 

The analysis of environmental impacts and social impacts (especially safety) was carried 
out  in  a  qualitative  manner  and  whenever  data  was  available  in  a  quantitative  manner. 
With  respect  to  the  social  impacts,  benefits  could  not  be  quantified  due  to  the  missing 
data on safety incidents and other data needed for a quantification of risks on health and 
safety  with  regards  to  construction  products.  Therefore,  the  impact  assessment  also 
includes non-quantified social and environmental benefits and drawbacks.  

7.1.  Option A – baseline (no revision) 

Economic Impact 

No change in the CPR implies that the costs for businesses associated with maintaining 
the  CPR  will  remain  initially  unchanged.  The  study  estimated  these  costs  for 
manufacturers to be approx. 2.56 billion EUR annually112. This corresponds to 0.6% of 
the  revenue  of  these.  Previous  studies  of  the  costs  for  the  CPR-related  manufacturing 
sector in the EU estimated the annual baseline costs to be between 2.6113 and 3.4 billion 
EUR114 - so roughly the same magnitude.  

These  costs  are  mainly  driven  by  the  administrative  burden  (estimated  at  900  million 
EUR),  substantive  compliance  costs  (estimated  at  450  million  EUR)  and  regulatory 
charges  (estimated  at  300  million  EUR)  due  to  CE  marking  and  Declaration  of 
Performance,  and  compliance  cost  due  to  national  requirements  of  around  300  million 
EUR115.  These  costs  serve  as  the  comparative  basis  for  the  other  options  in  order  to 
provide an indication of the expected economic impacts of the different options.  

The  supporting  study  also  estimated  for  the  baseline  a  foregone  revenue  for  EU 
manufacturers  associated  with  the  shortcomings  in  market  surveillance  of  more  than 
4 billion  EUR  annually,  corresponding  to  a  little  more  than  1%  of  the  overall  revenue. 
The  findings  show  that  foregone  revenue  due  to  competition  from  non-compliant 
products is substantial, whereas costs related to identifying and reporting non-compliant 
competing  products  can  be  neglected  as  part  of  the  aggregate  result.  Insufficient  or 

111 Copenhagen Economics, Danish Technological Institute and Office for Economic Policy and Regional 
Development Ltd. (2021). Study supporting the Impact Assessment for the CPR revision, Final report. 
2021. 

112 Copenhagen Economics, Danish Technological Institute and Office for Economic Policy and Regional 
Development Ltd. (2021). Study supporting the Impact Assessment for the CPR revision, Final report, 
p.25. This estimate  should be considered with a great degree of caution, due to the limited number of 
responses received.  

113  VVA  Europe,  the  Danish  Technological  Institute  (DTI)  &  the  Netherlands  Organisation  for  applied 
scientific  research  (TNO)  (2016).  Final  Report:  Economic  Impacts  of  the  Construction  Products 
Regulation, p. 38. 

114  Economisti  Associati,  Milieu  &  CEPS  (2016).  Supporting  study  for  the  Fitness  Check  on  the 

construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation, page 49-50. 

115 Copenhagen Economics, Danish Technological Institute and Office for Economic Policy and Regional 
Development Ltd. (2021). Study supporting the Impact Assessment for the CPR revision, Final report, 
p. 26. 

40 

 
 
                                                           
ineffective  market  surveillance  appears  to  be  the  reason  for  this  significant  impact  on 
medium and small companies and the reason behind this might be that they have fewer 
brands/products with smaller volume, compared to large companies with stronger brands 
and  wider  portfolio116.  This  makes  small  and  medium  companies  more  vulnerable  and 
exposed to a bigger impact from unfair competition. 

In the online survey of 2018117, respondents were divided about the future development 
of these costs  under the  baseline:  manufacturers  and national  contact points expected  a 
small  increase  in  cost,  while  testing  and  certification  bodies,  market  surveillance 
authorities and end-user organisations expected a small decrease.  

However,  taking  into  account  the  most  likely  continuing  malfunctioning  of  the 
standardisation process and therefore deteriorating conditions for the internal market for 
construction products, over time rising costs for all stakeholders are expected (i.e. higher 
cost  for  manufacturers  relying  on  the  EOTA  route  or  more  national  requirements 
introduced).  This  would  imply  higher  costs  for  construction  with  less  product 
choice/more national requirements. 

Social impact 

The  current  CPR  is  following  a  performance-based  approach,  meaning  that  no  product 
requirements for construction products are established within the regulatory framework. 
Consequently, no particular impact on product safety can be identified. Inherent product 
safety  will  continue  to  be  dealt  with  in  an  inconsistent  manner  by  Member  States  and 
potentially in contrast to the objective of removing technical barriers.  

This  has  been  confirmed  by  the  2018  online  survey,  where  under  the  baseline  all 
stakeholder  groups  expect  either  no  (28%)  or  a  small  positive  impact  (26%)  on  health 
and safety118.  

Environmental impact 

As explained in  the problems section, harmonisation  provided by the current  CPR falls 
short  of  covering  completely  the  Basic  Work  Requirements  relevant  for  environmental 
impact or sustainability, therefore the construction products are not subject to mandatory 
assessment and verification of the constancy of performance in these areas. Therefore, at 
best only a slightly positive environmental impact would be expected from the CPR.  

In  view  of  the  political  priorities  of  the  EGD  and  linked  initiatives,  this  may  create  an 
obstacle for the sector to contribute and to benefit from the green transition, while also 
impeding  the  national  authorities  from  setting  measures  towards  use  of  greener 
construction  products  and  greening  of  construction  works.  As  possible  solution,  these 
aspects  could  be  addressed,  if  needed,  under  the  SPI.  This  however,  may  result  in 
unnecessary additional administrative burden, with different aspects of the same product 

116 Copenhagen Economics, Danish Technological Institute and Office for Economic Policy and Regional 

Development Ltd. (2021). Study supporting the Impact Assessment for the CPR revision, p. 28. 

117 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study  for the Review of the  Construction 
Products Regulation: Impact Assessment, pp. 56-57. 

118 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study  for the Review of the Construction 
Products Regulation: Impact Assessment, p.60. 

41 

 
                                                           
being regulated under different acts and through separate procedures. This could also put 
at  risk  the  coherence  between  safety  and  sustainability  aspects  which  is  crucial 
considering the role of construction products in construction works.  

Stakeholders’ views 

Feedback  received  during  the  public  consultation  and  the  company  survey  reflects  a 
broad  preference  for  the  baseline  (Option  A)  across  most  stakeholder  groups119.  At  the 
same time, many of these stakeholders also wished for action to be taken to resolve the 
issues linked to the implementation of the CPR120 – such action would require a solution 
closer to Option B or D. 

During the survey on the Refined indicative options paper, in general, participants have 
shown concerns about the economic consequences that changes to the CPR (the options 
apart  from  option  A)  would  mean  for  the  construction  products  industry.  Participants 
which were in favour of option A, feared that changes would delay the application of the 
CPR and create difficulties on the market121. In a similar line, stakeholders outlined that 
changes in the CPR would result in the need for economic operators to mobilise further 
resources at a time when most of them are weakened by the Covid-19 crisis and that most 
companies in the sector were micro or small sized and changes were costly for them122. 

7.2.  Option B - Repairing the CPR 

Economic impact 

Option  B  addresses  all  the  issues  identified  in  the  evaluation  as  shortcomings  in  the 
implementation of the CPR. It would therefore contribute to improved harmonisation at 
the EU level, facilitating the circulation of construction products on the internal market 
and  benefitting  their  manufacturers  and  users.  In  particular,  it  is  expected  that  market 
access would be facilitated and the harmonisation of the internal market for construction 
products would be deepened. At the same time, substantial benefits are expected to come 
along  with  improved  market  surveillance  and  enforcement.  The  possibility  of 
introducing,  by  delegated  acts,  minimum  number  of  checks  to  be  performed  by  the 
market surveillance and the minimum human resources deployed for market surveillance 
of  construction  products  is  expected  to  significantly  improve  the  effectiveness.  Such 
delegated  acts  will  be  accompanied  by  a  specific  assessment  of  the  resources 
implications.  

Option  B  also  offers  some  reduction  of  administrative  burden  for  manufacturers  by 
empowering the Member States to exempt certain micro-enterprises from the obligations 

119 Copenhagen Economics, Danish Technological Institute and Office for Economic Policy and Regional 
Development Ltd. (2021). Study supporting the Impact Assessment for the CPR revision, Final report, 
p.30. 

120 E.g. in the horizontal survey, more than two thirds (68%) of the respondents believe that interpretation 
issues require a revision of the CPR either in conjunction with guidance (63%) or without any further 
measures (5%). See Annex 2 for more details. 

121 European Commission (2020). Review of the Construction Products Regulation (CPR) - Survey on the 
Option Paper, April-August 2020 – results, Annex I on option A, pages 2, 13. 
122 European Commission (2020). Review of the Construction Products Regulation (CPR) - Survey on the 
Option Paper, April-August 2020 – results, Annex I on option A, page 21. 

42 

 
 
                                                           
under  the  CPR,  by  reducing  overlap  between  the  CE  (new  ECP)  marking  and  the 
Declaration  of  Performance;  allowing  the  DoP  to  be  supplied  electronically  and  by 
combining the DoP with the Declaration of Conformity (DoC).  

The  estimates  show  that  a  regulatory  shift  towards  Option  B  would  lead  to  a  total 
reduction of 160 million EUR in costs annually for construction products manufacturers, 
roughly corresponding to a 6% reduction compared to the baseline compliance costs123. 
This  impact  is  driven  mainly  by  a  decrease  in  the  administrative  burden,  substantive 
compliance cost and regulatory charges in relation to the CE marking and Declaration of 
Performance,  and  in  substantive  compliance  cost  stemming  from  reduced  national 
requirements. This may not be overwhelming, but nevertheless a non-negligible expected 
reduction in costs.  

Relying on digital tools, such as a Construction Products database or system will provide 
the information along the distribution chain, increasing the transparency to the benefit of 
safety  and  the  environment  and  save  resources  of  the  economic  operators,  while  also 
ensuring  an  interface  with  the  Digital  Product  Passport,  ultimately  improving  the 
system’s  efficiency.  Overall,  Option  B  is  expected  to  improve  the  effectiveness, 
efficiency and coherence of the regulatory framework. 

There  appear  to  be  significant  benefits  that  can  be  reaped  from  improved  market 
surveillance, with a potential 2.5 billion EUR annually to be gained in terms of revenue, 
equalling  more  than  half  the  costs  (burden)  under  the  baseline.  Notwithstanding  the 
significant  uncertainties  associated  with  this  estimation  due  to  the  small  number  of 
observations that it is based on, this would be a remarkable result. Notably, about half of 
this benefit accrues to small companies, where aggregated revenue gains are estimated to 
amount to roughly 1.3 billion EUR annually corresponding to 1% of the total revenue for 
that group124. 

The  above  suggests  that  the  improvement  in  market  surveillance  would  lead  to 
significant benefits, which together with harmonisation of decision-making of authorities 
and  Notified  Bodies  should  also  enhance  the  legal  certainty  as  regards  the  role  and 
obligations of economic operators and Notified Bodies. This, in turn, could increase the 
assurance  that  compliance  with  the  legal  rules  and  requirements  benefits  the  operators 
and enhance the functioning of the internal market. 

Social impact 

Improving the market integration of construction products would contribute to enhanced 
access  to  these  products  across  different  Member  States,  benefitting  the  users  and 
consumers.  Thanks  to  the  improved  legal  clarity  of  the  framework  and  harmonised 
methods  for  assessing  and  communicating  environmental  performance  the  users  would 
have  access  to  reliable  information  on  the  performance  of  construction  products, 
eventually  contributing  to  more  conscious  and  informed  choices  made,  particularly  in 
terms of construction works to be executed. Better streamlined market surveillance and 

123 Copenhagen Economics, Danish Technological Institute and Office for Economic Policy and Regional 
Development Ltd. (2021). Study supporting the Impact Assessment for the CPR revision, Final report, 
p.33. 

124 Copenhagen Economics, Danish Technological Institute and Office for Economic Policy and Regional 
Development Ltd. (2021). Study supporting the Impact Assessment for the CPR revision, Final report, 
p.35. See Annex 2 on stakeholders’ consultation.  

43 

 
                                                           
enforcement  is  also  expected  to  improve  the  reliability  of  performance  declarations, 
increasing the users’ trust.  

Moreover,  including  in  the  scope  of  the  CPR  also  prefabricated  (small  one-family) 
houses would allow the creation of an internal market for entire small houses, permitting 
economies  of  scale  and  increasing  competition,  thereby  favourably  influencing  the 
prices,  ultimately  fostering  their  affordability  and  deployment.  Pre-fabricated  houses 
could  also  be  an  important  factor  when  addressing  crisis  social  situations,  like  in  the 
aftermath  of  recent  weather-related  disasters  where  citizens  were  in  urgent  need  of 
housing solutions.  

Respondents  to  the  public  consultation125  (see  also  Annex  2),  who  prefer  option  B, 
primarily expect it to lead to an increase in construction product innovation, construction 
product safety, and economic actors’ compliance with relevant rules and regulations.  

Environmental impact 

A  harmonised  method  for  assessing  and  communicating  the  climate  and  environmental 
performance  of  construction  products  would  contribute  to  the  green  transition  of  the 
sector  and  to  a  better  built  environment,  by  providing  the  relevant  environmental  data 
allowing  the  Member  States  to  assess  the  climate  and  environmental  performance  of 
construction works, thereby supporting the implementation of relevant national and EU 
legislation  (e.g.  the  Energy  Performance  of  Buildings  Directive)  and  avoid  market 
fragmentation. 

Respondents in the consultation126 who prefer option B primarily expect it to lead to  an 
increase in the sustainable use of resources for producing construction products and the 
quality of the built environment in the EU. 

Stakeholders’ views 

The  only  stakeholder  group  preferring  option  B  overall  was  EU  citizens.  However,  in 
relation  to  multiple  elements,  NGOs  and  public  authorities  also  prefer  Option  B,  this 
particularly in terms of improvements on market surveillance and enforcement. Business 
associations and companies/business organisations do not prefer option B altogether.  

During the survey on the option paper, stakeholders pointed out that they welcomed the 
Commission’s  initiative  to  review  the  CPR  with  the  aim  to  improve  the  functioning  of 
the  single  market  for  construction  products,  but  the  feared  that  a  revision  of  the  CPR 
would require additional resources (manpower and finances) from industry to adapting to 
new procedures and processes127. 

125 Copenhagen Economics, Danish Technological Institute and Office for Economic Policy and Regional 
Development Ltd. (2021). Study supporting the Impact Assessment for the CPR revision, Final report, 
p.35. 

126 Copenhagen Economics, Danish Technological Institute and Office for Economic Policy and Regional 
Development Ltd. (2021). Study supporting the Impact Assessment for the CPR revision, Final report, 
p.35. 

127 European Commission (2020). Review of the Construction Products Regulation (CPR) - Survey on the 
Option Paper, April-August 2020 – results, Annex I on option A. 

44 

 
                                                           
7.3.  Option C - Focusing the CPR 

Option C builds on Option B, to the extent there is compatibility between the two. Option 
C  includes  three  additional  sub-options,  which  can  be  combined.  The  impacts  of  this 
option  can  then  be  considered  comparable  to  those  of  Option  B,  where  compatible128 
(e.g. improvements in area of market surveillance, legal clarity, simplification etc.). 

At the same time,  sub-option  C1  would mean focusing the CPR’s scope on assessment 
methods only, with no performance thresholds nor characteristics established at the EU 
level. This in the end would not improve the degree of harmonisation at the EU level, nor 
would it be the case when focusing the CPR on core areas only (sub-option C2); further 
national  provisions  would  emerge,  thereby  creating  possible  obstacles  to  the  free 
circulation of construction products within the EU.  

Economic impact 

According to the estimates of the study, option C (the three sub-options combined) would 
lead  to  a  small  reduction  of  23 million  EUR  annually  in  costs  for  manufacturers 
associated  with  the  CPR.  This  corresponds  to  less  than  1%  of  the  baseline  costs  of 
2.6 billion  EUR.  Benefits  (reduction  of  foregone  revenue  due  to  improved  market 
surveillance)  are  the  same  as  for  option  B.  However,  these  estimates  should  be 
considered with caution as they were calculated on the basis of responses of stakeholders 
preferring option C and it remains unclear to what extent these respondents reflected on 
the  risk  that  there  could  be  more  fragmentation  of  the  internal  market;  hence  implying 
limitations on the representativeness of the data. 

Option C implies limiting the scope of the CPR to assessment methods (sub-option C1) 
and to core areas only (sub-option C2). As the harmonisation area covered under the CPR 
would be more focused (covering less aspects compared to the baseline), further national 
provisions  would  very  likely  emerge,  thereby  creating  possible  obstacles  to  free 
circulation of construction products within the EU. Consequently, the functioning of the 
internal  market  could  be  impeded.  Moreover,  concerns  about  the  effectiveness  of  this 
option might arise since there could be an indirect risk of having access to products with 
varying degrees of requirements implemented which could lead to an increased need for 
market control. 

Under sub-option C3, the common technical language would be voluntary, meaning that 
the  manufacturers  could  choose  for  an  alternative  route  to  demonstrate  performance 

128 See Figure 6. 

45 

 
 
                                                           
than 

the  assessment  method  prescribed 

rather 
technical 
specifications129 (if offered by the respective Member States). Manufacturers would most 
likely  choose  this  alternative  route  if  the  regulation  would  be  lighter  and  if  they  only 
would target the respective market. On the one hand this could have positive impact on 
SMEs.  However,  on  the  other  hand  the  level  of  protection  of  human  safety  or  of  the 
environment could be lowered and it might disrupt the internal market.  

the  harmonised 

in 

Social impact 

Due  to  the  fact  that,  under  sub-option  C3,  the  Member  States  would  be  allowed  to 
regulate an alternative path to market access, a risk exists that users could be negatively 
affected by diverging requirements followed by manufacturers who choose not to rely on 
the  harmonised  standards.  This  risk  would  stem  from  allowing  test  methods  which  are 
less  stringent  than  the  ones  foreseen  at  EU  level  or  by  refraining  from  minimum 
threshold levels, which might lead to endangering the safety of construction products and 
having a negative impact on end-users health.  

Due to differences in national legislations, it is expected that users will not have access to 
products of the same level of performance on the market. 

With respect to sub-option C3 (making common technical language optional), the online 
survey results show that all stakeholder groups considered this policy option would result 
in negative impacts on health and safety (39%)130. Such negative effects would lead to a 
risk of more grave accidents, with associated negative social consequences.  

Environmental impact 

As  this  approach  would  deprive  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  of  the 
possibility  to  react,  in  a  harmonised  manner,  to  new  regulatory  needs  in  relation  to 
environmental or safety needs for construction products, the risk exists that progress on 
these  sub-options  will  differ  among  the  Member  States  –  due  to  emerging  national 
requirements – and that the progress towards green and safe construction products will be 
overall hindered. 

With respect to sub-option C3 (making common technical language optional), the online 
survey results show that all stakeholder groups thought this policy option would result in 
a negative impact on the environment (35%)131.  

Among  the  feedback  received  on  the  Refined  indicative  options  paper132,  some 
stakeholders have voiced negative views on this option by stating that the advantage and 
the  relevance  of  this  option  for  the  environment  or  for  citizens  in  terms  of  safety  and 
market  relevance  and  the  practical  meaning  of  limiting  the  scope  of  the  CPR  is  not 
obvious.  

129 Either by harmonised standards or by Commission acts containing technical specifications 
130 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for  Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study  for the Review of the Construction 
Products Regulation: Impact Assessment, p. 83. 

131 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study  for the Review of the Construction 
Products Regulation: Impact Assessment, p. 83. 

132 see Annex 12  

46 

 
                                                           
Overall,  this  option  will  at  most  only  be  able  to  partially  address  the  goals  stemming 
from  the  European  Green  Deal,  the  Circular  Economy  Action  Plan  and  other  linked 
initiatives,  as  regards  to  construction  products.  Therefore,  it  would  have  to  be 
complemented by the SPI covering also construction products.  

Stakeholders’ views 

In  the  2020  survey  on  the  Refined  indicative  options  paper,  only  11%  of  respondents, 
including  business  representatives,  companies,  technical  bodies,  NGOs,  and  public 
authorities fully or partly supported sub-option C1, 9% sub-option C2 and 9% sub-option 
C3133. In the 2020 company survey, option C was the least preferred revision option, with 
the  share  of  respondents  stating  their  preferred  option  was  option  C  varying  between 
6 and 11%134. In the 2020 public consultation, option C likewise was the least preferred 
revision option, with the share of respondents stating their preferred option was option C 
varying between 3 and 11%.  

Concerning sub-option C3, the company phone survey results showed that this approach 
could  potentially  result  in  very  small  (<1,000  EUR  per  annum)  per  manufacturer  cost 
savings in all size groups and across the sector as a whole: potentially a total cost saving 
of between EUR 8.5 million annually and EUR 9.5 million annually, a negligibly small 
amount considering the size of the sector135. 

In  addition,  regarding  sub-option  C3,  the  general  perception  of  this  option  was  well 
summarised  by  a  market  surveillance  authority  who  stated  that  “making  the  common 
technical  language  voluntary  would  not  cure  the  conceptual  defects  of  the  CPR,  but  it 
would  increase  uncertainty  and  create  chaos”136.  In  the  2020  survey,  where  a  broad 
selection  of  the  stakeholder  groups  took  part,  the  participants  noted  that  “if  the 
harmonised  standards  become  the  preferred  but  non-exclusive  means  of  proof,  thus 
making CE marking optional (not compulsory by regulation), a two-speed system would 
create confusion for all stakeholders in construction”137. 

It  is  clear that the sub-options  of this option could create, in  fact, new barriers to  trade 
within  the  European  internal  market  since  there  might  be  significant  divergence  in 
Member  States’  requirements.  Among  the  feedback  received  on  the  Refined  indicative 
options  paper,  many  stakeholders  expressed  that  “It  is  not  obvious  what  the  practical 
added  value  would  be  of  limiting  the  scope  of  the  revised  regulation”  and  notably  that 
“All  three  options  outlined  by  the  Commission  for  so-called  ‘focussing’  of  the  CPR 
(option C) would significantly impact the existing internal market. Construction products 
already  harmonized  (product  categories)  would  be  de-harmonised  again.  This  was 

133 https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/43103, questions 30, 31 and 32. 
134Copenhagen Economics, Danish Technological Institute and Office  for Economic Policy and Regional 
Development Ltd. (2021).  Study supporting the  Impact Assessment for the  CPR revision, Final report 
2021,  Annex  7,  questions  about  preferred  variant  across  the  3  elements  considered  individually  for 
option C. 

135 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological  Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study  for the Review of the Construction 
Products Regulation: Impact Assessment, p.80. 

136 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study for the Review of the Construction 
Products Regulation: Impact Assessment, p.79. 

137 See Results of the Survey on the Refined indicative options paper, April-August 2020, Annex III on 

option C, available: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/43103 

47 

 
                                                           
considered as unnecessary as it would weaken the internal market and adversely affect all 
stakeholders138.  

The  overall  support  for  the  sub-options  of  option  C  is  thus  very  limited  as  they  are 
considered to weaken the current regulatory system. The sub-options would even less fit 
into a CPR framework which tries to be more ambitious regarding the European Green 
Deal  goals.  In terms  of  environmental impacts  and circularity of construction products, 
option C would not be effective in reaching the objective and the CPR would not become 
more focused in the meaning of that option. 

7.4.  Option D - Enhancing the CPR 

Option  D,  building  on  Option  B  but  distinguished  from  other  options  by  introducing 
product  requirements  addressing  health,  safety  and  the  environment,  is  expected  – 
according to the companies preferring this option in the public consultation – to have a 
positive impact particularly on safety, compliance and quality of the built environment139. 
Pursuing this option would allow a consistent approach for the environmental assessment 
of construction products under the CPR and the SPI140. As the sub-options only differ in 
the path to develop the product-specific requirements, the same impact can be expected 
for all three.  

Economic impact 

According  to  the  estimates  of  the  study,  option  D  is  expected  to  lead  to  an  increase  of 
approx. 200 million EUR in costs among manufacturers associated with the CPR, equal 
to  approximately 8% of the baseline costs.  This is  due to  an expected increase in  costs 
associated  with  preparing  the  CE  marking  and  the  Declaration  of  Performance.  The 
benefits  (reduction  of  foregone  revenue  due  to  improved  market  surveillance)  are  the 
same  as  for  option  B.  However,  as  the  concrete  requirements  for  relevant  products 
(groups) will be defined only at a later stage, through Commission Acts, a more accurate 
estimation  of  the  costs  incurred  by  the  manufacturers  will  only  be  possible  at  a  later 
stage, when developing subsequent legal acts.  

138 See Results of the Survey on the Refined indicative options paper, April-August 2020, Annex III on 

option C, available: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/43103. 

139 Copenhagen Economics (CE), Danish Technological Institute (DTI) and Office for Economic Policy 

and Regional Development Ltd. (EPRD) (2021). Supporting study for the impact assessment of the CPR 
Review, p. 42. 

140  This  method  has  not  yet  been  determined  at  this  point  in  time.  However,  see  in  this  context  e.g. 
Commission  Recommendation  (2013/179/EU)  of  9  April  2013  on  the  use  of  common  methods  to 
measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations. 

48 

 
 
 
                                                           
As Option D, similarly to Option B, addresses the main shortcomings of the current CPR 
framework,  including  the  possibility  for  the  Member  States  to  exclude  certain  micro-
companies from the CPR obligations, it would potentially enable further cost savings for 
micro  companies,  currently  facing  the  highest  compliance  burden  as  a  share  of  their 
turnover (estimated at 1.3% of turnover on average)141. 

Social impact 

On top of the social impacts described under Option B and relevant also  for Option  D, 
the social impact linked to the introduction of product safety requirements  would imply 
improving the safety and protection of end-users of construction products. This decrease 
in  the  level  of  potential  risks  for  users  is  driven  by  ensuring  that  the  products  are 
appropriately assessed before they reach them. 

With respect  to  this  positive social impact  of policy option D on safety  (improving the 
safety and protection of end-users), it is important to note that SMEs in the construction 
contractors sub-sector employing less than 250 people account for approximately 91% of 
all employees142. This suggests that the majority of benefits in terms of cost savings from 
a  reduction  in  risks  of  accidents  accrue  to  SMEs.  This  is  crucial  as  in  some  Member 
States,  national  authorities  reported  that  safety  incidents  tend  to  be  higher  among 
SMEs143. In general, by improving the product safety, thereby contributing to protecting 
workers from accidents and health risks, the legislation makes a positive contribution to 
improving the human capital basis of the sector144. 

Environmental impact 

In response to the European Green Deal objectives Option D is expected to address these 
effectively, rendering the revised CPR framework future-proof  as  the revised CPR will 
be able to deliver on broader policy priorities, particularly the green and digital transition. 
Environmental  impacts  of  Option  B,  i.e.  offering  a  harmonised  approach  for  assessing 
and communicating the climate and environmental performance of construction products 
and  providing  access  to  reliable  and  comprehensive  data  in  terms  of  environmental 
performance (through the Digital Product Passport) contribute to the Circular Economy 
Action  Plan,  Renovation  Wave  and  other  linked  initiatives,  and  are  relevant  also  for 
Option  D.  Additionally,  Option  D  would  ensure  that  protection  of  climate  and 
environment and safety would be safeguarded, by foreseeing a possibility of introducing 
product  requirements.  It  is  therefore  apt  to  reflect  the  framework  expected  to  be 
introduced  for  other  products  under  the  SPI  (for  more  details,  see  Annex  11  on  the 
interaction between the future CPR and SPI). 

As this option is the only one fully suited to effectively address the goals stemming from 
the European Green Deal, the Circular Economy Action Plan and other linked initiatives, 

141 VVA Europe, the Danish Technological Institute (DTI) & the Netherlands Organisation for applied 
scientific research (TNO) (2016). Final Report: Economic Impacts of the Construction Products 
Regulation. European Commission, p. 71. 

142 RPA(2016) Supporting Study for Fitness Check on the Construction Sector – The Second Phase on EU 

Environment, Health and Safety Legislation, p. 163. 

143 RPA(2016) Supporting Study for Fitness Check on the Construction Sector – The Second Phase on EU 

Environment, Health and Safety Legislation, p. 88. 

144 RPA(2016) Supporting Study for Fitness Check on the Construction Sector – The Second Phase on EU 

Environment, Health and Safety Legislation, p. 156. 

49 

 
                                                           
in the context of construction products, it can ensure the full support towards circular use 
of  products  and  materials  and  ameliorating  the  built  environment.  Option  D  allows  for 
synergies with other initiatives, including the SPI, EPBD or transition pathways for the 
construction ecosystem.  

Stakeholders’ views 

In  the  company  survey  and  the  public  consultation,  Option  D  gained  relatively  low 
support of 13% and 16% of consulted stakeholders respectively. There was, however, a 
variation among different groups of stakeholders, with NGOs preferring Option D (sub-
option  D2)  as  compared  to  the  other  options.  In  both  surveys,  there  was  a  stronger 
preference  for  introducing  construction  product  requirements  via  the  New  Legislative 
Framework  approach  (sub-option  D1)  than  via  the  Technical  Specifications  approach 
(sub-option D2).145 

7.5.  Option E – Repealing the CPR 

Economic impact 

The  stakeholders  expect  a  large  negative  impact  due  to  lacking  CPR-based  market 
surveillance. Repealing the CPR would also imply limited free circulation of construction 
products compared to the baseline. The objectives of protection of safety or environment 
relevant for construction products could not be pursued in a harmonised manner without 
the  CPR  framework  being  in  place.  Correspondingly,  the  main  economic  impact  of  a 
repeal of the CPR is expected to be a deterioration of the market surveillance situation. A 
substantial  majority  of  respondents  consider  that  repealing  the  CPR  would  result  in 
increased  fragmentation  of  the  market  and  in  Member  States  putting  up  new  or 
strengthened  barriers146.  The  interviewed  stakeholders  state  that  insufficient  market 
surveillance  and  enforcement  prevents  benefits  in  terms  of  opening  up  markets  and 
levelling  the  playing  field  for  competitors  from  materialising  fully147.  Also,  a 
deterioration  in  the  market  surveillance  situation  can  lead  to  market  distortion  and 

145 Sub-option D3 was developed after the company survey and the public consultation. Therefore, it is not 
included here.  
146 Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of 

construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC, SWD(2019)1770, p.44. 

147 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study for the Review of the Construction 
Products Regulation: Evaluation, p. 84. 

50 

 
 
                                                           
mistrust  in  the  system  among  economic  operators.  A  lack  of  trust  is  one  of  the  many 
obstacles that could lead to negative impacts on cross-border trade.  

In  the  2018  study,  this  option  was  assessed  negatively  with  regard  to  all  assessment 
parameters.  Most  stakeholders  (companies,  technical  bodies,  public  authorities)  think  it 
would produce negative impacts, resulting in compliance cost increases and a reduction 
in market opportunities for companies. While the impact on product quality is uncertain, 
respondents believe the repeal would be detrimental for product information, surveillance 
and enforcements costs148. Many respondents stated in free text that a repeal of the CPR 
would  lead  to  a  collapse  of  the  EU  Single  Market  for  construction  products149.  In  the 
online  survey,  one  market  surveillance  authority  said  that  “the  fact  that  mutual 
recognition  didn't  work  was  the  very  reason  why  the  CPD  was  introduced  in  1989; 
mutual recognition was not strong enough a tool to eliminate barriers to trade.”150  

Based  on  the  company  phone  survey,  it  is  estimated  that  this  option  could  lead  to 
negligible  cost  increases  (<1,000  EUR  per  annum)  per  manufacturer  for  manufacturers 
across  all  size  groups.  For  the  manufacturing  sector,  option  E  could  result  in  cost 
increases of between EUR 5.6 million and EUR 6.4 million per annum (not reflecting the 
costs of the market fragmentation).151 However, the few respondents who prefer variants 
of option E expect it primarily to lead to a small decrease in administrative burden152.   

Social Impact 

The  results  from  the  online  survey  confirm  that  all  stakeholder  groups  consider  this 
option to produce either very little change (i.e. product quality) or have a negative impact 
on health and safety (72%)153. Negative effects on health and safety would manifest in a 
higher number of grave accidents, with associated negative social consequences. Further, 
the deterioration in  the level  of safety might  increase the risk of safety hazards for end 
users. 

148 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study for the Review of the Construction 
Products Regulation: Impact Assessment, p. 99, p.104. 

149 Copenhagen Economics (CE), Danish Technological Institute (DTI) and Office for Economic Policy 

and Regional Development Ltd. (EPRD) (2021). Supporting study for the impact assessment of the CPR 
Review. Annexes: First Findings report, page 143. 

150 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study for the Review of the Construction 
Products Regulation: Evaluation, p. 94. 

151 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study  for the Review of the Construction 
Products Regulation: Impact Assessment, p. 98. 

152 Copenhagen Economics (CE), Danish Technological Institute (DTI) and Office for Economic Policy 

and Regional Development Ltd. (EPRD) (2021). Supporting study for the impact assessment of the CPR 
Review. Annexes: First Findings report, page 143. 

153 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study  for the Review of the Construction 
Products Regulation: Impact Assessment, p. 99. 

51 

 
                                                           
Environmental impact 

The  results  from  the  online  survey  confirm  that  all  stakeholder  groups  consider  this 
option to produce either very little change (i.e. product quality) or have a negative impact 
on the environment (71%)154. 

Ultimately, among the feedback received on the Refined indicative options paper, many 
stakeholders, including business representatives, companies, technical bodies, NGOs etc., 
have  voiced  their  negative  views  such  as:  “repealing  the  CPR,  in  addition  to  being  a 
significant step back for the safety of European Citizens, would be a missed opportunity 
to  raise  to  the  challenges  of  the  European  Green  Deal”.  Therefore,  the  environmental 
sustainability would have to be addressed by the SPI.    

Stakeholders’ views 

Among  all  responses  received  during  the  public  consultation  and  the  company  survey, 
option  E  was  considered  as  preferred  option  by  the  lowest  share  of  respondents,  in  all 
stakeholder groups and across all sub-options155. This reflects the adverse consequences 
to which repealing the CPR could potentially lead. 

Further,  stakeholders  expected  that  option  E  would  have  limited  or  no  impact  on  key 
parameters except for some expecting a reduction in the administrative burden (although 
it should be kept in mind that this is based on replies from respondents preferring option 
E).  Moreover,  it  is  important  to  acknowledge  that  companies  who  have  cross-border 
trade would have to comply with the national legislations of each country they trade with, 
them.  However,  while 
in  administrative  burdens  for 
resulting 
administrative  burdens  directly  associated  with  the  CPR  would  disappear,  other  cost 
factors (or even market losses) were considered likely to emerge.  

increase 

in  an 

154 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute 
(DTI), Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study  for the Review of the Construction 
Products Regulation: Impact Assessment, p. 99. 

155 See Annex 2 on consultation activities. 

52 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
8.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? 

8.1.  Comparison of the options 

This  chapter  provides  an  overview  of  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the  policy 
options with regards to the specific objectives that triggered the initiative. 

The three key assessment criteria are understood as follows156: 

  Effectiveness: the degree to which the policy options allow achieving the general 

and specific objectives; 

  Efficiency:  the  likely  costs  and  benefits  of  the  policy  options  on  different 

stakeholders; 

  Coherence: the fitting of the goals of other legislations and initiatives. 

Table 2 summarises the effectiveness of the policy options in terms of achieving the 
specific objectives. 

Table 2: Effectiveness of the policy options against the specific objectives 

Unblocking 
the technical 
harmonisation 
system 

0 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

Reducing 
national 
barriers 
to trade 
for 
products 
covered 
by the 
CPR 
0 

++ 

0 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

-- 

Option 
A 

Option 
B 

Option 
C1 

Option 
C2 

Option 
C3 

Option 
C1-C3 

Option 
D1 

Option 
D2 

Option 
D3 

Option 
E 

Improving 
enforcement and 
market 
surveillance 

Ensure safe 
construction 
products 

Improving 
simplification, 
clarity and 
reducing 
administrative 
burden 

Contributing to 
the reduction of 
the climate and 
environmental 
impact of 
construction 
products  

Net effect 

0 

+++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

-- 

0 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

-- 

0 

++ 

- 

-/+ 

-- 

-- 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

--- 

0 

++ 

+ 

+ 

- 

- 

++ 

+++ 

+++ 

--- 

0 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

-- 

Legend: 0- almost no impact/no change; + reduced positive impact; ++ positive impact; ++ very 
positive impact; - reduced negative impact; -- negative impact; --- very negative impact 

156 Better regulation guidelines. https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-

law/better-regulation-why-and-how/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en. 

53 

 
 
                                                           
The  following  Table  3  presents  an  overview  of  the  policy  options  in  terms  of 
effectiveness (how each option achieves the specific objectives), efficiency (cost-benefit 
analysis) and coherence with other pieces of the EU law. 

Table 3: comparison of the policy options against the Better Regulation criteria 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

Option A 

Option B 

Option C1 

Option C2 

Option C3 

Option C1-C3 

Option D1 

Option D2 

Option D3 

Option E 

0 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

-- 

0 

++ 

+ 

+ 

0 

0 

++ 

++ 

+++ 

--- 

0 

++ 

+ 

+ 

0 

0 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

--- 

Legend: 0- almost no impact/no change; + reduced positive impact; ++ positive impact; ++ very 
positive impact; - reduced negative impact; -- negative impact; --- very negative impact 

Effectiveness 

In  terms  of  harmonisation  and  reduction  of  national  barriers  to  trade,  a  fully 
operational  CPR  under  Option  B  will  provide  better  clarification  of  the  scope  of 
harmonised  sphere  at  the  EU  level,  address 
the  current  underperformance  of 
standardisation  system  and  prevent  national  requirements.  In  this  sense  it  outperforms 
Option  C  (where  the  CPR  would  cover  less  aspects  than  under  option  B,  hence  more 
national provisions would create obstacles), but is less effective than Option D which, on 
top  of  addressing  the  current  issues  also  adds  product  requirements;  as  such,  Option  D 
will  provide  an  even  stronger  level  of  harmonisation,  contributing  to  improved  free 
circulation of construction products.  Option E would eliminate the harmonisation as no 
regulatory framework at EU level would be set. 

In  terms  of  market  surveillance  and  enforcement,  simplification  and  legal  clarity 
Options  B,  C  and  D  have  a  similar  degree  of  effectiveness,  because  they  build  on  the 
same set  of measures  as explained previously for Option  B.  In particular, option D has 
the highest degree of effectiveness, followed by option B, and then option C.  Option E 
would imply repealing of the regulatory framework at the EU level, hence addressing the 
above specific objectives is not feasible.  

In terms of contributing to the reduction of the climate and environmental impact of 
construction products, Option D offers the possibility to create inherent environmental 
product  requirements,  making  the  regulatory  system  complete:  construction  works 
related environmental performance aspects can already now be regulated by thresholds, 
but  not  the  inherent  environmental  aspects.  Effectiveness  of  this  option  in  terms  of 
environment is thus highest, as compared with other options.  

Moreover, the impacts  in  terms  of  effectiveness  of option D in  the context  of pursuing 
the  political  objectives  set  by  initiatives  related  to  sustainability  of  products  should  be 
considered as very significant, even against possible costs related to the implementation 
of  this  option.  As  construction  products  absorb  more  than  40%  of  all  raw  materials  in 

54 

 
 
terms of quantity, the revised CPR will have a systemic impact on the European Green 
Deal  and  Circular  Economy  Action  Plan  as  such.  This  not  just  by  a  possibility  to 
determine  a  minimum  quota  of  recycled  materials  to  be  used,  but  also  by  many  other 
fine-tuned,  product-specific  requirements  still  to  be  developed  under  the  future 
Commission  acts  and  technical  specifications.  The  uptake  of  progressive,  environment-
friendly regulatory solutions in the CPR is thus crucial for the success of the EGD and 
the CEAP.  

In contrast, option A can hardly address the sustainability aspects, option C only partly. 
Option  B  is  less  effective  than  option  D  as  it  does  not  foresee  the  possibility  of 
introducing inherent product requirements. Therefore, options A, B and C would rely on 
the  SPI  taking  over  –  at  least  partially  –  to  reach  the  same  ambition  in  a  less  effective 
way. 

In  terms  of  ensuring  safe  construction  products,  Option  D  offers  the  possibility  to 
create  inherent  safety  product  requirements,  making  the  regulatory  system  complete: 
safety  performance  aspects  related  to  construction  works  can  already  now  be  regulated 
by thresholds (e.g. smoke detectors), but not the inherent safety aspects (e.g. need for an 
anti-entrapment device in a door). Effectiveness of this option in terms of product safety 
is thus highest, as compared with other options.  

Efficiency 

In terms of costs and benefits, the study supporting the Impact Assessment estimated that 
Option  B  is  most  efficient.  This  estimate  should  be  considered  with  a  great  degree  of 
caution as it was based on the feedback from consulted stakeholders and often limited in 
terms  of  representativeness,  due  to  limited  number  of  responses  received.  Negative 
impacts in terms of efficiency of Option D were considered to be driven particularly by 
the  expected  increase  of  costs  incurred  due  to  the  regulatory  change  from  baseline  to 
Option D. However, it needs to be stressed that such concrete costs cannot be estimated 
at this stage yet, because concrete product requirements would still need to be developed, 
where relevant, at a later stage. A targeted assessment of the costs and benefits will only 
be  feasible  at  that  point.  Furthermore,  the  study  did  not  take  account  of  the  SPI.  For 
addressing  the  climate  and  environmental  impact  of  construction  products,  option  D  is 
much  more  efficient  than  a  combination  of  the  other  options  with  the  SPI.  Therefore, 
option D is considered as the most efficient option.  

Finally, it needs to be stressed that such concrete costs cannot be estimated at this stage 
yet,  because  concrete  product  requirements  would  still  need  to  be  developed,  where 
relevant,  at  a  later  stage.  A  targeted  assessment  of  the  costs  and  benefits  will  only  be 
feasible at that point.  

Coherence  

In  terms  of  coherency  with  other  existing  EU  legislation,  and  as  explained  in  the 
Problems  section (Problem  3),  without  any intervention,  overlaps will continue to exist 
and  are  expected  to  increase,  particularly  in  relation  to  the  future  SPI.  In  addition,  the 
CPR  framework  could  hardly  address  the  goals  of  the  EGD.  Option  B  foresees 
significant  improvements  in  these  respects,  by  addressing  the  scope  of  harmonisation, 
providing  for  clear  definitions  and  collision  rules,  thereby  eliminating  overlaps,  except 
with  the  SPI,  or  loopholes.  It  would  also  bring  the  CPR  more  in  line  with  the  EGD. 
Option D, which builds on the measures foreseen in Option B, responds favourably to the 
objectives of the EGD and CEAP, by anticipating, and – where relevant – contributing to 
the  actions  stemming  from  linked  policy  initiatives.  It  becomes  more  pressing  to  avoid 
overlapping requirements in the context of the SPI, expected to provide for the setting of 

55 

 
specific  requirements  linked  to  a  list  of  aspects  set  out  in  the  CEAP.  Thus,  Option  D 
offers the most coherent approach for a future-proof CPR. For more details on the CPR-
SPI interface, see Annex 11.  

8.2. 

Preferred option 

In light  of the analysis in the previous chapters,  Option D is  considered the  preferred 
option,  in  particular  in  view  of  the  objectives  to  be  achieved.  Option  D  provides  the 
necessary  means  to  achieve  the  objectives  satisfactorily  by  addressing  the  main 
shortcomings of the current CPR framework, including standardisation, national barriers 
to trade, ineffective market surveillance, lack of clarity and of simplification; while at the 
same time, it is the only one fully suited to effectively address the goals stemming from 
the European Green Deal, the Circular Economy Action Plan and other linked initiatives, 
in the context of construction products.  

The  very  significant  benefits  and  effectiveness  of  the  Option  D,  as  described  above, 
substantiate  its  choice  as  the  preferred  one.  Option  D  represents  the  approach  with  the 
highest  degree  of  effectiveness  and  coherence,  even  though  it  may  lead  to  additional 
costs for the economic operators. The additional costs would be justified by the positive 
impacts  on economic operators, consumers and the environment  in  the long run. These 
costs cannot be quantified at this stage but will need to be considered when developing 
the technical specifications.  

As explained in the previous section, Option D builds on Option B, including the need of 
mandatory  harmonised  standards  for  assessment  of  products’  performance.  A 
complementary  element,  clearly  distinguishing  it  from  option  B,  is  the  possibility  of 
setting mandatory product requirements in the CPR.  

Out of the three sub-options D3 is the preferred one as it can be seen as enhancement of 
the sub-options D1 and D2. The approach is in practice similar to the one of the EDD and 
of the future SPI.  

While this preferred option may bring about some additional costs for the manufacturers 
(see  section  7.4),  it  is  expected  that  in  other  areas  it  will  generate  costs  savings.  In 
particular,  given  the  expected  better  performing  standardisation  process  supporting  the 
CPR framework, potential cost savings in terms of administrative burdens would occur. 
The  decrease  in  ambiguity  in  the  provisions  should  allow  cost  savings  due  to  reduced 
overlaps  and  duplication  of  obligations  with  other  EU  legislation.  A  small  decrease  in 
regulatory  charges  and  compliance  costs  is  expected  as  a  result  of  the  clarification  and 
enhancement  of  the  harmonisation  scope  at  the  EU  level.  Altogether,  Option  D  is 
expected to result in a net reduction of administrative burden of approx. 180 million EUR 
(for more details, see Annex 3). Finally, due to the anticipated better market surveillance 
and  enforcement,  a  reduction  of  foregone  revenue  of  roughly  2.5  billion  EUR  for 
manufacturers of compliant products is expected.  

9.  REFIT (SIMPLIFICATION AND IMPROVED EFFICIENCY) 

The assessment of the economic impacts demonstrates several cost savings with respect 
to the preferred option, namely option D. It is expected that the costs savings would be 

56 

 
 
 
for  manufacturers  and  would  include  a  decrease  of  administrative  burden,  regulatory 
charges  and  compliance  costs.  Furthermore,  for  manufacturers  falling  under  the 
simplification provisions, costs savings are also expected due to decrease in the level of 
ambiguity. These costs savings could potentially balance to some extent the costs which 
are expected with this option. This is important for manufacturers in the long run.  

Table 4: REFIT Cost Savings – Preferred Option(s) 

REFIT Cost Savings – Preferred Option(s) 

Description 

Amount 

Comments 

Well-performing standardisation process 
supporting the CPR framework 

Less ambiguity in the provisions and application 
of digital tools (e.g. Digital Product Passport) 

n/a 

n/a 

Clarification and enhancement of harmonisation 
scope at the EU level would, to a significant 
extent, make national requirements redundant 

n/a 

Better market surveillance and enforcement 

2.5 billion EUR 157  

Cost savings in terms of administrative 
burdens expected for the standardisers, 
manufacturers and construction ecosystem 

Cost savings expected particularly for 
manufacturers due to reduced overlaps and 
duplication of obligations with other EU 
legislation , as well as due to application of 
digital tools for e.g. products declarations and 
access to information 

Small cost saving in regulatory charges and 
compliance costs expected 

Cost saving (reduction of foregone revenue) 
coming from improved market surveillance 

Net reduction of administrative burden 

180 million EUR 

Net cost savings, see Annex 3 

10.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

Policy monitoring and evaluation going forward related to the revision of the CPR would 
be  centred  around  the  core  issues  to  be  addressed  by  the  revision.  The  successful 
implementation  of  the  revised  Construction  Product  Regulation  depends  on  several 
factors.  This  chapter  proposes  several  indicators  to  monitor  and  evaluate  the 
implementation  of  the  changes.  More  indicators  could  be  formulated  depending  on  the 
contents of the final revision of the CPR, if any. 

Monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  the  (revised)  CPR  would  start  right  after  the 
adoption  of  the  CPR,  focused  on  its  implementation.  Table  5  presents  suggested  key 
indicators for monitoring and evaluation.  

The starting point for indicators in the area of standardisation is the number of references 
of  harmonised  standards  (hENs)  cited  in  the  OJEU  out  of  the  total  number  of  hENs 
submitted  to  the  Commission  for  citation.  This  indicator  allows  to  calculate  the 
percentage of citation and to better monitor and identify the reasons for non-citations or 
withholding citation, if any are still present. Also, an improvement of data completeness 
will  be  to  add  the  number  (or  share)  of  rejections  by  the  Commission  of  proposed 

157  Estimate  by  the  study  supporting  this  Impact  Assessment.  This  represents  a  benefit  for  producers  of 
compliant  products  (to  the  detriment  of  producers  of  non-compliant  products).  While  this  is  a 
redistribution, improved market surveillance implies that the products sold are more compliant, hence it 
could be considered a real benefit. 

57 

 
 
                                                           
standards.  Moreover,  the  average  length  of  the  process  from  issuing  a  standardisation 
request by the Commission to delivery of draft standards by CEN is important as it will 
allow  to  assess  whether  one  of  the  problems  identified  by  stakeholders  of  the 
standardisation  process,  namely 
is 
lengthiness  of 
solved/improved.  This  can  also  be  compared  with  the  work  in  EOTA  using  similar 
indicators.  

the  standardisation  process, 

Another  indicator  of  success  would  be  data  for  environmental  and  product  safety 
information,  and  environmental  and  product  safety  requirements  incorporated  in 
technical  specifications.  The  number  of  technical  specifications  (or  product  families) 
with environmental information and requirements, and their relative importance in terms 
of  environment  is  a  crucial  factor  to  evaluate  the  extent  to  which  environmental 
consideration has increased as a result of the review of the CPR.  

To measure an improved market surveillance the Commission could consult the Member 
States.  A  successful  implementation  would  be  supposed  to  lead  first  to  detecting  more 
non-compliant construction products and then to a reduction of this number. An indicator 
for  monitoring  could  be  the  level  of  trust  among  economic  operators,  for  which  an 
evaluation  after  four  to  five  years  could  provide  information  through  stakeholder 
consultations.  Relevant  stakeholders  could  be  consulted  to  evaluate  the  impact  of  the 
revision, in particular with respect to market surveillance. 

An expected impact of the preferred option is an improvement of the functioning of the 
internal  market  for  construction products.  This  should have a positive impact  on cross-
border trade within the EU. Accordingly, the data on trade values and trade volumes can 
be compared to the figures before the review of the CPR and to the production data. 

58 

 
 
 
Table 5: Suggested key indicators including source and timing of data collection 

Area 

Indicator 

Unit 

Source and timing 

Standardisation 

Number of cited references to hENS 
out of number of hENS submitted to 
COM for citation 

Number and % 

Internal Commission data; to 
be tracked by Commission 
(as is done already) 

Timing: bi-annual or annual 

Number (or share) of rejections by 
the COM of proposed standards 

Average length of process from 
issuing a standardisation request by 
the Commission to delivery of draft 
standards by CEN 

Number of cited EADs out of number 
of EADs submitted to COM for 
citation 

Number and % 

Same as above 

Months 

Same as above 

Number and % 

EOTA and Commission data 

Market surveillance 
and enforcement 

Non-compliant construction products 
detected (with reference to CPR)158 

Number of products/ 
cases 

Production and cross-
border trade of 
construction products 

Production and cross-border trade of 
construction products in/within the EU 
(proxy indicator for the extent of trade 
barriers) 

Environmental and product safety 
information incorporated in technical 
specifications 

Environmental e.g. on minimum 
recycled content) and product safety 
requirements (incorporated in 
technical specifications 

Sustainability and 
product safety  

Evaluation 

Volume in EUR 
(adjusted for inflation, if 
relevant)  

Volume in kg could also 
be a relevant unit 

E.g. Number and share 
of technical 
specifications (or 
product families) with 
environmental or 
product safety 
information and their 
relative importance in 
terms of environment 
and health and safety 

E.g. Number of 
technical specifications 
(or product families) 
with environmental and 
product safety 
requirements and their 
relative importance in 
terms of environment 
and health and safety 

Data from MS, reported to 
Commission 

Timing: annual 

Dedicated study (external or 
internal) could be foreseen, 
based on EU trade statistics. 

Timing: Baseline (year 0) 
and follow-up (year 4, in 
connection with evaluation) 

Data from draft/published 
standards as tracked by 
Commission services 

Data from draft/published 
technical specifications as 
tracked by Commission 
services 

It is proposed that an evaluation of a revised CPR should take place within 4 to 5 years 
after the date of entry into force. 

Such an evaluation should, in particular, assess the effectiveness of the revised legislation 
–  with  a  special,  but  not  exclusive,  focus  on  the  issues  covered  by  the  suggested 
indicators  above  -  as  well  as  its  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU  value  added. 
Options  for  further  modification,  update  or  enhancement  of  requirements  should  be 
considered by the evaluation, as is standard for any full-scale evaluation.  

158 This indicator would need to be elaborated in more detail after careful consideration of the fact that an 
increase in the number of non-compliance cases might indicate a more effective market surveillance and 
enforcement, whereas the ultimate goal would be to decrease the number of infractions. 

59 

 
                                                           
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1. 

Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references 

Lead DG: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and 
SMEs. 

Decide Planning reference: PLAN/2017/972 

2. 

Organisation and timing 

The  European  Commission  announced  in  the  ‘Clean  Energy  for  All  Europeans’ 
Communication  of  30  November  2016  that  the  then  ongoing  consultation  process  with 
stakeholders  (in  particular  the  technical  platforms  launched  as  a  follow-up  to  the  CPR 
implementation report of 7 July 2015) might possibly lead to  revision of the CPR. The 
CPR  review  was  initially  planned  as  a  back-to-back  evaluation  and  impact  assessment 
when included in the planning on 29 March 2017. 

This approach was presented in the inception impact assessment, published in June 2017. 

However,  considering  the  evidence  collected  through  the  supporting  studies  and  public 
consultation,  the  Commission  decided  to  decouple  the  retrospective  and  prospective 
assessments. In fact, the assessment proved to be more complicated than expected. This 
was partly due to the complexity of the CPR itself, but also due to the high expectations 
expressed  by  the  stakeholders  and  Member  States,  in  particular  the  political  pressure 
caused by a case pending at that time at the European Court of Justice . These combined 
factors made clear that it was necessary to establish a clear and comprehensive picture of 
the present situation before identifying all of the key horizontal issues and the assessment 
of potential options for the future. 

The evaluation of the CPR was published on 24 October 2019, together with the Report 
on  the  relevance  of  the  tasks  of  the  European  Organisation  for  Technical  Assessment 
(EOTA). 

Two  dedicated  meetings  with  the  Member  States  took  place  on  4  March159  and 
22 September  2020160.  A  so-called  “Refined  indicative  options  paper”,  aimed  at 
presenting  the  options  for  a  potential  revision  of  the  CPR,  was  published  on  8  April 
2020161  (see  Annex  12).  A  survey  on  it  took  place  between  15  April  and  31  August 
2020162.  A  revised  Inception  Impact  Assessment  was  published  on  17  June  2020163. 
Feedback on this  IIA was gathered in  the period  between 17 June 2020  and 19 August 
2020. Dedicated Q&A sessions for stakeholders were organised on  22 June, 6 July and 
20 July 2020.  A technical  stakeholders’ conference on the CPR revision was organised 
on  7 September  2020164.  A  public  consultation  followed  in  the  period  between 
4 September 2020 and 25 December 2020. 

159 DocsRoom - European Commission (europa.eu). 
160 DocsRoom - European Commission (europa.eu). 
161 DocsRoom - European Commission (europa.eu). 
162 https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/43103. 
163 Ares(2020)3153709. 
164 https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/43001.  

60 

 
                                                           
An  inter-service  steering  group  (ISSG)  was  set  up  in  September  2019  to  follow  the 
process  of developing  a study165  launched  in  support of the  Impact  Assessment and the 
preparation of the Impact Assessment itself. The group included the following services: 
Secretariat-General,  Legal  Service,  DG  Energy,  DG  Environment,  DG  Climate  Action, 
DG  Employment,  social  affairs  and  inclusion,  DG  Competition,  DG  Justice  and 
consumers, DG Research and innovation, Joint Research Centre. 

The ISSG met on 25 September 2019 (kick-off meeting), 21 November 2019 (inception 
report),  19  February  2020  (first  progress  report),  8  December  (second  progress  report), 
5 February 2021 (first findings report), 29 April 2021 (draft final report), 19 May 2021 
(draft  Impact  Assessment),  15  June  2021  (Impact  Assessment)  and  30  November  2021 
(revised IA). 

The ISSG was consulted on the consultation strategy (25 June 2020) and on the questions 
for  the  study  validation  workshop  (4  February  2021).  The  validation  workshop  took 
place on 24 March 2021. 

3. Consultation of the RSB 

An upstream meeting took place on 17 March 2021. 

Feedback from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) was sought on the way to construct 
and  compare  the  policy  options  as  well  as  more  general  issues  related  to  objectives, 
impacts and evidence. 

The  Impact  Assessment  was  discussed  at  a  meeting  with  the  RSB  on  22  July  2021. 
Following the negative opinion of the RSB from 26 July 2021, changes were made to the 
Impact Assessment report in order to reflect the recommendations of the Board. Table 6 
below presents an overview of the RSB's comments and how these have been addressed. 

The revised Impact Assessment was resubmitted to the RSB on 16 December 2021. The 
RSB delivered a positive opinion with reservations on 26 January 2022. Table 7 below 
presents an overview of the RSB’s comments and how these have been addressed.  

Table 6: RSB recommendations I and how they have been addressed 

                     RSB recommendations 
(B) Summary of findings 
(1)  The  report  does  not  sufficiently  analyse  and 
substantiate with evidence the key problems it aims 
to  tackle.  It  is  not  sufficiently  clear  to  what  extent 
the  Sustainable  Product  Initiative  (SPI)  determines 
the  scope  and  measures  of  the  initiative  and  how 
this interaction is reflected in the baseline. 

                       Revisions introduced 

The  problem  analysis  has  been  complemented  by 
available  evidence  from  studies  in  section  2.  It  has 
been identified clearly the most important problems 
to  be  addressed.  The  report  has  established  clear 
links between the problems and the drivers.  
The  links  and  planned  interaction  with  the  SPI 
initiative  and  its  interaction  with  the  preferred 
option have been better explained in the text and in 
Annex 11. 

(2) The report does not provide a clear presentation 
of the options and how they differ from each other. 
The  available  policy  choices  are  not  brought  out 
clearly  enough.  The  links  between  the  options,  the 
specific objectives and the problem drivers are  not 

The following have been added in section 6: 

-  A  clearer  presentation  of  the  options  has 

been provided;  

-  The  narrative  of  the  report  has  been  made 
more comprehensible in order to explain to 

165 Supporting study for the impact assessment for the CPR Review 738/PP/GRO/IMA/19/1133/11072. 

61 

 
                                                           
well established. 

(3) The analysis of impacts on administrative costs, 
simplification and SMEs is underdeveloped. 

(4)  The  comparison  of  options  does  not  reflect  all 
available  evidence,  it  is  not  coherent  and  its 
conclusions are not clearly justified. 

(C) What to improve 
(1)  The  report  should  better  explain  what  the  key 
problems  are  and  how  they  inter-relate.  It  should 
better  explain  what  aspects  of  the  Regulation’s 
underperformance  are  within  the  scope  of  this 
revision and which are not. 

in 

the 

implementation 

(2)  The  report  should  make  better  use  of  the 
evidence  available 
implementation  and 
evaluation reports and the support studies. It should 
present the key findings upfront,  so that the  reader 
knows  from  the  problem  description  what  the  key 
this 
design  and 
Regulation are. It should substantiate with evidence 
the  environmental  protection  and  sustainability 
problems  related  to  construction  products,  so  that 
environmental 
the 
performance  methods  can  be  properly  assessed.  It 
should  provide  clear  evidence  for  the  need  for 
action  in  the  safety  area  and  as  regards  pre-
fabricated small houses. 

issues  with 

harmonised 

need 

for 

- 

the  non-expert  reader  the  available  policy 
options.  
In  addition  to  a  much  clearer  presentation 
of the problem drivers and the general and 
specific  objectives  in  section  5,  Figure  4 
(the  intervention  logic)  was  strengthened 
linking  problems,  problem  drivers, 
by 
objectives and options. 

In  Section  7,  the  impacts  of  the  various  options  on 
SMEs  have  been  systematically  described  and 
assessed fully using the available evidence. 
An  annex  on  SME-specific  impacts  (SME  test)  has 
been  developed  and  included  in  the  report  (Annex 
5). 

The  statements  and  arguments  of  the  report  have 
been  backed-up  with  further  facts  and  evidence. 
Namely,  additional  information  from  the  following 
studies  has  been  added  to  the  various  sections  and 
annexes: 
- 

2016 

the 2016 Supporting studies for the Fitness 
Check on the construction sector; 
the 
July 
Commission’s 
implementation report on the CPR; 
the REFIT Platform recommendations; 
several  Judgments  of  the  Court  of  Justice 
of the EU; 
the  2021  EP  own  initiative  report  on  the 
implementation of the CPR; 
the  2018  supporting  study  for  the  Review 
of the Construction Products Regulation; 
the  2016  Report  on  the  Economic  Impacts 
of the Construction Products Regulation. 

- 

- 
- 

- 

- 

- 

The  problems  with  highest  priority  to  be  addressed 
and their inter-relation have been better explained in 
section 2. Also, the explanation of the drivers of the 
problems was enhanced in section 2. 
The  report  further  elaborated  on  the  links  between 
the problems and the drivers in section 2. 

The following has been added: 

- 

Further  qualitative  and  quantitative  data 
and analysis has been added  in the  section 
3.2 and section 7; 

-  A new Annex 5 (SME test);  
-  The  problems  description  in  section  2  has 
been  complemented  by  additional  findings 
and evidence from various sources (e.g. the 
the  2018  Evaluation, 
2019  evaluation, 
the  REFIT  Platform 
supporting  study, 
recommendations); 

-  Evidence  on  the  environmental  protection 
and  sustainability  problems  related 
to 
construction  products  in  section  2  and  a 
new  Annex  9  (environmental  impacts  of 
construction products); 

-  Evidence  on  the  need  to  act  regarding  the 
safety  of  construction  products,  as  well  as 
regards the pre-fabricated small houses; 
In  section  2, 

the  report  has 

further 

- 

62 

 
(3)  The  report  should  better  explain  the  planned 
interaction with the SPI. It should consider possible 
options  to  avoid  loopholes  and  overlaps  with  the 
SPI. It  should  clarify  how  the  SPI  is  reflected  in  a 
consistent  manner  in  the  baseline  scenario  and  in 
the presentation and comparison of options. 

(4) The report should provide a clearer presentation 
of options covering the full set of policy choices. It 
should  clearly  explain 
the  difference,  and 
interdependence, between the options as well as the 
measures  that  would  be  part  of  each  option.  It 
should be clear how the policy options each address 
the  objectives  and  there  should  be  a  clear  link 
between  objectives  and  problems.  It  should  better 
explain  how  the  options  incorporate  the  new  EU 
sustainability ambitions set out in recent initiatives. 

underlined new general objectives linked to 
the  new  EU  policy 
initiatives  on 
environmental  sustainability  and  how  they 
relate to construction products. 

and 

The  baseline  scenario  now  already  presumes  the 
introduction  of  the  SPI.  It  is  described  how  all 
options  interact  with  the  SPI.  The  coverage  of 
environmental 
product 
performance 
requirements  by  relevant  options  is  described  in 
Section  6,  while  the  interface  between  the  future 
CPR  and  the  SPI  has  been  explained  in  details  in 
Annex  11.  Furthermore,  in  Annex  11,  an  example, 
namely  bricks,  has  been  elaborated  with  the  aim  to 
illustrate  in  a  comprehensive  and  exhaustive  way 
the planned interaction with the SPI. 
The following have been added in section 6: 

-  More 

comprehensive 

coherent 
overview of the options and their measures, 
including  where  relevant  the  sustainability 
ambitions set out in recent initiatives. 

and 

The following have been added in sections 5 and 6: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

the 

illustrates 

intervention 

Figure  4  (the 
logic)  was 
strengthened by linking problems, problem 
drivers, objectives and options; 
Figure  6  detailing  the  clear  link  between 
problems,  objectives  and  options. 
In 
particular, 
the 
figure 
comparison  of  the  options  against  the 
specific objectives; 
In  section  7  (impacts  of  the  options),  an 
explanation  whether  each  option  addresses 
the new EU sustainability initiative;  
In  section  7,  in  the  case  when  an  option 
integrates  the  new  initiatives,  there  is  a 
description  how/to  what  extent  the  option 
encompasses  the  new  EU  sustainability 
initiative; 
In  section  7,  after  each  sub-section,  tables 
illustrating  and  summarizing  the  negative 
and the positive impacts of each option. 

In section 8, the following have been added: 

- 

- 

a  comparison  of  the  options  against  the 
specific  objectives  has  been  introduced,  to 
show  the  effectiveness  of  every  option 
(Table 2); 
a  comparison  of  the  policy  options 
against  the  Better  Regulation  criteria 
(Table 3). 

The  following  elements  have  been  added 
section 7: 

in 

-  More  in  depth  analysis  of  the  impacts  of 
the different options in terms of economic, 
social  and  environmental  aspect  has  been 
added, including an assessment of the costs 
and implications on administrative burden; 
-  The  impacts  of  the  various  options  on 
SMEs have been systematically assessed; 
-  An  annex  5  with  the  SME  test  was 

developed; 

-  After  each  option’s  impact,  a  table  clearly 

(5) The report should analyse more thoroughly the 
impacts of the different options in terms of costs, 
burden reduction and simplification potential. 
Given that SMEs play a particular role in the 
construction product sector and that the current 
ineffective exemption for SMEs is part of the 
problem, the impacts of the various options on them 
should be systematically assessed. If sector 
competitiveness is considered as a problem to be 
tackled, the report should assess the corresponding 
impacts of the options. The report needs to present 
the costs better and should clearly summarise them 

63 

 
in the cost/benefit table in annex, while clarifying 
who has to bear the costs. 

(6) The report should strengthen the comparison of 
options and the analysis leading to the choice of the 
preferred option. It should use all available 
evidence to present a coherent analysis of the 
implications of the different options, in comparison 
with a dynamic baseline. It should avoid relying 
almost exclusively on stakeholder views. The report 
should justify how it aggregates scores across the 
assessment criteria.  The costs and benefits of the 
preferred option need to be more clearly identified 
and its choice better justified. 

(7) The report should make better use of the 
feedback from stakeholders and in particular 
illustrate better how different stakeholder groups 
view the policy options and the associated costs and 
benefits. 

presenting  the  benefits  and  the  costs  to 
different stakeholders; 
impact 

the 

of 

-  The 

options 
taken 

on 
into 

competitiveness  has  been 
account, wherever relevant;  

-  Table  showing  the  overall  comparison  of 
the  options,  including,  but  not  limited  to 
the  comparison  of  the  impact  of  each 
option  in terms of  effectiveness, efficiency 
and coherence; 
In  Annex  3,  the  methodology  used  to 
estimate  the  direct  benefits  in  terms  of 
improved  market 
surveillance  was 
described. 

- 

The  comparison  of  the  options  and  the  analysis 
leading  to  the  choice  of  the  preferred  option  have 
been  strengthened  in  section  8  by  adding  findings 
and  evidence  from  various  sources  (e.g.  the  2016 
Supporting  studies  for  the  Fitness  Check  on  the 
construction  sector,  the  2018  supporting  study  for 
the  Review  of 
the  Construction  Products 
Regulation, the 2019 evaluation).   
The  cost  and  the  benefits  of  the  preferred  option 
have been clearly identified and presented in table in 
section 8. 
Section  8  has  been  elaborated  in  more  detail  to 
clearly present the analysis of the options against the 
criteria  of  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  coherence 
(including  Table  2).  Separate  Table  3  on 
effectiveness  of  the  options  as  compared  with  the 
specific  objectives  has  also  been  introduced  in  this 
section.  

has 

options 

In  section  7,  the  analysis  of  the  impacts  of  the 
different 
by 
distinguishing  between  the  different  stakeholder 
groups  to  the  maximum  extent  of  the  available 
evidence  (e.g.  manufacturers,  users,  consumers, 
citizens).  

improved 

been 

64 

 
 
 
 
Table 7: RSB recommendations II and how they have been addressed 

                     RSB recommendations 
(B) Summary of findings 
(1) The report is not sufficiently clear about the 
problems that the initiative aims to tackle and how 
these link to the objectives and options. It is not 
clear how the baseline scenario, options and impact 
analysis reflect and articulate with the expected 
effects of the parallel SPI. 

(2) The report is not sufficiently clear whether all of 
the options identified can tackle all of the problems, 
whether the selection of measures contained in the 
preferred option is the best performing combination 
and whether all measures are necessary.  

(3) The report is not sufficiently clear on the net 
benefits, efficiency advantages and justification of 
incorporating sustainable product requirements into 
the CPR, compared to addressing them in the 
horizontal SPI framework as for other products.  
(4) The summary comparison of options is not 
sufficiently clear or robust on the cost and benefit 
estimates of the options. Some of the effectiveness 
and efficiency scores are not convincingly justified. 

(C) What to improve 
(1) The problem section should be further improved 
to ensure problems and their drivers are clearly 
differentiated and that the issues identified are 
sufficiently explained. The report should be more 
explicit about the safety issue and clarify whether it 
is (i) a self-standing problem beyond the functioning 
of the internal market and harmonising the way 
performance is communicated across Member States 
(and therefore to be tackled by the options) or (ii) an 
issue already covered by other EU instruments. In 
this context, the explanation and evidence related to 
the inclusion of 3D printed products as well as 
prefabricated small houses should be clearer. 

(2) When describing the difficulties with 
implementation and enforcement of the current 
CPR, the way the problem is described implies that 
clearer CPR provisions would solve this. However, 
the issue of lack of administrative capacity in 
Member States is not addressed. The report should 
be clearer about how a revised CPR would address 
this core problem, especially if the framework 
becomes more complex as proposed, since it would 
not only regulate how information on the products is 
presented across the EU but also include 
sustainability requirements. 
(3) The report should be clearer about the links 
between options, problems and objectives. For 
instance the report should clarify whether: (i) sub-
option C3 (making the common technical language 

                       Revisions introduced 

In  section  2,  the  report  has  established  clearly  the 
problems that the initiative aims to tackle and how 
these  link  to  the  objectives  and  the  options.  In 
addition,  it  has  been  explained  how  the  baseline 
scenario,  options  and  impact  analysis  reflect  and 
articulate  with  the  expected  effects  of  the  parallel 
SPI. 

In  section  8,  the  analysis  has  been  complemented 
by  information  concerning  whether  all  of  the 
options  identified  tackle  all  the  problems.  The 
report  has  established  whether  the  selection  of 
measures  contained  in  the  preferred  option  is  the 
best performing combination.  

A  clear  presentation  of  the  net  benefits,  efficiency 
incorporating 
advantages  and 
sustainable  product  requirements  into  the  CPR  has 
been offered in the report. 

justification  of 

The summary comparison of the options in section 
8  has  been  strengthened  in  order  to  ensure  the 
robustness  of  the  cost  and  benefit  estimates  of  the 
options. Moreover, the effectiveness and efficiency 
scores have been additionally justified. 

The  narrative  of  the  problem  section  2  has  been 
made  more  comprehensive  to  ensure  that  the 
problems  and 
their  drivers  are  differentiated 
enough.  

The  narrative  provided  in  the  report  on  the  safety 
issue has been  made  more explicit  with the aim to 
clarify  that  inherent  product  safety  (safety  aspects 
not  related  to  the  safety  of  construction  works),  is 
not  dealt  with 
for 
construction  products  and  is  largely  left  to  the 
Member  States,  despite  Article  114  TFEU  (the 
legal basis  for the current CPR) requiring to strive 
for  a  high  level  of  protection  of  safety  and 
consumers.  

in  a  consistent  manner 

The statements and the arguments of the report with 
respect  to  the  issue  of  lack  of  administrative 
capacity  have  been  completed  by  explaining  how 
the  revised  CPR  would  address  this  core  problem, 
i.e.  through  empowerment  for  delegated  acts  on 
minimum number of checks to be performed and on 
minimum  human  resources  to  be  deployed  for 
construction products.   

The  report  has  established  clear  links  between  the 
options,  problems  and  the  objectives.  It  has  been 
clarified  whether  sub-option  C3  would  not 
undermine  the  objective  related  to  the  functioning 

65 

 
voluntary) would not undermine the objective 
related to the functioning of the single market, (ii) 
sub-option D1 (voluntary standards leading to a 
presumption of conformity, while allowing for other 
means to prove conformity) would not further lead 
to diverging approaches and make it more difficult 
for the objective related to market surveillance 
authorities to be achieved. 
(4) While the report provides a better explanation of 
the envisaged interaction between the future CPR 
and the SPI, it still needs to better explain how the 
SPI is reflected in a consistent manner in the 
baseline scenario and in the presentation, assessment 
and comparison of options. 

(5) The report should clearly explain whether the 
options considered are realistic and can effectively 
deliver all the objectives of the proposed initiative 
(i.e. product safety, sustainability). It should also 
explain whether the selection of measures contained 
in the preferred option is the best performing 
combination and whether all envisaged measures are 
necessary. It should identify the hybrid sub-option 
D1/D2 upfront and then compare it with the two 
stand-alone sub-options, including in terms of 
adding legal complexity. It should provide more 
detail on the envisaged empowerment of Member 
States to exempt micro-enterprises and explain how 
this would be in line with the envisaged single 
market objectives. 
(6) The report should better explain how the 
simplification provisions would be implemented and 
enforced compared to the current situation, to ensure 
they actually deliver the described benefits. It should 
be clearer on the net benefits and efficiency gains of 
incorporating sustainable product requirements into 
the CPR compared to regulating these issues 
exclusively in the horizontal SPI framework as for 
other products. It should better explain how 
coherence would be ensured and legal complexity 
avoided. 

(7) While the comparison of options has improved, 
the report still needs to better justify and substantiate 
the scores presented in the comparison overview 
tables. For instance, it is not clear why (i) option D 
receives a higher score in contributing to the 
reduction of the climate and environmental impact 
than option B (in combination with the horizontal 
SPI framework) or (ii) option B is considered more 
efficient than D given that efficiency arguments are 
considered as the main reason for bringing 
sustainability requirements under the remit of the 
CPR. Overall, the report should provide a clearer 
comparison of the costs and benefits of the options, 
including quantitative estimates as available to 
support the efficiency analysis. 
(8) While the report is transparent about the overall 
preference of stakeholders for the baseline scenario, 
it should more explicitly discuss the reasons why 

of  the  single  market,  and  whether  sub-option  D1 
would not further lead to diverging approaches and 
thus make it more difficult for the objective related 
to market surveillance authorities to be achieved. 

the  envisaged 

The  explanation  of 
interaction 
between  the  future  CPR  and  the  SPI  has  been 
strengthened by additional explanations on how the 
SPI has been reflected in the baseline scenario and 
in  the  presentation,  assessment  and  comparison  of 
the options. 

The  analysis  of  the  options  in  section  7  has  been 
complemented  by  information  whether  the  options 
could  effectively  deliver  all  the  objectives.  The 
selection  of  measures  contained  in  the  preferred 
option has been further proved with explanations to 
be  the  best  performing  combination.  In  section  6, 
the  hybrid  option  D1/D2  (now  D3)  has  been 
identified upfront and then compared  with the  two 
stand-alone  options.  Additional  information  has 
been  provided  on  the  envisaged  empowerment  of 
Member  States 
to  exempt  micro-enterprises. 
Further explanations how this empowerment would 
be  in  line  with  the  envisaged  single  market 
objectives have been presented in the report. 

The  procedure  with  respect  to  the  way  that  the 
simplification  provisions  would  be  implemented 
and enforced, compared to the current situation has 
been outlined.  

Information on the net benefits and efficiency gains 
of  incorporating  sustainable  product  requirements 
into  the  CPR  compared  to  regulating  these  issues 
exclusively in the  horizontal SPI framework as for 
other products has been clarified in the report. 

Explanation  on  how  coherence  would  be  ensured 
has been provided. 

The  scores  presented  in  the  comparison  overview 
tables 
justified  and 
in  section  8  has  been 
substantiated with additional information. 

A  clearer  comparison  of  the  costs  and  benefits  of 
the options has been elaborated in section 8.  

The analysis in  section 7  has been backed-up  with 
the reasons, outlined by various stakeholders in the 
survey  on  the  options  paper,  why  they  did  not 

66 

 
support  the  policy  change  options,  given  the 
expected significant benefits. 

there is only very limited support for any of the 
policy change options (e.g. empowering the 
Commission, integrating sustainability 
requirements), given the expected significant 
benefits.  

4. Evidence, sources and quality 

Available report and studies, in particular: 

-  Copenhagen  Economics,  Danish  Technological  Institute  and  Office  for  Economic 
Policy and Regional Development Ltd. (2021). Study supporting the Impact Assessment 
for  the  CPR  revision,  Final  report.  Available  at:    https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/20f672b4-1503-11ec-b4fe-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

-  European  Commission 
(2019b).  Commission  Staff  Working  Document 
SWD(2019)1770 - Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 laying down harmonised 
conditions  for  the  marketing  of  construction  products  and  repealing  Council  Directive 
89/106/EEC. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/37827. 

- European Commission (2019c). COM(2019) 800 Final. Report from the Commission to 
the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  outcome  of  the  evaluation  of  the 
relevance  of  the  tasks  set  out  in  Article  31(4)  that  receive  Union  financing  pursuant  to 
Article  34(2)  of  Regulation  (EO)  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.  Available  at: 
https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?qid=1571917158693&uri=COM:2019:800:FIN. 

-  European  Commission  (2020a).  Refined  indicative  options  for  the  review  of  the 
Construction 
at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/40762. 

Regulation. 

Available 

Products 

- European Commission (2020c). Review of the Construction Products Regulation (CPR) 
-  Survey  on 
the  Option  Paper,  April-August  2020  –  results.  Available  at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/43103. 

-  VVA,  JIIP,  Danish  Technological  Institute  and  GDCC  (2018a).  Supporting  study  for 
the Review of the Construction Products Regulation: Evaluation. European Commission. 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e771a8cf-ed42-
Available 
11e8-b690-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.  

at: 

-  VVA,  JIIP,  Danish  Technological  Institute  and  GDCC  (2018b).  Supporting  study  for 
the  Review  of  the  Construction  Products  Regulation:  Impact  Assessment.  European 
Commission. 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/57fd5ffaed41-11e8-b690-01aa75ed71a1/language-en. 

Available 

at: 

Use was made of expert advice, in particular through the following channels: 

-  The  CPR  review  technical  platforms:  six  meetings  were  held  between  March  and 
September  2020,  with  Member  State  representatives,  business  associations,  companies, 
topics  were  addressed: 
technical  bodies  and 

testing  bodies.  The 

following 

67 

 
 
standardisation,  simplification,  information  needs,  coexistence  of  EU  and  national 
systems, environmental requirements and the future of EOTA166. 

- A validation workshop gathered 225 participants on 24 March 2021, including Member 
State  representatives,  business  associations,  companies,  technical  bodies  and  testing 
bodies.  The  workshop  presented  and  validated  the  draft  findings  and  conclusions  from 
the study. 

-  Economisti  Associati,  Milieu  and  CEPS,  with  contributions  from  BPIE  and  DBRI 
(2016)  Supporting  study  for  the  Fitness  Check  on  the  construction  sector:  EU  internal 
market 
at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/19343   

legislation. 

efficiency 

Available 

energy 

and 

-  RPA(2016).  Supporting  Study  for  Fitness  Check  on  the  Construction  Sector  –  The 
Second  Phase  on  EU  Environment,  Health  and  Safety  Legislation.  Available  at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/19661  

-  VVA,  DTI  and  TNO  (2016).  Economic  Impacts  of  the  Construction  Products 
Regulation. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/20903   

platform 

recommendations.  Available 

-  Refit 
it.org/12090/20200221170910/https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-
process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/refit-making-eu-law-simpler-and-less-
costly/refit-platform/refit-platform-recommendations-and-other-work_en   

https://wayback.archive-

at: 

- BRE, Ecorys, and Vito (2016), Supporting study for the evaluation of the relevance of 
EOTA 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
Available 
/publication/62e85006-d313-11e6-ad7c-01aa75ed71a1   

tasks. 

at: 

- RPA(2015). Analysis  of the implementation  of the Construction Products  Regulation. 
Available 
at:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d3449aa6-8775-
11e5-b8b7-01aa75ed71a1   

-  Centre  for  Industrial  Studies  (2017).  Cross-border  trade  for  construction  products. 
Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/27301  

- Centre for Industrial Studies (2020). EADs and ETAs: Added value to the construction 
at: 
sector. 
https://www.eota.eu/sites/default/files/uploads/EOTA%20positions/2020-csil-eota-
report-0109.pdf 

Available 

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the 
implementation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of 
construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC, COM/2016/0445 
final, 7.7.2016. 

Judgement of 27 October 2016, James Elliot Construction, C-613/14, 
ECLI:EU:C:2016:821, 

166  Minutes  available  at:  Review  of  the  CPR  |  Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs 

(europa.eu). 

68 

 
                                                           
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=184891&pageIndex=0
&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5620375. 

Judgement of 13 June 1958, Meroni v High Authority, C-10/56, ECLI:EU:C:1958:8, 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61956CJ0010&from=EN.    

Judgement of 5 September 2012, Parliament v Council, C‑355/10, 
ECLI:EU:C:2012:516, paras. 64-82, 
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=126363&pageIndex=0
&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=935739.  

Judgement of 22 January 2014, UK v Council and Parliament, C-270/12, 
ECLI:EU:C:2014:18, paras. 41-55, 
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=146621&pageIndex=0
&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5618770.  

Report on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 laying down harmonised 
conditions for the marketing of construction products (the Construction Products 
Regulation), 2021, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2021-
0012_EN.html. 

69 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION  

In  the  context  of  the  impact  assessment  study  on  the  revision  of  the  Construction 
Products Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 305/2011) various consultation activities were 
conducted  between  October  2019  and  December  2020.  The  aim  was  to  assess  the 
potential  areas  of  revision  and  the  impacts  of  the  suggested  policy  options  on  different 
stakeholder groups. This Annex presents the results of the consultation activities carried 
out. 

The  consultation  activities167  included  a  horizontal  online  survey  (survey  on  horizontal 
issues),  a  company  survey  and  a  public  consultation.  The  horizontal  survey  targeted 
selected  experts  and  aimed  at  identifying  how  to  address  the  various  horizontal  issues 
identified  during  the  evaluation  of  the  CPR  in  order  to  collect  input  to  be  used  for  the 
further refinement of the draft options. With respect to the company survey, the survey 
targeted  companies  relevant  to  the  construction  products  market  and  therefore  the 
questionnaire  was  sent  out  to  economic  operators  in  the  construction  products  sector. 
Concerning  the  public  consultation,  the  consultation  was  publicly  accessible,  thus  also 
open to companies, as well as any other types of respondents. 

In addition, two ad hoc meeting with Member States’ experts on the Review of the CPR 
took place in the  year 2020. The goal of the first meeting in March was to discuss this 
process and to answer questions about the options paper distributed ahead of the meeting. 
In the second meeting, in September, the Commission services aimed at giving the floor 
to  Member  States’  experts  to  collect  their  views  on  the  four  main  agenda  topic:  Scope 
and  relationship  with  other  EU  law,  Harmonised  sphere,  national  law  and  information 
needs,  Annex 
for  construction  works),  Environmental 
requirements. 

requirements 

(basic 

I 

1.  OVERVIEW OF THE PARTICIPANTS 

For all consultation activities, the main stakeholder groups addressed were: 

  European technical bodies and associations (EOTA and “other” incl. consumer 

and standardisation organisations) and other stakeholders involved in 
standardisation; 

  Companies/manufacturers, importers and distributors; 

  Consumer associations; 

  European/international organisations (industry associations); 

  Market Surveillance Authorities; 

  National authorities; 

  Notified bodies; 

  Others, such as citizens and other NGOs; 

167 Copenhagen Economics (CE), Danish Technological Institute (DTI) and Office for Economic Policy 
and Regional Development Ltd. (EPRD) (2021). Supporting study for the impact assessment of the CPR 
Review. 

70 

 
                                                           
  Workers/professionals’ associations. 

217  potential  respondents  were  invited  to  participate  in  the  horizontal  survey  on 
October 11, 2019. The survey closed on October 31, 2019. 

The  survey  on  horizontal  issues  gave  83  complete  answers  and  thus  a  response  rate  of 
38%. The largest  group of organisations that have participated  were the national public 
authorities  (without  Market  Surveillance  Authorities)  (27  %),  while 
Industry 
Associations were represented with 24% and Market Surveillance Authorities with 11%. 
4% of the total participants were manufacturers (individual economic operators). 

The  “other”  category 
individual 
consultants/experts, and the rest included 1 research institute, 1 consumer association, 1 
crafts  association,  1  professional  association  and  1  European  stakeholder  association 
(type not specified). 

respondents)  varied  widely;  7  were 

(12 

Figure  7  below  summarise  the  participation  of  the  different  stakeholder  groups  in  the 
horizontal survey. 

Figure 7: Distribution of respondents by organisation in the survey on horizontal issues 

With  respect  to  the  geographical  distribution  of  the  participants,  the  largest  number  of 
participants  came  from  Belgium  with  30  participants  (36%)  and  Germany  with  10 
participants (12%). Participation from other countries was between 0 and 4 participants. 
It should be noted, however, that among the 30 respondents  based in Belgium, 20 were 
European/international  organisations  (industry  associations),  and  another  5  were  other 
types of European technical bodies and associations (EOTA and “other” incl. consumer 
and standardisation organisations). 

71 

 
 
The Company survey  was  launched on Monday  10 August  2020  and invitations  were 
distributed to 1,200 companies’ info/main contact email-addresses. The sample of 1,200 
firms  was  selected  to  correspond  to  the  above  target  criteria  for  types  of  relevant 
economic operators and firm sizes (based on number of employees), as well as a country-
representation  of  respondents  from  all  EU27  Member  States,  the  UK,  Norway  and 
Switzerland. The Company survey was closed on 30 October 2020. 

In  addition,  invitations  were  shared  with  125  national  and  European  business 
organisations  in  mid-September  2020,  asking  them  to  circulate  the  invitation  to  their 
member companies. In addition, the European Commission forwarded invitations to the 
companies  that  had  registered  for  the  Online  CPR  Revision  Technical  Stakeholder 
Conference  on  7  September.  The  last  two  extensions  turned  out  to  be  particularly 
effective  at  increasing  the  number  of  companies  responding  to  the  survey.  In  total, 
12,304 invitations were sent to companies (not including the business organisations and 
the  outreach  facilitated  by  the  Commission)  –  manufacturers  of  construction  products, 
distributors of construction products, construction companies, designers and raw material 
suppliers  around  the  EU,  the  UK,  Norway  and  Switzerland.  Thus,  the  number  of 
invitations  increased  tenfold  compared  to  the  initial  planned  outreach  to  1,200 
companies. 

In total, 150 completed questionnaires were received, corresponding to a response rate of 
approximately  1.2  per  cent.  However,  out  of  the  150  respondents,  8  were  business 
associations  and  these  are  subsequently  not  included  in  the  figures  and  the  analysis. 
Furthermore, the results focus on companies from the EU27 Member States, with results 
including  both  EU27  companies  and  non-EU  companies  reported  separately.  Thus,  in 
total, the central sample consisted of 131 companies from Member States. 

Figure 8: Distribution of respondents by type of economic operator in the company 
survey 

The respondents across types of economic operators were distributed as shown in Figure 
8. Besides manufacturers a considerable number economic operators from upstream and 
downstream participated. 

72 

 
 
Figure 9: Distribution of respondents by firm size (based on number of employees and 
turnover) 

With  regards  to  firm  size,  approximately  48%  of  the  respondents  are  microenterprises, 
small enterprises medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), as shown in Figure 9. 

Regarding the geographical spread, Figure 10 reveals that companies from Germany are 
the most represented in the sample, with 28% of the respondents.  Italy was the country 
with  the  second  highest  number  of  respondents,  followed  by  Austria,  Belgium,  Poland 
and Portugal. There were no respondents from Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia 
and Slovakia. 

Figure 10: Distribution of respondents by country of headquarters 

The  Public  Consultation  was  launched  on  4  September  2020  and  was  open  until 
25 December 2020 (16 weeks). The public consultation was publicly accessible, thus also 
open to companies, as well as any other types of respondents. 

There  were  in  total  263  respondents,  out  of  which  23  citizens  (21  EU  individuals  and 
2 non-EU  individuals.  Out  of  those,  9  respondents  chose  to  give  their  input  via  the 

73 

 
 
 
shorter  questionnaire,  whereas  14  opted  for  the  longer,  more  detailed  questionnaire. 
Thus, in total 254 respondents gave their input via the longer questionnaire. 

Companies/business  organisations  were  the  most  represented  stakeholder  groups 
representing  37%  of  the  answers  (n=97),  followed  by  business  associations  with  33% 
(n=87),  EU  citizens  with  8%  (n=21),  public  authorities  with  7%  (n=19),  non-
governmental  organisations  (NGOs)  with  3%  (n=8),  academic/research  institutions, 
consumer organisations, environmental organisations, non-EU citizens and trade unions 
represented  between  1-4  respondents  each  and  7%  selected  “other”  as  their  type  of 
respondent(n=19). 

With regard to the country of origin of the respondents, 85% (n=223) of the respondents 
reported  an  EU  Member  State  as  their  country  of  origin,  while  15%  (n=40)  were  from 
non-EU countries. 

The  distribution  of  respondents  by  country  of  origin  was  as  follows:  23%  (n=60)  of 
respondents  indicated  Germany  as  their  country  of  origin,  18%  (n=48)  Belgium,  10% 
(n=25) Italy, 7% (n=19) Norway, ~5% (n=14) France, ~5% (n=14) Switzerland and ~5% 
(n=13)  Spain.  These  7  countries  represented  73%  of  the  replies.  The  other  27%  were 
from  Poland  (9  respondents),  Austria  (8  respondents),  Czech  Republic  (7 respondents), 
Portugal  (7  respondents),  Sweden  (7  respondents),  Netherlands  (6  respondents), 
respondents),  Hungary 
the  United  Kingdom 
Denmark 
(3 respondents), 
respondents),  Bulgaria 
respondents),  Romania 
(1 respondent),  Canada  (1  respondent),  Croatia  (1  respondent),  Estonia  (1  respondent), 
Finland  (1  respondent),  Greece  (1  respondent),  Liechtenstein  (1  respondent)  and  the 
United States (1 respondent). 

respondents), 
(3 
Ireland 

(5 
(2 

(5 

Concerning  the  size  distribution  of  responses  from  companies,  46%  (n=45)  of  the 
company respondents have 250 employees or more, 22% (n=21) have 50-249 employees, 
18% (n=17) have 1-9 employees, and 14% (n=14) have 10-49 employees. Thus, 54% of 
the company respondents were SMEs. 

2.  SUMMARY OF RESULTS  

With respect to the underlying survey methodology for the company survey and public 
consultation, the method used was Choice modelling (CM)168. A fundamental reason for 
using choice modelling for providing new insights into economic operators’ preferences 
and valuations of the revised policy options is that it enabled, at a minimum, to establish 
a  ranking  of  preferences  for  the  options  being  put  forth  by  the  Commission,  alongside 
estimations of their relative values. This allowed to establish which options are most and 
least  preferred  and,  importantly,  by  how  much.  The  core  of  the  questionnaire  was  the 
same  for  the  two  main  surveys,  namely  the  paired  comparison  part,  where  respondents 
were asked to compare the different options. 

168 Choice modelling (CM) relates to a set of survey methods that use sets of options, or choices, to obtain 
information from respondents. As such, CM is a subset of stated preference methods – the difference being 
that preferences are obtained indirectly, as opposed to directly asking for valuations. The big advantage 
associated with this method is that it is possible to identify individuals’ valuations for goods and services 
for which where there is no market price and individuals find it difficult to directly place a ‘true’ value on 
the good’s or service’s worth.  
Copenhagen Economics (CE), Danish Technological Institute (DTI) and Office for Economic Policy and 
Regional Development Ltd. (EPRD) (2021). Supporting study for the impact assessment of the CPR 
Review, Annex VI: Results of the horizontal survey (Inception report), page 116. 

74 

 
                                                           
This  report  provides  a  short  overview  of  the  consultation  activities  with  regards  to  the 
policy options assessed. A more detailed information is provided in the Supporting study 
for the impact assessment of the CPR Review169. 

2.1 The horizontal survey 

The evaluation of responses to the horizontal questionnaire yielded strong support for the 
CPR’s goal to ensure the free circulation of construction products in the Single Market. 
On a scale from 0 to 3, where 0 implies “no importance at  all” and 3 implies “absolute 
importance”, 75% of respondents selected 3, while another 18% selected 2.  

Interestingly, 53% of respondents also deemed it of absolute importance (i.e. a 3 on the 
scale)  that  the  CPR  should  ensure  the  health  and  safety  of  EU  citizens,  while  another 
33% selected 2. Lastly, 37% of respondents selected 3, and 36% of respondents selected 
2,  regarding  the  importance  of  the  CPR  to  protect  the  environment.  While  these  three 
policy  goals  may  not  always  be  mutually  compatible,  the  results  indicated  that  at  least 
73% of respondents found it at least important that the CPR addresses each goal.  

Furthermore,  an  overwhelming  majority  of  experts  consulted  (80%)  expressed  support 
for  the  common  technical  language  for  assessing  the  performance  of  construction 
products  –  i.e.  the  current  approach  –  in  order  to  achieve  the  free  circulation  of 
construction  products.  As  only  3%  of  respondents  supported  mutual  recognition  as  the 
best  way to  achieve free circulation,  an overwhelming  majority  was  against  a repeal  of 
the CPR. At the same time, more than two thirds (68%) of the respondents believed that 
interpretation  issues170  required  a  revision  of  the  CPR  either  in  conjunction  with 
guidance171 (63%) or without any further measures (5%). 

2.2 The company survey 

The  purpose  of  the  Company  survey  was  to  assess  how  the  Refined  indicative  policy 
options for the CPR, prepared and developed by the European Commission and informed 
inter  alia  by  the  horizontal  survey  among  technical  stakeholders  during  the  inception 
phase  of  this  project,  were  expected  to  impact  firms  in  the  European  construction 
products sector. 

The variants of the baseline policy option A were the most preferred across all elements 
(in  element  11  (New  business  models),  “I  do  not  know/Indifferent”  was  however  the 
most  commonly  selected  answer).  On  average,  variant  A  was  chosen  as  the  most 
preferred variant  by 40% of the respondents  across all the 13 elements in  which it  was 
available  to  select.  The  variants  of  policy  option  B  were  the  second  most  preferred 
variants.  The  variants  of  policy  option  D  were  the  third  most  popular  variants.  Policy 
option C contained three sub-options C1, C2 and C3. Variant C1 was chosen as the most 

169  Copenhagen  Economics  (CE),  Danish  Technological  Institute  (DTI)  and  Office  for  Economic  Policy 
and Regional Development Ltd. (EPRD) (2021). Supporting study for the impact assessment of the CPR 
Review. 

170 Interpretation issues: there are differences in the way Member States, economic operators and Notified 

Bodies interpret some of the CPR Articles. 
171 Guidance elaborated at EU level exclusively. 

75 

 
 
 
                                                           
preferred  variant  by  3%  of  the  respondents  in  the  element  in  which  it  was  available  to 
select.  On  average,  variant  C2  was  chosen  as  the  most  preferred  variant  by  4%  of  the 
respondents across the 3 elements in which was it available to select. On average, variant 
C3  was  chosen  as  the  most  preferred  variant  by  2%  of  the  respondents  across  the 
3 elements in which is it available to select. On average, the variants of policy option E 
was  chosen  as  the  most  preferred  variant  by  2%  of  the  respondents  across  all  the 
13 elements  where  it  was  available  to  select.  On  average,  21%  of  the  respondents 
selected “I do not know/Indifferent” across all 13 elements. 

Concerning preferences across types of economic operators, manufacturers tended to be 
more  in  favour  of  the  variants  of  the  baseline  policy  option  A,  compared  to  the  other 
types of operators. Across all elements, 54% of manufacturers selected variants of option 
A  as  their  preferred  variant,  while  26%  of  other  types  of  operators  selected  variants  of 
Option  A  as  their  preferred  variant.  However,  variants  of  option  A  were  still  the  most 
preferred  also  among  other  types  of  operators,  save  for  the  very  high  share  (47%)  on 
average selecting “I do not know/Indifferent”. The second most preferred option among 
manufacturers was variants of option B, preferred on average by 25% of manufacturers 
(and alternative B1 was preferred by 26% in element 13 (circular economy), compared to 
3% preferring alternative B2 in that element. 

With  respect  to  preferences  across  firms  of  different  sizes,  Figure  11  summarises  the 
average  preferences  of  all  variants  across  all  policy  options,  across  the  different  size 
classes of companies. It is worth to keep in mind that manufacturers make up 10% of the 
microenterprises (including independent professionals/self-employed), 56% of the small 
enterprises,  76%  of  medium-sized  enterprises  and  84%  of  the  large  enterprises,  in  the 
sample. 

Figure 11: Average preference ranking across all 13 elements, by different firm sizes 

Overall, the survey data suggested that economic operators were broadly in favour of the 
current  CPR, but  they noted  that there  were  issues that needed to be solved. Primarily, 

76 

 
 
this concerned issues related to the standardisation process. If legal revision was needed 
to  solve  the  issues,  economic  operators  seemed  to  prefer  that  the  issues  were  repaired 
without a fundamental change of the underlying principles of the CPR (i.e. a preference 
for policy option  B if the CPR  was to  be revised). Compared to  the baseline option A, 
respondents  who  preferred  variants  of  option  B  expected  it  to  bring  increases  in, 
primarily, construction product  safety,  economic  actors’ compliance with  relevant  rules 
and regulations, sustainable use of resources for producing construction products, cross-
border  trade  in  construction  products  within  the  EU  Single  Market  and  competition 
among manufacturers of construction products in the EU. 

There was only limited support for enhancing the CPR by introducing EU-wide product 
safety requirements (option D), and very limited support for focusing the CPR by means 
of  limiting  the  scope  of  the  CPR  (option  C).  However,  the  respondents  who  preferred 
variants of options D and C typically expected them to lead to larger impacts than those 
that  preferred  option  B,  compared  to  the  baseline  option  A.  Respondents  preferring 
variants of option D expected it to increase construction product safety, compliance with 
relevant  rules  and  regulations,  quality  of  the  built  environment  in  the  EU,  cross-border 
trade  of  construction  products  in  the  EU  Single  Market  and  competition  among 
manufacturers of construction products in the EU. 

Respondents who preferred variants of option C (where variants of Option C2 – focusing 
the CPR to core areas only – are the most preferred) primarily expected it to lead to an 
increase  in  construction  product  innovation,  competition  among  manufacturers  of 
construction  products,  cross-border  trade  of  construction  products  in  the  EU  Single 
Market,  construction  product  safety,  competitiveness  of  SME  manufacturers  of 
construction  products  vis-à-vis  large  manufacturers  and  compliance  with  relevant  rules 
and regulations. 

The  strongest  individual  result  of  the  survey  was  that  repealing  the  CPR  was  not 
preferred by the economic operators. Many respondents stated in free text that a repeal of 
the  CPR  would  lead  to  a  collapse  of  the  EU  Single  Market  for  construction  products. 
However, the few respondents who preferred variants of option E expected it to lead to a 
decrease in administrative burden for companies and an increase in cross-border trade of 
construction  products  in  the  EU  Single  Market.  They  also  expected  it  to  lead  to  a 
decrease  in  competitiveness  of  SME  manufacturers  of  construction  products  vis-à-vis 
large manufacturers. 

2.3 The public consultation 

Generally,  the  result  of  the  public  consultation  showed  that  a  large  majority  of 
stakeholders  rejected repealing the CPR (i.e. policy  option E). Within  each stakeholder 
group,  this  variant  was  the  least  preferred  by  at  least  76%  of  the  respondents  in  all 
elements. Numerous respondents stated in free text that a repeal of the CPR would lead to 
a  collapse  of  the  EU  Single  Market  for  construction  products.  Nevertheless,  the  few 
respondents who preferred variants of option E (on average across elements only 0-6% of 
the respondents within each stakeholder group) expected it essentially to lead to a small 
decrease  in  administrative  burden,  and  a  very  small  increase  in  construction  product 
safety. 

Mainly,  business  associations,  manufacturers  of  construction  products,  raw  material 
suppliers and trade unions were in favour of the current CPR (i.e. baseline policy option 
A,  no  revision  of  the  CPR  but  improvements  to  the  CPR  system  to  be  made  under  the 

77 

 
current  rules  and  available  mechanisms).  It  was  the  most  preferred  variant  for  all 
elements except element 6 (market surveillance and enforcement). Nevertheless, several 
stakeholders preferring option A noted that there were issues that needed to be resolved. 
However,  these  respondents  expressed  concerns  regarding  the  risks  of  a  lengthy  and 
complicated revision process. 

With regard to the other options, a considerable part of respondents preferred revision of 
the  CPR  (i.e.  options  B,  C  and  D).  Principally,  this  was  the  case  regarding  market 
surveillance and enforcement (50% prefer revision), Scope of EU harmonisation (45%), 
environmental aspects (45%), CE marking and DoP (44%), and Notified Bodies (43%). 
The preference for revision was lowest regarding EOTA and TABs (11%), new business 
models (27%) and the Standardisation process (30%). 

There was an almost equal preference for enhancing the CPR with EU-wide construction 
product  requirements  (i.e.  policy  option  D)  and  for  repairing  the  issues  without  a 
fundamental change of the scope and underlying principles of the CPR (i.e. policy option 
B). Among those supporting option D, there  was a substantially stronger preference for 
introducing  construction  product  requirements  via  the  New  Legislative  Framework 
approach  (i.e.  sub-option  D1)  than  for  the  Technical  Specifications  approach  (i.e.  sub-
option D2). 

Option C (limiting its scope to testing methods and/or to core areas, and/or to make the 
common technical language optional for manufacturers) was preferred by a lower share 
of respondents than the other revision options (D and B). 

Figure 12 summarises the average preferences of all variants across all policy options, for 
the different types of respondents including also different sub-types of companies. 

Variants corresponding to Option E were strongly rejected. No group of respondents had 
an average preference for the variants corresponding to Option E above 11%, and most 
had a preference of 0-2%. 

A majority of business associations, manufacturers of construction products, raw material 
suppliers and trade unions tended to prefer variants corresponding to the baseline policy 
option A. 

A  majority  of  academic/research  institutions,  consumer,  environmental  and  non-
governmental  organisations,  construction  companies,  designers,  distributors  of 
construction  products,  EU  and  non-EU  citizens,  Other,  Other  types  of  companies  not 
related  to  the  construction  sector,  Other  types  of  companies  related  to  the  construction 
sector, and public authorities tended to prefer variants corresponding to the three policy 
options for revising the CPR, i.e. options B, C and D. 

From the responses to the open consultation, four main dividing lines could be derived. 
The  first  dividing  line  was  between  respondents  wishing  to  maintain  harmonisation 
legislation for construction products and those preferring, either expressly or implicitly, 
to rely on the principle mutual recognition, which would be the consequence of repealing 
the  CPR  (option  E).  The  vast  majority  of  all  stakeholders  wished  to  maintain 
harmonisation legislation for construction products; they rejected the repeal option. Many 
respondents  stated  that  a  repeal  of  the  CPR  would  lead  to  a  collapse  of  the  EU  Single 
Market for construction products. However, the few respondents who preferred variants 
of option E expected it primarily to lead to a small decrease in administrative burden, and 
a very small increase in construction product safety. 

78 

 
The  second  dividing  line  concerned  the  development  of  the  harmonised  technical 
specifications  and  seemed  to  be  between  the  preference  for  the  current  system  based 
solely on mandatory harmonised standards and the preference for adding a fall-back path 
towards technical specifications by Commission acts (option B and those based on it). A 
common  characteristic  that  was  observed  amongst  those  who  preferred  either  of  the 
options A and B was a positive perception of the ‘common technical language approach’ 
and  of  the  high  degree  of  stakeholder  involvement  in  the  development  of  technical 
specifications. 

A  third  dividing  line  concerned  the  extent  of  the  harmonisation.  While  the  current 
harmonisation  for  construction  products  was  considered  ‘exhaustive’,  the  different 
variants of option C would result in less exhaustive harmonisation. Both options B and D 
would seemingly maintain the principle of exhaustive harmonisation. A vast majority of 
all  respondents  seemed  to  reject  the  reduction  in  harmonisation,  which  would  be  the 
result of option C. 

The fourth dividing line was between the pure common technical language approach (no 
product  requirements,  only  common  methods  and  criteria)  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
product  requirement  approach  on  the  other,  whilst  the  latter  was  only  deemed  to  be 
complementary in option D. 

79 

 
Figure 12: Preferred variants by the different types of respondents across all elements 

80 

 
 
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? 

1. Practical implications of the initiative 

The estimates on costs and benefits of the preferred option (Option D) presented in this 
Annex are based on three aproaches: 

-  Quantitative estimates on direct effects from the accompanying studie172 

-  Qualitative estimates on indirect benefits building on these and economic analysis 

of the Commission 

-  Calculations  based  on  the  available  information  and  the  knowledge  of  the 
Commission team responsible for the CPR using the tools from the Commission’s 
Better regulation toolbox – November 2021 edition173. 

The  study  supporting  this  Impact  Assessment  expected  that  option  D  would  lead  to  an 
increase  in  the  costs  for  manufacturers  associated  with  the  CPR.  The  expected  cost 
increase is driven by an increase in substantive compliance costs, administrative burden 
and regulatory charges in relation to CE marking and Declaration of Performance (DoP), 
to a small degree offset by cost reductions related to national requirements and product 
safety requirements.  It should be noted that the study did not cover relevant changes in 
the legal text such as the the declaration of environmental information, circular economy 
clauses,  the  additional  provisions  for  reused  products  and  the  new  database/system  to 
register declarations of performance and conformity. 

The  largest  sector-wide  impact  is  expected  for  medium  sized  companies,  where  the 
change  towards  option  D  is  estimated  to  increase  costs,  on  aggregate,  by  211  million 
EUR  for  manufacturers  corresponding  to  0.19%  of  the  revenue  among  medium 
companies  in  the  sector.  The  corresponding  cost  increase  among  large  companies  is 
estimated  to  amount  to,  on  aggregate,  48  million  EUR,  0.03%  of  revenue.  Meanwhile, 
the  cost  among  small  companies  is  estimated  to  decrease,  on  aggregate,  by  58  million 
EUR,  0.05%  of  revenue.  It  should  be  noted  that  these  figures  are  based  on  a  rather 
limited number of replies in the context of the supporting study and should therefore be 
considered best available estimates and be considered with appropriate caution as regards 
their accuracy.  

The expected cost decrease among small companies is somewhat counterintuitive and is 
particularly inconsistent with the expectation among medium-sized and large companies 
of substantial cost increases. The study supporting this Impact Assessment has provided 
no obvious explanation for this, other than perhaps the uncertainties associated with the 
projections due to a relatively small number of observations received.  

Beyond  this,  the  study  expected  substantial  benefits  of  potentially  2.5  billion  EUR 
annually of an improved market surveillance (see table 8).  

172 Copenhagen Economics, Danish Technological Institute and Office for Economic Policy and Regional 
Development Ltd. (2021). Study supporting the Impact Assessment for the CPR revision, Final report. 
173 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation-why-
and-how/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en 

81 

 
                                                           
The  revision  of  the  CPR  will  lead  to  indirect  benefits,  which  could  not  be  quantified, 
notably  an  increased  safety  of  construction  products,  an  increase  in  economic  actors’ 
compliance with relevant rules and regulations, more cross-border trade in construction 
products within the EU Single Market and more innovation.  

After  the  positive  opinion  with  reservations  of  the  RSB  on  26  January  2022  (see 
Annex 1)  the  administrative  burden  and  adjustment  costs  of  all  newly  introduced, 
changed or abolished obligations of the legal draft for the CPR revision were calculated. 
For this the Commission’s OIOO (one in one out) online calculator tool based on the EU 
standard  cost  model  was  used.  The  estimates  were  based  on  Eurostat  data,  previous 
reports developed in the context of the CPR e.g. previous Impact Assessment and EOTA 
report174 or in the context of other regulations  e.g.  Inception  Impact Assessment on the 
Single  Digital  Gateway175  and  the  knowledge  of  the  responsible  Commission  team  as 
there were no further data sources available for this exercise. 

The  calculations  add  up  further  direct  annual  benefits  of  more  than  200  million  EUR 
annually  stemming  mainly  from  the  circularity  provisions  expected  to  facilitate 
consumers’  (building  owners  or  facility  management  services)  interaction  with 
construction  products.  Further,  the  CPR  revision  will  save  administrative  burden  of 
around  630 million  EUR  annually  compared  with  additional  administrative  burden  of 
around  450  million  EUR.  Altogether,  there  will  be  an  annual  net  reduction  of 
administrative burden of companies of around 180 million EUR. On the cost side direct 
annual adjustment cost of around 420 million EUR were identified and around 19 million 
EUR indirect adjustment costs.  

The  most  relevant  introduced/changed  or  abolished  obligations  identified  during  the 
OIOO calculations are as regards the administrative burden:  

  Additional  information  to  be  provided  by  the  manufacturer  as  regards 

environmental performance:  

With  the  update  of  the  harmonised  standards  under  the  revised  CPR  the  manufacturers 
will have to provide information on the environmental performance of their products. A 
pertinent number of companies will be subject to this obligation and will need external 
support  for  the  calculation  and  verification.  Assessments  are  expected  to  be  performed 
every 5  years and the cost  per company will  shrink when  using the relevant  provisions 
for sharing calculations. The administrative burden is estimated at 330 million EUR. As a 
the 
these  calculations  voluntarily, 
few  manufacturers  have  already  undertaken 
administrative burden after business as usual costs is estimated at 310 million EUR. 

 

Introduction of product requirements and declaration of conformity  

For  some  construction  products  product  requirements  linked  with  a  declaration  of 
conformity will be introduced. The gross burden per product is similar compared to the 
the  required 
environmental  performance.  However,  manufacturers  may  collect 

174 EOTA – 2020 Annual Report | EOTA 
175 2017_grow_012_single_digital_gateway_en.pdf (europa.eu)  

82 

 
                                                           
information together. Therefore, the administrative burden after business as usual costs is 
estimated at 26 million EUR.   

  Additional  validation  of  the  provisions  related  to  the  custom-made  non-series 

product  

The  revised  CPR  will  introduce  an  external  assessment  of  custom-made  non-series 
products.  This  action  will  apply  to  a  limited  number  of  manufacturers,  which  in  many 
this  assessment  voluntarily.  The  additional 
cases  currently  already  undertake 
administrative burden is estimated at 75 million EUR.   

  The introduction of a fall back option for standardisation  

In cases where standardisation process fails to deliver, the Commission may step in under 
the revised CPR. This will incentivise standard development or replace it if not possible. 
Therefore, more products than today will be covered by the CPR and more standards will 
be  updated.  This  will  increase  the  competitiveness  of  the  market  and  replace  existing 
national  requirements  by  harmonised  standards.  This  is  expected  to  reduce  the 
administrative burden by 160 million EUR.  

  Duplication of information in CE marking and DoP is not required anymore  

The  current  CPR  requires  the  repetition  of  information  in  the  CE  label  and  in  the 
declaration  of  performance  (DoP).  Under  the  revised  CPR,  this  will  be  simplified,  the 
ECP will contain the permalink to  the declarations  (DoP & DoC). This  will reduce the 
administrative  burden  for  all  products  slightly.  This  is  expected  to  reduce  the 
administrative burden by 40 million EUR. 

  Availability of declarations in a centralised database or alternative system  

As part of the digitalisation efforts under the revised CPR, the introduction of an online 
database  or  information  system  is  foreseen,  which  will  store  the  DoP,  DoC  and 
instructions for use of all harmonised products.  This system will facilitate access to the 
declarations  reducing  the  time  needed  by  the  users  of  construction  products  to  find  the 
right  information.  This  is  expected  to  reduce  the  administrative  burden  by  310  million 
EUR.  

83 

 
 
 
2. 

Summary of costs and benefits 

Table 8: Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option 

I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option 

Description 

Amount 

Comments 

Improved market surveillance 

2.5 billion EUR annually 

Direct benefits 

New obligations for reused 
products 

17 million EUR annually 

Additional requirements to 
online shops 

2.5 million EUR annually 

Product Contact Points 
requirements 

2.5 million EUR annually 

Circularity provisions expected 
to facilitate consumers 
interaction with construction 
products 

190 million EUR annually 

Increased safety of construction 
products 

No quantification available 

Indirect benefits 

Increase in economic actors’ 
compliance with relevant rules 
and regulations 

No quantification available 

Increased quality of the built 
environment in the EU 

No quantification available 

Increase in cross-border trade in 
construction products within the 
EU Single Market 

No quantification available 

There appears to be significant benefits that can be 
reaped from improved market surveillance, with a 
potential 2.5 billion annually176 EUR to be gained in 
terms of revenue, equalling more than half the costs 
(burden) associated with the CPR. 

Provisions on reused products will increase the 
business of companies conditioning reused products 
(usually SMEs) and potentially save costs as reused 
products are less expensive than new ones. 

Additional systems to be implemented for e-
commerce to protect consumers likely to reduce 
unjustified cost due to non-compliance or lack of 
information. 

Stricter rules for Product Contact Points to deal with 
information demands expected to improve market 
efficiency. 

Reparability, availability of spare parts, extended life 
and easy disassembly will reduce the cost related to 
reparation and maintenance of installed construction 
products. 

Benefits would occur thanks to enhanced safety of 
construction products, implying better protection 
particularly of construction workers and 
users/consumers using construction products. 

Improved compliance with the regulatory framework 
is expected to create benefits in terms of levelling the 
playing field for construction products manufacturers 
(particularly important for SMEs).  

Benefits particularly for the citizens, stemming from 
more sustainable and durable built environment 
(buildings, urban architecture etc.). 

Beneficial for manufacturers, through expected 
increase in revenues, as well as to end-users, 
allowing improved access to broader range of 
construction products.  

Increase in construction product 
innovation 

No quantification available 

Beneficial for the end-users of construction products, 
providing access to innovative products. 

Gross savings 

630 million EUR annually 

See above for explanations 

Administrative cost savings related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach* 

176  Copenhagen  Economics  (CE),  Danish  Technological  Institute  (DTI)  and  Office  for  Economic  Policy 
and Regional Development Ltd. (EPRD) (2021). Supporting study for the impact assessment of the CPR 
Review – Final report, Annexes, Annex II: Methodology note (survey design and analysis), page 11. 

84 

 
                                                           
Table 9: Overview of costs – Preferred option 

II. Overview of costs – Preferred option 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent* 

Increase in 
administrative 
costs and 
resources to 
administration
s in all 
Member States 
related to the 
progressive 
adaptation to 
the revised 
CPR and the 
changes it 
brings with it.  

an increase of 
~200 million EUR 
in costs among 
manufacturers 
associated with the 
CPR, equal to 
approximately 8% 
of the baseline 
costs and 
corresponding to 
0.05% of the 
construction 
product 
manufacturing 
sector's total 
revenue 

78 million EUR 

70 million EUR 

64 million EUR 

Direct 
costs  

Increase in total costs 

Increase in substantive 
compliance costs in 
relation to CE marking 
and Declaration of 
Performance (DoP) 

Increase in 
administrative burden in 
relation to CE marking 
and Declaration of 
Performance (DoP) 

Increase in regulatory 
charges in relation to CE 
marking and Declaration 
of Performance (DoP) 

Costs related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach 

Direct adjustment costs 

4 million EUR  420 million 

EUR 

Total 

Indirect adjustment 
costs 

Administrative costs 
(for offsetting)177 

19 million EUR   

450 million 
EUR 

* The possible future delegated acts introducing a minimum number of checks to be performed 
and a minimum human resources needed for market surveillance will be accompanied by a 
specific assessment of the resources implications. 

177 Offset by the benefits, net saving of 180 million EUR, see table 8 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS 

is  supported  by  a  study178,  collecting  evidence  and 
This  Impact  Assessment 
complementing the available evidence in order to analyse potential future options for the 
EU legislation on construction products and to assess their possible impacts. 

Input  from key  experts within the field  was  collected via an initial  horizontal survey179 
and  used  by  the  Commission  services  to  refine  and  complement  the  indicative  revised 
options.  The  resulting  options  have  been  explored  in  depth  to  assess  preferences  and 
impacts  primarily  via  a  survey  among  companies  and  a  public  consultation, 
supplemented with evidence from previous studies carried out in the context of the CPR 
review180 and a Survey on future options carried out by the Commission services in 2020. 
Finally,  the  study  provides  an  evidence-based  comparison  of  the  various  options  based 
on  the  broader  evidence  base,  inter  alia,  including  the  previous  impact  assessment 
supporting  study  from  2018,  as  well  as  feedback  from  the  validation  workshop181 
conducted in the concluding phase of this project. 

Public consultation 

The  policy  options  were  mapped  around  13  distinct  elements,  corresponding  to  the 
horizontal  issues  and  main  features  of  the  CPR  system.  Each  of  the  13  elements  were 
then attributed various "levels" reflecting the different ways in which the various policy 
options would address these (henceforth referred to as variants). The answer option “Do 
not know/Indifferent” was also available for respondents to select, in every element. The 
mapping  of  the  policy  options  around  13  elements  makes  it  comprehensible  for 
respondents to provide informed input about the many different and individually complex 
issues and features of the CPR system. 

Respondents  were  asked  whether  they  wished  to  provide  input  on  each  of  the 
13 elements.  Only  respondents  who  replied  “Yes”  were  asked  the  following  questions, 
while the other were directed to the next element (or, in the case of the last element, to 
the final page of the questionnaire). 

The  respondents  were  asked  to  grade  the  impact  they  expect  their  preferred  variant  to 
have on each type of impact, compared to the baseline variant A according to a 5-grade 

178  Copenhagen  Economics  (CE),  Danish  Technological  Institute  (DTI)  and  Office  for  Economic  Policy 
and Regional Development Ltd. (EPRD) (2021). Supporting study for the impact assessment of the CPR 
Review – Final report. 

179 The survey was a preparatory step focusing on substance and was sent to a limited number of experts in 
the field, including members of the Advisory Group on construction products, former participants in one 
of the meetings of the Technical platforms on the CPR Review, as well as a few additional stakeholders 
that were added in order to cover most relevant stakeholder categories.  

180 Particularly VVA, DTI and TNO (2016): Economic Impacts of the Construction Products Regulation, 
and VVA, JIIP, DTI and GDCC (2018a): Supporting study for the Review of the Construction Products 
Regulation:  Evaluation,  and  (2018b):  Supporting  study  for  the  Review  of  the  Construction  Products 
Regulation: Impact Assessment. 

181 The validation workshop was carried out online on 24 March 2021. In total, 225 people participated in 
the  virtual  event  with  a  peak  attendance  of  171.  Participants  were  not  registered  by  category  but 
represented  a  broad  selection  of  the  stakeholder  groups  that  were  also  covered  by  the  survey  and  the 
public consultation, particularly industry associations (EU level and national), companies, Member State 
authorities’ standardisation organisations, notified bodies. 

86 

 
                                                           
scale  encompassing:  large  decrease,  small  decrease,  no  or  negligible  impact,  small 
increase and large increase. 

Methodology: impacts on costs  

The  study  has  mirrored  the  approach  of  the  previous  study  supporting  the  Impact 
Assessment  for  the  CPR  conducted  for  the  European  Commission182  to  the  extent 
possible based on the responses from the company survey. Based on this, we provide the 
following two outcomes: 

1)  Quantification  of  the  impact  on  costs  and  benefits  of  each  option  as  a  percent  of 
revenue183 by company size; 

2)  Quantification  of  the  sector-wide  impact  on  costs  and  benefits  for  companies  in  the 
CPR-related  manufacturing  sector  from  a  regulatory  shift  towards  different  options 
relative to the baseline for companies by both company size and aggregated. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  the  insights  to  be  gained  from  cost  and  benefit  impact 
estimates  are  less  crucial  than  those  that  can  be  obtained  from  preference  rankings  for 
three primary reasons: 

  Firstly,  the  complexity  of  the  questions  related  to  cost  and  benefit  impacts  may 
prevent some respondents from being able to answer the question accurately; 
  Secondly,  the  results  are  sensitive  towards  a  single  company’s  response  since 

only few respondents184 provided input on the impacts; 

  Thirdly,  an  inconsistency  appears  in  the  company  survey  responses  where 
multiple  respondents  have  selected  the  same  option  (for  example  option  D)  as 
both their preferred and least preferred option. 

This introduces a substantial amount of uncertainty around the estimates on cost impacts 
compared to results on preference rankings. 

The methodology for calculating cost impacts was based on four steps: 

i. Calculate the baseline costs and foregone revenue of option A; 

ii.  Estimate  the  change  in  the  costs  and  benefits  of  each  option  relative  to  the 
baseline; 

iii. Calculate the impacts on the costs and benefits of each option; 

iv. Estimate the sector-wide impacts on the costs and benefits of each option. 

Regarding the first step, the baseline costs and foregone revenue were calculated as the 
share of revenue by dividing it with the average reported revenue by company size. In the 
second step the average percentage change in costs and foregone revenue of a regulatory 
shift towards each option within four elements, four cost categories (except for element 6 

182 VVA, JIIP, Danish Technological Institute and GDCC (2018). Supporting study for the Review of the  
Construction Products Regulation: Impact Assessment, Annexes to the final report, page 14-15. 
183 Revenue is based on respondents reported turnover in 2019 or latest available year. 
184  To  limit  the  extent  of  this  issue,  two  responses  where  respondents  reported  extreme  values  were 
disregarded: one small company reported 100,000 EUR in hassle cost, and another reported an increase 
of 100,000 pct. from option B. 

87 

 
                                                           
which holds only one cost and foregone revenue category) is estimated and split them by 
company size where possible. The reported percentage change in the costs of respondents 
preferred  and  least  preferred  options  for  each  of  the  cost  categories  within  each  of  the 
four elements  is  used.  In the third step, calculations  of the change in  costs  or foregone 
revenue of a regulatory shift towards each option by multiplying the percentage change 
in costs with the reported costs and foregone revenue of the baseline option A are made. 
These  calculations  are  made  for  each  of  the  elements  and  each  of  the  cost/foregone 
revenue  categories  within  each  element.  Lastly,  in  the  fourth  step  an  estimation  of  the 
sector-wide 
the  CPR-related 
manufacturing  sector  is  made  by  scaling  up  the  estimated  change  in  the  costs  and  the 
benefits as a percent of revenue. As the scalar, an estimate of the sector-wide revenue for 
companies in the CPR-related manufacturing sector is used. 

impact  on  costs  and  benefits  for  companies 

in 

The following evaluation grid shows how the various sources contributed to addressing 
the impact assessment questions: 

Table 10: Sources of evidence 

Evaluation questions 
EFFECTIVENESS 
What is the problem and why is it a 
problem? 

EFFICIENCY 

What are the proposed solutions? 

Sources of evidence 

  Supporting study for the Review of the 
Construction Products Regulation: 
Evaluation 

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

  Study on Analysis of the 

implementation of the Construction 
Products Regulation 

  Study on Economic Impacts of the 
Construction Products Regulation. 

  Refit platform recommendations 
  Survey on horizontal issues 

  Survey on horizontal issues 
  Company phone survey 
  Public consultation 

What are the benefits of each option and 
how beneficial are they for the various 
stakeholders’ groups? 

  Survey on horizontal issues 
  Company phone survey 
  Public consultation 
  Survey on the indicative future options 

What are the regulatory and 
administrative costs and are they 
affordable for the various stakeholders’ 
groups? 

  Survey on horizontal issues 
  Company phone survey 
  Public consultation 
  Survey on the indicative future options 

88 

 
 
RELEVANCE 

How do the policy options compare? 
To what extent the impacts of each 
policy option meet the needs, the 
problems and the objective? 

 Company phone survey  
 Public consultation 

What should be the role of the CPR 
pivotal actors and their deliverables? 

  Survey on horizontal issues 

COHERENCE 

To what extent is the CPR consistent 
with other legislation pieces applying on 
the same stakeholders? Are there any 
inconsistencies, overlaps or gaps? 

EU added value 

Which is the preferred policy option 
which will yield highestet benefits? 

Could more added value be achieved by 
limiting the scope of EU legislation to 
most relevant products? 

What would be the most likely 
consequences of repealing the CPR? 

  Feedback on the roadmap 
  Survey on horizontal issues 
  Company phone survey 
  Public consultation 
  Supporting study for the Fitness Check 
on the construction sector: EU internal 
market and energy efficiency 
legislation 

  Survey on horizontal issues 
  Company phone survey 
  Public consultation 
  Survey on the indicative future options 

  Survey on horizontal issues 
  Survey on the indicative future options 

  Company phone survey 
  Public consultation 
  Survey on the indicative future options 
  Supporting study for the Review of the 
Construction Products Regulation: 
Impact Assessment 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5: THE SME TEST – SUMMARY OF RESULTS 

(1) Preliminary assessment of businesses likely to be affected  

Manufacturers, importers, to a lesser degree distributors and 
designers (affected by construction product innovation, 
competition). 

(See Supporting study for the 
impact assessment of the CPR 
Review, 2021, Annex First 
findings report, page 115) 

(2) Consultation with SMEs representatives 

The SMEs and representatives of SMEs associations in 
construction have provided their feedback during the public 
consultation. They were also consulted in a more targeted 
manner, during the so-called CPR Technical Platforms. These 
were a series of meetings organised as a follow-up to the Report 
on the implementation of the CPR adopted on 07.07.2016. The 
discussion on the 18 of January 2017 focussed on the limited 
uptake of the CPR provisions of Article 5 (derogations from 
drawing up a Declaration of Performance - DoP), Article 37 
(simplified procedures for micro-enterprises) and Article 38 
(simplified procedures for products individually manufactured 
or custom-made in a non-series process), the so-called 
simplification provisions for the SMEs. 

  There was a valuable variety of views in the feedback 

received by stakeholders. For instance, some 
stakeholders expressed the view that simplification 
should benefit all firms, including adaptation to 
technological evolution for CE marking, digitalisation or 
increased customisation. On the other hand, other 
stakeholders expressed shortly that SMEs need 
legislative stability. 

  Moreover, on the fifth technical platform, which focused 
on the future of EOTA, European Organisation for 
Technical Assessment, a stakeholder expressed that there 
was a need for a national dimension (expertise and 
proximity contact for SMEs in their language) and an EU 
dimension (coordination). 

(See Second Technical 
Platform, 18.01.2017 on the 
topic of  Simplification, 
including SME-related 
provisions, 
DocsRoom - European 
Commission (europa.eu)) 

(See Fifth Technical Platform, 
04.10.2017 on the topic of the 
future of EOTA, European 
Organisation for Technical 
Assessment,  
DocsRoom - European 
Commission (europa.eu)) 

  Also, with respect to efficiency, during the public 

consultation, when stakeholders were asked about the 
benefits and the costs in comparison to the situations 
before and since the introduction of harmonised 
European standards, it was notable that across the totality 
of respondents, 36.6% were of the opinion that the 

(See public consultation on EU 
rules for products used in the 
construction of buildings and 
infrastructure works, January-
April 2018, page 25, 
DocsRoom - European 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
benefits outweighed the costs, while 38.6% of the 
responds stated that the costs outweigh the benefits. If 
only companies were selected and broken down by size 
of enterprise, the highest rate of sceptical respondents 
was among the representatives of micro-enterprises 
(60.7%). The free text comments further explained the 
mixed results of the closed question. A significant 
amount of participants stated that the benefits do not 
outweigh the costs and that they do not see 
advantages of the CPR. As can be expected, these 
critical statements came in particular from locally 
oriented SMEs.  

Commission (europa.eu)) 

(See public consultation on EU 
rules for products used in the 
construction of buildings and 
infrastructure works, January-
April 2018, page 33, 
DocsRoom - European 
Commission (europa.eu)) 

  Furthermore, in the results of the consultation, a frequent 
comment was that SMEs were disproportionally strongly 
“hit” by the administrative costs.  

 

In addition, the view of Small Business Standards, 
expressed, as a feedback to the inception impact 
assessment, was that the consequences of unavailable or 
outdated harmonised product standards increased direct 
or indirect costs for the businesses (especially SMEs).  

In summary, multiple feedback was provided from stakeholders 
via the technical platform and consultations, together with desk-
research, including available evidence already collected through 
various reports and studies, as well as through surveys. 

(See feedback received from: 
Small Business Standards185 
(SBS) on the Inception impact 
assessment, Feedback period: 
July-August 2020, 
Feedback from: Small Business 
Standards (SBS) (europa.eu)) 

(3) Measurement of the impact on SMEs 

The main cost expected for the SMEs remain the 
administrative costs.  
The 2021 study supporting the Impact Assessment report 
concluded that a cost increase of 201 mEUR p.a. was estimated 
for the preferred option D, corresponding to 0.05% of the 
construction product manufacturing sector's total revenue. This 
was mainly driven by an increase in costs for medium-sized 
companies of 211 mEUR p.a., corresponding to 0.19% of 
revenue, and based on an increase in regulatory, compliance and 
administrative costs in relation to CE marking and Declaration 
of Performance (DoP).  

(See Supporting study for the 
impact assessment of the CPR 
Review – Final report, 2021, 
page 69) 

185 Small Business Standards (SBS) is a European non-profit association. Its goal is to represent and defend small 
and medium-sized enterprises’ (SMEs) interests in the standardisation process at European and international 
levels.  

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
It also corresponded to a roughly 8% increase compared to the 
current baseline costs, likely due to the expectations that the 
number of parameters that companies would have to declare 
would increase with the introduction of product requirements, 
increasing the costs associated with preparing the CE mark and 
the DoP. 

At the same time, the expected benefit from a revision of the 
CPR (option B/C/D) in relation to improved market surveillance 
and enforcement were estimated to amount to approx. 2.5 billion 
EUR annually (0.6% of the total revenue). 

(See Supporting study for the 
impact assessment of the CPR 
Review – Final report, 2021, 
page 70) 

 

In particular, looking at the effect on SMEs, the baseline 
costs (option A) for SMEs were expected to amount to 
2,496 mEUR annually corresponding to 1.1% of 
aggregate revenue.  

(See Supporting study for the 
impact assessment of the CPR 
Review – Final report, 2021, 
Page 27, Table 4, Table 5) 

  Notably, looking across all options, the effect on costs 

differed for each option. Concerning the expected impact 
of option B on SMEs, it was estimated that it would 
lead to a decrease of costs, on aggregate, by 151 mEUR 
annually for manufacturers corresponding to 0.06 % of 
the revenue among SMEs in the sector. Moreover, the 
expected benefit from option B in relation to market 
surveillance and enforcement was estimated to amount to 
approx. 2,500 mEUR annually. More than a half of this 
benefit accrued to SMEs, where aggregated revenue 
gains were estimated to amount to 2,166 mEUR 
annually corresponding to 0.9 % of the total revenue for 
that group. 

  Alternatively, the impact expected for SMEs under 

option C was estimated to decrease costs by a total of 
16 mEUR annually for manufacturers, corresponding to 
0.01% of the revenue among medium companies in the 
sector. As option C could be assimilated to option B in 
relation to market surveillance and enforcement, a 
revision of the CPR towards option C was expected to 
yield the same benefits as described above for option B. 

  Conversely, the change towards option D was estimated 
to increase costs, on aggregate, by 153 mEUR annually 
for manufacturers (SMEs) corresponding to 0.07% of the 
revenue among SMEs in the sector. With respect to 
benefits, as option D could be assimilated to option B in 
relation to market surveillance and enforcement, a 
revision of the CPR towards option D was expected to 
yield the same benefits as described above for option B. 

92 

(See Supporting study for the 
impact assessment of the CPR 
Review – Final report, 2021, 
Page 34, Table 9) 

(See Supporting study for the 
impact assessment of the CPR 
Review – Final report, 2021, 
Page 35, Table 10) 

(See Supporting study for the 
impact assessment of the CPR 
Review – Final report, 2021, 
Page 39, Table 14) 

(See Supporting study for the 
impact assessment of the CPR 
Review – Final report, 2021, 
Page 43, Table 18) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Finally, the largest sector-wide impact was expected for 
SMEs, where the change towards option E is estimated 
to increase costs by, on aggregate, 97 mEUR annually 
for manufacturers, corresponding to 0.04% of the 
revenue among medium companies in the sector. 
Distinctively, respondents answering this question 
foresaw a significant loss in terms of foregone revenue 
from repealing the CPR (option E) in relation to market 
surveillance and enforcement (element 6). The estimated 
loss, which was most significant among SMEs, amounts 
to 4,803mEUR annually. 

(See Supporting study for the 
impact assessment of the CPR 
Review – Final report, 2021, 
Page 48, Table 22) 

(See Supporting study for the 
impact assessment of the CPR 
Review – Final report, 2021, 
Page 49, Table 23) 

4) Assess alternative options and mitigating measures 

  Across all the options (except option E), there was a 
notable positive effect on SMEs with respect to 
competitiveness. As revealed by the 33 respondents who 
preferred option B compared to the baseline option, the 
largest expected impact was an increase in the 
competitiveness of SME manufacturers of 
construction products vis-à-vis large manufacturers.  

(See Supporting study for the 
impact assessment of the CPR 
Review – Final report, 2021, 
Annexes, Second Progress 
report, page 70) 

  Similarly, of the 5 respondents that selected option C2 

(same as option B for the core areas covered by the CPR, 
but national requirements fully allowed for construction 
products outside the core areas) as preferred, the largest 
impacts were expected for SME manufacturers’ 
competitiveness vis-à-vis larger manufacturers.  

(See Supporting study for the 
impact assessment of the CPR 
Review – Final report, 2021, 
Annexes, Second Progress 
report, page 42) 

  Additionally, among manufacturers, the largest 

decrease in the administrative burden was expected 
by the 3-5 respondents who selected option C2 as 
preferred. In particular, of the 3 respondents that selected 
option C3 (where Member States would be allowed to 
offer alternative paths to market access not based on the 
common technical language), the largest impacts were 
expected for safety of construction products, 
construction product innovation and competition among 
manufacturers of construction products. 

(See Supporting study for the 
impact assessment of the CPR 
Review – Final report, 2021, 
Annexes, Second Progress 
report, page 42, 86) 

  Above all, option D was expected to lead to the largest 
increase in competitiveness of SME manufacturers. 
Across all option, the expected impacts on SME 
competitiveness were lower than the expected impacts 
on e.g. construction product safety, innovation, 
competition and intra-Single Market cross-border trade.  

(See Supporting study for the 
impact assessment of the CPR 
Review – Final report, 2021, 
Annexes, Second Progress 
report, page 95) 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Furthermore, Option D would allow for the introduction 
of mandatory environmental requirements, which would 
not only improve the sustainability and durability of 
construction products, but would act as a driver for 
innovation and improve competition by creating a more 
level playing field for low-carbon, alternative 
construction products (which may often be developed 
by SMEs, thereby improving their competitiveness 
vis-à-vis larger manufacturers).  

  Looking at the respondents that preferred option D (EU-
wide construction product requirements, and national 
requirements only allowed where the EU had not fully 
harmonised requirements), 16 out of them, the largest 
impacts expected were a higher safety of construction 
products, and better compliance with relevant rules and 
regulations, more cross-border trade of construction 
products in the EU Single Market, as well as the higher 
competitiveness of SME manufacturers of 
construction products vis-à-vis large manufacturers. 

  In the same line, option D was expected to lead to a 
very slight decrease in the administrative burden, 
among small manufacturers. 

  Option D foresaw the possibility for the Member States 

to exclude certain microenterprises from the 
obligations of the CPR, when they did not trade across 
the borders.  

  Finally, out of the 3 respondents preferring option E 
(market surveillance up to each Member State and 
according to national rules and procedures), the largest 
expected impact was a decrease in the 
competitiveness of SME manufacturers of 
construction products vis-à-vis large manufacturers, 
as well as a decrease in the administrative burden. On 
one hand, out of the 5 respondents preferring option E, 
the largest expected impacts were an increase in 
competition among manufacturers of construction 
products and cross-border trade of construction 
products in the EU Single Market. However, they also 
expected it to lead to a decrease in economic actors’ 

94 

(See Supporting study for the 
impact assessment of the CPR 
Review – Final report, 2021, 
Annexes, First findings report, 
page 29) 

(See Supporting study for the 
impact assessment of the CPR 
Review – Final report, 2021, 
Annexes, Second Progress 
report, page 25) 

(See Supporting study for the 
impact assessment of the CPR 
Review – Final report, 2021, 
Annexes, First findings report, 
page 29) 

(See Supporting study for the 
impact assessment of the CPR 
Review – Final report, 2021, 
Annexes, First findings report, 
page 43, 44) 

(See Supporting study for the 
impact assessment of the CPR 
Review – Final report, 2021, 
Annexes, Second Progress 
report, page 87) 

(See Supporting study for the 
impact assessment of the CPR 
Review – Final report, 2021, 
Annexes, Second Progress 
report, pages 54, 61, 67, 87) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
compliance with relevant rules and regulations, 
construction product durability and quality of the built 
environment. On the other hand, the 3 respondents 
preferring option E (no obligation for Member States to 
administer PCPCs), expected decreases in 
administrative burden, and SME manufacturer 
competitiveness vis-à-vis large manufacturer. 

Table 11: Measurement of the impact on SMEs in million EUR per annum 

OPTION 

COSTS  

Option A (baseline) 

0 (baseline) 

Option B 

↓ by 151  

Option C 

↓ by 16    

Option D 

↑ by 153  

Option E 

↑ by 97    

BENEFITS  

0 (baseline) 

↑ 2,166 (reduction in foregone 
revenue for compliant producers) 

↑ 2,166 (reduction in foregone 
revenue for compliant producers) 

↑ 2,166 (reduction in foregone 
revenue for compliant producers) 

↓ 4,803 (additional forgone 
revenue for compliant producers)  

It should be noted that these figures are based on a rather limited number of replies in the context 
of the supporting study and should therefore be considered best available estimates and be 
considered with appropriate caution as regards their accuracy. 

95 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6: DESCRIPTION OF THE CPR FRAMEWORK 

The overarching  objective of  EU legislation on  construction products is  to  ‘achieve the proper 
functioning  of  the  Internal  Market  for  construction  products’  (Recital  58  of  the  Construction 
Products Regulation, CPR). 

With  respect  to  the  division  of  powers  between  the  EU  and  Member  States,  construction  is  a 
field  of  clearly  identified  subsidiarity.  Member  States  have  exclusive  competence  for  building 
regulations  (i.e.  the  rules  on  design  and  construction  of  buildings  and  civil  works),  while  EU 
legislation is put in place to ensure free circulation in the internal market of the products used in 
these buildings and civil works. Member States retain full control of construction design rules in 
their respective territories, relating in particular to public safety and security, energy efficiency 
and the protection of workers. 

The system set up first by the Construction Products Directive (CPD) and then the CPR aims to 
put  in  place  conditions  for  the  proper  functioning  of  the  internal  market  for  construction 
products.  In  practical  terms,  this  means  allowing  construction  products  legally  placed  on  the 
market  in  one  Member  State  (i.e.  made  available  on  the  EU  market  for  the  first  time)  to  be 
marketed on the territory of any other Member State. 

This does not, however, guarantee that a product bearing the CE marking can systematically be 
used  (i.e.  incorporated  in  construction  works)  in  every  Member  State.  This  is  because  the 
legislation on construction works and civil engineering works remains broadly a competence of 
Member States, exercised at  national,  regional or even local  level,  in  accordance with  relevant 
secondary EU law186 and Articles 49 and 56 TFEU. 

The CPR is different from ‘New Legislative Framework’ (NLF) legislation in that it harmonises 
only the assessment methods of product performance, and does not set EU-wide requirements for 
construction products. Responsibilities are shared between the EU, which regulates the placing 
on the market of these products, and the Member States, which set rules on the products’ use that 
can imply performance requirements. To ensure that these requirements are based on the same 
assessment methods, the harmonised standards are mandatory, unlike the general situation under 
the NLF. The standards’  mandatory use  reinforces the necessity for them  to  be  of high quality 
and to respond swiftly to the needs of stakeholders and Member States. 

Harmonised  conditions  for  the  marketing  of  construction  products  are  established  by 
harmonising  information  about  the  performance  of  construction  products  (in  relation  to  Basic 
Work Requirements). This differs from the approach under most EU products directives, which 
is to harmonise the products themselves or their requirements. 

The aim of the common technical language created under the CPR is to enable assessment of the 
performance of construction products. This ensures the availability of reliable information on the 
performance of construction products  (for professionals,  public authorities and consumers) and 
makes  it  possible  to  compare  the  performance  of  products  from  different  manufacturers  in 
different countries. 

186 Among others the Services Directive, 2006/123/EC, and its Article 16(2)(f). 

96 

 
 
                                                           
The common technical language consists of harmonised technical specifications, i.e. harmonised 
European  standards  and  European  Assessment  Documents  (EADs),  which  are  the  alternative 
offered  for  products  not  (fully)  covered  by  harmonised  standards.  The  common  technical 
language  enables:  (i)  regulatory  authorities  in  EU  countries  to  define  legal  requirements 
applicable to  construction works;  (ii) manufacturers to  draw up the  declaration of performance 
(DoP)  as  defined  in  the  CPR  and  to  affix  the  CE  marking;  and  (iii)  design  engineers  and 
contractors  to  ensure  compliance  with  national  legal  requirements  and  to  meet  demands  from 
their clients. 

Harmonised  European  standards  are  drafted  by  CEN  and,  very  exceptionally,  Cenelec,  on  the 
basis  of  standardisation  requests/mandates  issued  by  the  Commission  after  consultation  of  the 
Standing  Committee  on  Construction187.  These  requests  are  drawn  up  by  the  European 
Commission, taking into account the requirements of Member States and the information needs 
expressed  by  the  industry  and  other  construction  stakeholders.  Standards  are  drafted  by  the 
relevant  CEN  technical  committee  and  submitted  for  internal  CEN  approval  procedures.  They 
are then submitted to the Commission for citation in the Official Journal of the European Union. 
Article  17(5)  of  the  CPR  provides  for  the  Commission  to  assess  the  conformity  of  the 
harmonised  standards  within  the  mandates,  a  provision  that  did  not  exist  in  the  CPD;  this 
obligation  was reinforced and extended by  the 2012 Standardisation Regulation188. Once cited, 
the standards become the official references for the assessment and declaration of performance 
of the essential characteristics covered, and manufacturers are obliged to use them and CE mark 
the products covered by harmonised standards. 

Products  not  covered,  or  not  fully  covered  by  harmonised  standards  can  be  voluntarily  CE 
marked.  The  European  Technical  Assessment  (ETA)  is  an  alternative  to  standards  for  such 
construction products: the manufacturer may request an ETA from a Technical Assessment Body 
(TAB).  The  ETA  is  issued  on  the  basis  of  a  European  Assessment  Document  (EAD).  If  the 
product in question is already fully covered by an existing EAD, this will be used as the basis for 
the  ETA  to  be  issued.  When  a  manufacturer  requests  an  ETA  for  its  product  and  when  no 
relevant EAD exists, the TAB which has received the request draws up the work programme for 
drafting the EAD, taking into account the essential characteristics relevant for the intended use 
(See Figure 13). 

Other construction products - those not covered or not fully covered by a harmonised standards 
and not voluntarily CE marked - remain under the mutual recognition principle. 

Annex I to the CPR lists the seven basic requirements for construction works (BWRs): 

1. Mechanical resistance and stability; 

2. Safety in case of fire; 

3. Hygiene, health and the environment; 

4. Safety and accessibility in use; 

5. Protection against noise; 

187 In accordance with Article 17 of the CPR and with comitology procedures. 
188 Article 10(6) of Regulation (EU) 1025/2012. 

97 

 
 
                                                           
6. Energy economy and heat retention; 

7. Sustainable use of natural resources. 

The  seven  Basic  Work  Requirements  categorise  the  requirements  that  Member  States  may  lay 
down  for  construction  works  on  their  territory;  they  also  circumscribe  the  sphere  of 
harmonisation for CPR purposes when defining essential characteristics of construction products. 

The  declaration  of  performance  (DoP)  is  required  for  every  construction  product  covered  by  a 
European  harmonised  standard  or  for  which  an  ETA  has  been  issued.  The  DoP  specifies  the 
product and the standard (or the EAD and the ETA) and contains information about the product’s 
performance  in  relation  to  the  essential  characteristics  set  out  in  the  applicable  harmonised 
technical  specification  (harmonised  standard  or  EAD).  A  DoP  should  be  supplied  in  the 
language(s) of each Member State where the product is marketed — or another language decided 
by that Member State. 

Each construction product covered by a European harmonised standard, or for which an ETA has 
been issued, must be CE marked. This marking indicates that the product is in conformity with 
its  declared  performance,  and  that  either  it  has  been  assessed  according  to  a  harmonised 
European standard or an ETA has been issued for it. 

The  Member  States  are  obliged  to  allow  the  marketing  of  CE-marked  construction  products 
without requiring any additional marks, certificates or testing. Member States can, however, set 
requirements  on  the  use  of  such  products  in  buildings  and  other  construction  works,  using  for 
this  purpose  only  the  harmonised  structure  created  by  means  of  the  CPR.  This  means  that 
Member  States  can  specify  for  a  particular  use  a  certain  performance  value  based  on  a 
harmonised standard. However, they cannot request that it be tested by means other than those 
set out under the standard or add any additional elements not covered by the standard. 

Products covered by a harmonised standard may be exempted from the requirement to draw up a 
DoP  and  affix  the  CE  marking  if:  (i)  they  are  individually  manufactured/custom-made  for  a 
given  use;  (ii)  they  are  manufactured  on  the  construction  site;  or  (iii)  the  manufacturing  is 
required to  maintain traditional processes  for the  conservation of officially  protected works,  as 
outlined in Article 5 of the CPR.  

The  assessment  and  verification  of  constancy  of  performance  (AVCP)  system  sets  out  how  to 
assess  the  performance  of  construction  products  and  how  to  certify  the  constancy  of  the 
performance.  Based  on  Article  28  of  the  CPR,  the  Commission  establishes  by  means  of 
delegated  acts  the  system  applicable  to  a  given  product  or  family  of  products.  Five  different 
systems are in place for construction products, ranging from self-declaration and monitoring by 
the manufacturer to large-scale third-party involvement by notified bodies189. All AVCP systems 
require  that  the  manufacturer  establish  factory  production  control190.  The  Commission  is 
required to choose the least onerous system or systems consistent with the fulfilment of all basic 
requirements for construction works. 

189 The different systems are designated 1+, 1, 2+, 3, and 4. 
190  According  to  Article  2(26)  of  the  CPR,  ‘factory  production  control  means  the  documented,  permanent  and 
internal control of production in a factory, in accordance with the relevant harmonised technical specification. 

98 

 
 
                                                           
The AVCP system may require that an NB carry out some of the tasks. Notified bodies are the 
bodies authorised and notified by Member States to carry out third party AVCP under the CPR 
(Article 39). The requirements, obligations and other aspects relating to the operation of notified 
bodies are set out in detail in Articles 43-55 of the CPR. 

Article 27 of the CPR permits the Commission to adopt  Delegated Acts  to set threshold levels 
and classes of performance in relation to the essential characteristics of construction products191. 
It  also  provides  the basis  for adopting delegated acts  to  establish  the conditions  under which a 
construction product is deemed to satisfy a certain level or class of performance without testing 
or without further testing. 

The  CPR  aims  to  contribute  to  EU  SME  policy,  the  objective  of  which  is  to  level  the  playing 
field for SMEs, especially micro-enterprises. 

-  Article  37  specifically  aims  to  provide  micro-enterprises  with  an  option  to  use  simplified 
procedures when carrying out the AVCP. 

- Article 36 enables any manufacturer to replace the type-testing or type-calculation stage of the 
assessment process with ‘Appropriate Technical Documentation’, if tests have been carried out 
for corresponding products or systems of components (test sharing and cascading). 

-  Article  38  allows  manufacturers  to  replace  performance  assessment  with  ‘Specific  Technical 
Documentation’ for construction products that are individually manufactured or custom-made in 
a non-series process. 

-  Article  10  requires  Member  States  to  designate  Product  Contact  Points  for  Construction 
(PCPCs)  to  act  as  information  sources  for  companies,  in  particular  for  SMEs.  Member  States 
‘shall  ensure  that  the  product  contact  points  for  construction  provide  information,  using 
transparent  and  easily  understandable  terms,  on  the  provisions  within  its  territory  aimed  at 
fulfilling  basic  requirements  for  construction  works  applicable  for  the  intended  use  of  each 
construction product’. 

191  Member  States’  requirements  can  then  only  be  presented  using  the  classes  established;  when  thresholds  are 

established, Member States can set more stringent demands but not lower the threshold. 

99 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 13: How the CPR works 

100 

 
 
 
ANNEX 7: THE EUROPEAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT (ETA) 
SYSTEM (THE EOTA ROUTE) 

The  European  technical  assessment  (ETA)  system  grants  manufacturers  the  possibility  to  CE-
mark their products in cases when these are not covered by a harmonised standard.  

If the product is not covered by a harmonised European standard, the manufacturer can decide to 
request a European Technical Assessment (ETA) from a Technical Assessment Body (TAB) in 
order  to  affix  the  CE  marking  on  the  product.  When  an  ETA  is  requested,  the  TAB  contacted 
first  checks  whether  there  is  already  a  European  Assessment  Document  (EAD)  covering  the 
product. If the product in question is already fully covered by an existing EAD, this will be used 
as  the  basis  for  the  ETA  to  be  issued.  In  cases  where  an  EAD  does  not  already  exist, 
development of the EAD is the responsibility of this TAB and EOTA. The preparation of draft 
EADs and the issuing of ETAs are entrusted to TABs. EOTA coordinates the work and adopts 
the EAD.  

The preparation of draft EADs and the issuing of ETAs are entrusted to TABs. Article 29(1) of 
the  CPR  allows  Member  States  to  designate  TABs  within  their  territory,  according  to  their 
national procedures for the designation of such bodies. However, strict requirements are set out 
in Article 30 and Annex IV (Table 2) of the CPR.  

While it is voluntary for a manufacturer to apply for an ETA, once the ETA has been issued, the 
manufacturer  is  obliged  to  draw  up  a  DoP  and  CE-mark  the  product  concerned.  Indeed,  the 
declaration  of  performance  (DoP)  is  required  for  every  construction  product  covered  by  a 
European  harmonised  standard  or  for  which  an  ETA  has  been  issued.  Also,  each  construction 
product covered by a European harmonised standard, or for which an ETA has been issued, must 
be CE marked.  

The uptake of the ETA option has been significant. As of 31 December 2020, EOTA’s Technical 
Assessment Bodies had issued 8,900 European Technical Assessments (ETAs) for manufacturers 
from 72 countries around the globe192, among them 6,900 since the adoption of the CPR.  

192 EOTA – 2020 Annual Report, https://www.eota.eu/news/eota-2020-annual-report  

101 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 14: Number of ETAs based on ETAGs and on EADs since the adoption of the CPR 

Source: EOTA  

The ETA system, is generally, perceived as a positive aspect of the CPR by the manufacturers 
using  it.  Among  the  feedback  received  from  stakeholders  during  the  fifth  Technical  Platform 
meeting193,  stakeholders  expressed  the  view  that  “in  the  presence  of  gaps  in  the  mainstream 
route, EOTA provides an adequate answer for niche sectors, and particularly for many SMEs for 
which time to market makes the difference” and also, that “in the CPR system, the EOTA route 
provides the only freedom to produce non-standardised products and it has to be maintained as 
such”. 

The uptake of the European assessment document (EAD) option has been growing rapidly, with 
6,240  ETAs  issued,  indicating  that  the  manufacturers  concerned  assess  the  ETA  option  as 
attractive  (i.e.  effective)  even  though  some  stakeholders  think  that  the  process  is  too  slow194. 
Furthermore,  the  feedback  received  during  the  fifth  Technical  Platform195  points  out  the 
necessity  to  improve  this  route  by  strengthening  EOTA  through  stronger  involvement  from 
stakeholders  and  also,  strengthening  EOTA  vis  à  vis  TABs,  through  taking  more  of  a  leading 
role  in  the  development  of  EADs.  It  was  also  noted  that  “the  process  should  be  made  more 
transparent.” 

A potential drawback is that whereas the EAD route was proposed in order to allow the market 
entry  of  innovative  products,  the  vast  majority  of  the  ETAs  do  not  concern  innovative 
products196. 

193 Summary of the fifth Technical Platform, 04.10.2017, The future of EOTA, European Organisation for Technical 

Assessment, https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/26204/attachments/5/translations/  

194 BRE, Ecorys, and Vito (2016), Supporting study for the evaluation of the relevance of EOTA tasks 
195 Summary of the fifth Technical Platform, 04.10.2017, The future of EOTA, European Organisation for Technical 

Assessment, https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/26204/attachments/5/translations/  

196 BRE, Ecorys, and Vito (2016), Supporting study for the evaluation of the relevance of EOTA tasks 

102 

 
 
 
                                                           
In  addition,  about  half  of  all  cited  EADs  have  been  developed  in  four  product  areas  only:  (i) 
fixings;  (ii)  thermal  insulation  products  -  composite  insulating  kits/systems;  (iii)  structural 
metallic products and ancillaries; and (iv) structural timber products/elements and ancillaries197. 
This  may  indicate  a  potential  need  for  a  standardisation  request  rather  than  for  EADs/ETAs. 
Indeed, it may be that the high number of ETAs is a result of the failure of standardisation.  

Lastly, it is worth mentioning that EOTA plays an important role in ensuring the objectives of 
the CPR are realised. Its role changed significantly, with greater emphasis on the coordination of 
the development of test  procedures  and dissemination of best practices  as new key tasks198. In 
this line, for the functioning of TABs and EOTA, finance is a key issue, as these organisations 
bear  most  of  the  cost  of  developing  EADs.  Although,  in  2014,  EOTA  received  360,000  EUR 
from  the  Commission,  it  has  been  noted  by  EOTA  that  the  administrative  burden  on  their 
organisation  has  increased  (allegedly  due  to  delays  caused  by  the  Commission  and  the 
requirement for EOTA to provide translations) and that insufficient funds are available for them 
to carry out their tasks.199 

197 Evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of 

construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC, SWD(2019)1770, p.31, 
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/37827  

198 BRE, Ecorys, and Vito (2016), Supporting study for the evaluation of the relevance of EOTA tasks 
199 RPA(2015) Analysis of the implementation of the Construction Product Regulation, p.30 

103 

 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 8: SIMPLIFICATION PROVISIONS UNDER THE CURRENT 
CPR 

A specific key objective of replacing the CPD with the CPR was to achieve simplification, with a 
particular view to levelling the playing field for SMEs and micro-enterprises. The CPR therefore 
provides derogations from the obligation to draw up a DoP and simplified procedures for placing 
construction products on the market. Specifically: 

Article  5  provides  derogations  from  the  obligation  to  draw  up  a  DoP  when  the  construction 
product is individually manufactured or custom-made in a non-series process in response to 
a specific order and installed by the manufacturer; or is manufactured on the construction site; or 
manufactured in a traditional manner or in a manner appropriate to heritage conservation.  

Article 36 aims to avoid the unnecessary testing of construction products for which performance 
has already been demonstrated. It enables any manufacturer to replace the type-testing or type-
calculation part of the assessment of performance with Appropriate Technical Documentation, if 
the product by nature is deemed to obtain a certain level or class of performance (conventionally 
accepted  performance),  in  case  tests  have  been  carried  out  for  corresponding  products  (shared 
ITT200),  and  for  assembled  systems  of  components,  when  testing  has  been  carried  out  for  the 
same system (cascading ITT).  

Article  37  provides  micro-enterprises  with  the  option  to  use  simplified  procedures  when 
carrying  out  the  AVCP.  It  allows  micro-enterprises  to  use  different  methods  from  those 
contained  in  the  applicable  hEN  for  products  covered  by  Systems  3  and  4,  and  to  resort  to 
System  4  for  products  for  which  System  3  would  be  required.  It  is  up  to  the  manufacturer  to 
demonstrate compliance of the product with the applicable requirements by means of a Specific 
Technical Documentation and to demonstrate equivalence of the procedures used with those laid 
down in the harmonised standard. 

Article  38  allows  manufacturers  to  replace  performance  assessment  with  Specific  Technical 
Documentation for construction products that are individually manufactured or custom-made in a 
non-series process. 

Previous  studies201  have  shown  that  the  uptake  of  these  provisions  is  very  limited,  with  the 
exception of sharing and cascading (Article 36), which is reported to be widely applied, but none 
of these studies were able to quantify the uptake or associated cost savings. 

These studies conclude that the reasons for the very low uptake (except for Article 36) include, 
on the one hand, low awareness of the derogations and simplified procedures and, on the other, a 
lack of clarity and risk of different interpretations by national authorities of the relevant articles 
of the CPR. Interviewees (industry associations, standardisation bodies, NBs, TABs, and Public 
Authorities) pointed to a lack of awareness among enterprises of the simplified procedures and 
several interviewees called for improved guidance and communication about the provisions and 
how  to  use  them.  Moreover,  the  lack  of  clarity  causes  legal  uncertainty.  In  particular,  with 

200 Initial Type Testing. 
201 Economisti Associati, Milieu & CEPS (2016). Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: 

EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation; RPA (2015). Analysis of the implementation of the 
Construction Products Regulation. 

104 

 
 
                                                           
respect  to  the  lack  of  clarity  of  the  provisions,  there  is  unclarity  to  what  actually  constitutes 
“equivalent” documentation. Specific mention was made by several interviewees of the notion of 
“equivalence” of the used procedures to the procedures laid down in the harmonised standards, 
which  is  not  explained.  Thus,  the  conditions  for  practical  implementation  of  the  simplified 
procedures  remain  unclear,  with  small  enterprises  and  other  actors,  including  Member  State 
authorities, struggling to understand the rules202. 

In the 2018 study, criticism about the ambiguity of the derogations was expressed by a majority 
of  the  interviewed  stakeholders  (representatives  of  European  associations  of  construction 
products manufacturers from different sectors)203. 

Lastly,  another  issue  which  came  out  strongly  in  the  2018  study  was  a  questioning  of  the 
justification  of  the  simplified  procedures  aimed  at  micro-enterprises.  The  point  was  repeatedly 
made that if one of the aims of the CPR is to allow for Member States to regulate buildings and 
thereby  ensure  the  protection  of  users  and  consumers,  it  is  difficult  to  justify  relaxing  the 
requirements for technical documentation in order to benefit smaller companies. Related to this, 
several  interviewees  pointed  out  that  the  degree  of  confidence  in  the  product  needs  to  be  the 
same  for  all  products,  regardless  of  whether  these  products  have  been  put  on  the  market  by 
micro-enterprises, SMEs or large companies204. 

202 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute (DTI), 
Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study for the Review of the Construction Products 
Regulation: Evaluation, p. 44. 

203 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute (DTI), 
Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study for the Review of the Construction Products 
Regulation: Evaluation, p. 44. 

204 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute (DTI), 
Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study for the Review of the Construction Products 
Regulation: Evaluation, p. 45. 

105 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 9: THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND CLIMATE IMPACT OF 
CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS 

Aggregates  and  other  materials  such  as  bricks,  gypsum,  lime  and  copper,  buildings  alone  use 
some 1.6 billion tonnes of materials per year. Producing these materials, in turn, results in about 
250  million  tonnes  (Mt)  of  CO2  emissions  annually.  Cement,  steel,  aluminium  and  plastics 
account  for  almost  80%  of  those  emissions205.  Half  of  the  steel  produced  today  is  used  in 
construction and infrastructure. At the same time, the steel industry releases some 230 CO2 Mt 
per  year, while cement emits more than 110 Mt  CO2 per  year206. In a 2018 study, the findings 
show  that  more  material-efficient  products  can  cut  emissions  by  56  Mt  CO2  per  year.207 
Construction  and  demolition  (including  infrastructure)  generate  25–30%  of  total  waste 
volumes208, far more than any other sector. 

The  way  of  using  construction  has  significant  impact  for  reaching  future  climate  targets.  By 
2050, just the cement, steel, aluminium and plastic used for construction will result in emissions 
of 230 Mt CO2 in a baseline scenario where they are made with today’s production processes209. 
Demand-side  measures210  could  reduce  this  by  more  than  half,  or  123  Mt  CO2,  by  the  second 
half of this century.  Of this, 80 Mt CO2 per  year would be available by 2050, making a major 
contribution  to  EU  mid-century  climate  targets211.  A  2018  study  shows  that  material  use  for 
buildings  can  decrease  by  30%  as  they  are  used  more  efficiently212.  As  a  major  contributor  to 
global  greenhouse  gas  (GHG) emissions, buildings and infrastructure must rapidly decarbonise 
before  2050  in  order  to  meet  global  GHG  reduction  goals213.  The  built  environment  is 
responsible  for  generating  approximately  40%  of  energy-related  global  GHG  emissions,  and 
11% is generated by the manufacturing of materials214.  

Concerning the CPR, while many stakeholders have noted that sustainability considerations are 
reinforced in the CPR (in particular through BWR 7), and that this is a progression relative to the 
situation under the CPD, the majority of stakeholders were of the view that the CPR has not yet 
translated  into  an  actual  improvement  in  terms  of  sustainability  because  the  processes  and 
procedures  needed  to  implement  BWR  7  have  not  yet  been  established.215  The  2011  CPR 

205 Material Economics, ‘Circular Economy – A Powerful Force for Climate Mitigation’, 2018, p.142. 

https://materialeconomics.com/publications/the-circular-economy-a-powerful-force-for-climate-mitigation-1. 

206 Material Economics, ‘Circular Economy – A Powerful Force for Climate Mitigation’, 2018, p.20. 
207 Material Economics, ‘Circular Economy – A Powerful Force for Climate Mitigation’, 2018, p.28. 
208 European Commission (2016). Construction and demolition waste, 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/construction_demolition.htm. 

209 Material Economics, ‘Circular Economy – A Powerful Force for Climate Mitigation’, 2018, p.140. 
210 E.g. one demand-side option is to substitute from high-carbon to low-carbon materials. Material Economics, 
‘Circular Economy – A Powerful Force for Climate Mitigation’, 2018, p.154. 
211 Material Economics, ‘Circular Economy – A Powerful Force for Climate Mitigation’, 2018, p.140. 
212 Material Economics, ‘Circular Economy – A Powerful Force for Climate Mitigation’, 2018, p. 43. 
213 IPCC. (2018). Summary for policymakers—Global warming of 1.5°C. 2018. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC), https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/summary-for-policy-makers/. 

214 IEA. (2019). Global status report for buildings and construction 2019. International Energy Agency (IEA). DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-017-0014-9. 

215 RPA(2015) Analysis of the implementation of the Construction Product Regulation, p. 134 

106 

 
 
                                                           
provision  are  not  yet  producing  any  effect  and  have  not  triggered  an  improvement  in  the 
sustainability of the sector.216 

Furthermore, the ambition of strengthening the climate and sustainability aspects in the context 
of the  future  revised  CPR was  highlighted by the  CEAP  and the Renovation Wave objectives. 
Accordingly,  to  contribute  to  reducing  the  overall  climate  and  environmental  impact  of 
construction products is a specific objective of the revision of the CPR.  

216 Economisti Associati, Milieu and CEPS, with contributions from BPIE and DBRI (2016). Supporting study for 
the Fitness Check on the construction sector: EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation, p. 48.  

107 

 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 10: ARTICULATION WITH OTHER EXISTING EU 
LEGISLATION AND OTHER INITIATIVES 

The CPR is not the only European legislation that applies to the construction products. The co-
existence of many pieces of legislation that apply to the construction sector may be the reason 
for potential overlaps in terms of procedures and requirements, notwithstanding the fact that they 
pursue  similar  and  complementary  objectives217.  With  respect  to  external  coherence  with  other 
European  legislations,  there  are  a  number  of  areas  where  the  legislation  overlap  and/or  are  in 
conflict  with  each  other,  including  the  Ecodesign  Directive  (EDD)218  and  several  other 
product/technical directives219. Thus, there are potential overlaps between the CPR and the EDD 
with  respect  to  the  procedures  established  for  construction  products,  in  particular  to  parallel 
routes for CE marking. 

The  supporting  study  for  the  fitness  check220  carried  out  an  analysis  of  the  coherence  between 
selected EU acts applying to the construction sector. More specifically, the study considered the 
legal  overlaps  between  the  CPR  and  the  EDD  (2009)  and  the  Energy  Labelling  Directive221 
(ELD, 2010), which may also apply to construction products and found that: 

 

Inconsistencies  in  definitions,  lack  of  cross-references  between  the  three  pieces  of 
legislation: Negligible cost impact; 

  Overlap of the CPR and the (current) EDD/ELD: 

o  Limited costs for the whole sector, but increasing if and when the scope of the EDD 

is extended to other construction products; 

o  High costs for manufacturers of specific products covered by both hEN and the EDD. 

The  costs  of  these  legal  overlaps  could  not  be  quantified  but  may  be  significant  for 
manufacturers of those specific products. 

Furthermore,  the  2016  study222  found  that  “existing  overlaps  between  the  EDD  and  CPR  for 
specific product categories currently relate to five product categories, namely solid fuel boilers, 
(solid  fuel)  local  space  heaters  and  space/water  heaters,  as  regulated  by  recently  adopted 
Commission  Regulations  (EU)  2015/1185223,  2015/1188224,  2015/1189225,  813/2013226,  and 

217 Centre for Industrial Studies (2020). EADs and ETAs: Added value to the construction sector, p. 56. 
218 Directive 2009/125/EC. 
219 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute (DTI), 
Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study for the Review of the Construction Products 
Regulation: Evaluation, p.115. 

220 Economisti Associati, Milieu & CEPS (2016). Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: 

EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation. 

221 Directive 2010/30/EU. 
222 Economisti Associati, Milieu & CEPS (2016). Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: 

EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation. 

223 Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1185 of 24 April 2015 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European 

Parliament and of the Council with regard to Ecodesign requirements for solid fuel local space heaters, 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2015.193.01.0001.01.ENG.  

108 

 
 
                                                           
814/2013227. Hence, potential impacts are very limited when compared to the whole market for 
construction products”. 

The study concluded that the objectives of the CPR, the ELD and the EDD are clearly distinct 
and are mostly considered complementary and coherent. 

Also,  the  same  study228  considered  the  relationship  between  the  CPR  and  the  Energy 
Performance  of  Buildings  Directive229  (EPBD,  2010),  noting  that  there  is  a  link  between  the 
EPBD and the CPR, as the latter establishes harmonised rules for the marketing of construction 
products,  hereby  allowing  the  comparison  of  the  energy-related  performance  of  products  from 
different  manufacturers.  As  the  EPBD  takes  a  system  approach  while  the  CPR  acts  at  product 
level, it was concluded that the two pieces of legislation do not overlap and that the adoption of a 
new standard on sustainability or energy economy under the CPR could contribute to achieving 
the objectives of the EPBD. There is thus an opportunity to achieve synergies between the CPR 
and the EPBD through a coordinated approach. 

Besides, there is a conflict between the CPR and the Standardisation Regulation since the use 
of  harmonised  standards  is  mandatory  under  the  CPR  but  voluntary  under  the  Standardisation 
Regulation230.  A  key  problem  relates  to  the  CPR  adding  additional  regulatory  complexity  (and 
time) to the standardisation process compared to voluntary standards.  

Furthermore,  the  CPR  does  not  align  with  other  Internal  Market  (New  Approach231) 
directives, since the basic function and meaning of the CE marking is different. 

224 Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1188 of 28 April 2015 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European 

Parliament and of the Council with regard to Ecodesign requirements for local space heaters, https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2015.193.01.0076.01.ENG.  

225 Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1189 of 28 April 2015 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European 

Parliament and of the Council with regard to Ecodesign requirements for solid fuel boilers, https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2015.193.01.0100.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2015:193:TOC.  

226 Commission Regulation (EU) No 813/2013 of 2 August 2013 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council with regard to Ecodesign requirements for space heaters and 
combination heaters, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R0813.  
227 Commission Regulation (EU) No 814/2013 of 2 August 2013 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the 

European Parliament and of the Council with regard to Ecodesign requirements for water heaters and hot water 
storage tanks, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R0814.  

228 Economisti Associati, Milieu & CEPS (2016). Supporting study for the Fitness Check on the construction sector: 

EU internal market and energy efficiency legislation. 

229 Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance 

of buildings. 

230 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute (DTI), 
Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study for the Review of the Construction Products 
Regulation: Evaluation, p.116. 

231 Under the CPR, the basic function and meaning of the CE marking is different from those under most internal 

market (new approach) directives, focusing on assessment of performance instead of product conformity. This is 
due to the combination of two important specific factors: the nature of such intermediate products and the fact 
that construction works are a competence of the Member States. As noted by the Supporting study for the fitness 
check of the construction sector, “While a New Approach Directive on e.g. the safety of certain products would 
state the minimum safety level that a manufacturer needs to guarantee to place a product on the Single Market, 
the CPR ‘only’ sets a common methodology for measuring the performance of construction products over their 
essential characteristics”. 

109 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                           
Furthermore, interlinks between the revised CPR and upcoming legislation exist, particularly the 
Sustainable  Products  Initiative.  Therefore,  there  is  a  need  to  define  interfaces  between 
horizontal  legislation,  namely  the  SPI,  and  vertical  legislation,  in  view  of  avoiding  negative 
interferences and duplications. The links with the SPI are presented and analysed in Annex 11. 

In  the  2018  supporting  study232,  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  provide  quite  a  large 
number  of  examples  of  specific  pieces  of  legislation  that  overlap  or  contradict  the  CPR.  The 
pieces of legislation that were mentioned multiple times were the following: public procurement 
rules at  national  and/or local  level  as  well as EU “green public procurement” rules, Ecodesign 
Directive, Drinking Water Directive, REACH,  Waste Framework Directive, Marine Equipment 
Directive, Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation, Energy Performance of Buildings 
Directive, Product Liability Directive, Machinery Directive. 

Moreover,  with  respect  to  EADs,  in  a  survey233  conducted  in  2020,  when  analysing 
manufacturers’  responses  by  the  product  areas  they  deal  with,  for  the  vast  majority  of  product 
areas,  the  EADs  are  neither  overlapping  nor  conflicting  with  EU  legislation  other  than  the 
CPR234.  Only  in  a  few  cases,  manufacturers  indicated  a  problem  of  overlapping,  but  not 
conflicting EU legislation. 

In this view, it is important to note that, with respect to the policy options outlined in this Impact 
Assessment;  Options  B  to  D  would  include  a  clarification  of  the  relationship  of  the  CPR  with 
current  rules  and  introduce  clear  collision  rules  for  potential  future  overlap.  Coherence  with 
existing  EU  legislation  would  be  ensured  by  making  explicit  the  CPR’s  relationship  to 
overlapping  rules  (e.g.  REACH  or  the  Waste  Framework  Directive).  Certain  construction 
products would be excluded to prevent overlap with other EU legislation (e.g. in relation to the 
Drinking Water Directive). 

The  Climate  Law  requires  that  any  new  legislative  proposal  is  aligned  with  the  objective  of 
ensuring the 2050 climate neutrality objective,  in a socially fair and cost-efficient manner. The 
Commission  has  to  assess  that  the  proposal  ensures  climate  adaptation.235  While  the  climate 
resilience  of  buildings  is  largely  dependent  on  local  conditions  and  is  regulated  in  national, 
regional  or  local  building  codes,  under  the  revised  CPR  manufacturers  could  provide  product 
information allowing construction works to be better adapted to future climate conditions. 

Finally, some of the legislation overlapping with the CPR also entails potential for synergies, if 
sufficient coordination is applied, including that the procedures and approaches involved could 
remain  sufficiently  similar.  The  potential  for  synergies  was  already  mentioned  above  for  the 
EPBD, but could also apply to other pieces of legislation such as the EDD and the ELD. 

In  sum,  several  pieces  of  European  legislation  apply  to  construction  products,  and  this  could 
pose  overlap  and  conflict  with  the  CPR.  Actual  and  potential  overlaps  exist  with  Ecodesign 
Directive and may also materialise for Energy Labelling Directive and its future delegated acts. 

232 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute (DTI), 
Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study for the Review of the Construction Products 
Regulation: Impact Assessment, Annex VIII, pp.162-163. 

233 Centre for Industrial Studies (2020). EADs and ETAs: Added value to the construction sector. 2020-csil-eota-

report-0109.pdf. 

234 Centre for Industrial Studies (2020). EADs and ETAs: Added value to the construction sector, p. 58.  
235 Regulation (EU) 2021/1119, Article 6(4). 

110 

 
 
                                                           
Such  overlaps  are  expected  to  become  more  and  more  frequent  but  also  entail  potential  for 
synergies through coordination. Indisputably, all economic actors would benefit from increasing 
the cost-effectiveness through reduction of overlaps, hence one of the goals of the CPR revision.  

111 

 
 
 
ANNEX 11: INTERACTION BETWEEN THE FUTURE CPR AND THE 
SPI 

The  actions  announced  in  in  the  CEAP  include  ‘addressing  the  sustainability  performance  of 
construction  products  in  the  context  of  the  revision  of  the  Construction  Product  Regulation 
(CPR),  including  the  possible  introduction  of  recycled  content  requirements  for  certain 
construction products, taking into account their safety and functionality.’ At the same time, with 
regard  to  the  Sustainable  Products  Initiative  (SPI),  the  CEAP  announced  that  ‘the  core  of  this 
legislative  initiative  will  be  to  widen  the  Ecodesign  Directive  (EDD)  beyond  energy-related 
products  so  as  to  make  the  Ecodesign  framework  applicable  to  the  broadest  possible  range  of 
products and make it deliver on circularity.’  

The SPI will aim to improve products’ sustainability, to give access to sustainability information 
along the supply chain and to incentivise more sustainable products and business models – of all 
products.  In  terms  of  the  prioritisation,  the  product  categories  such  as  energy  related  products 
(including  means  of  transport),  textiles,  furniture,  high  impact  intermediary  products  and 
chemicals  would  be  expected  to  be  tackled  first.  Therefore,  the  SPI  will  intend  to  broaden  the 
current  empowerments  of  the  Ecodesign  framework  to  set  new  kinds  of  requirements  (e.g.  on 
minimum  recycled  content,  on  the  declaration  of  the  environmental  footprint,  on  the 
remanufacturing of components or on due diligence requirements in relation to specific social or 
human rights risks along the value chain of products) in relation to those products. 

Hence, the question arises how the CPR and the SPI should articulate.  

Only  when  overcoming  the  standardisation  deadlock,  option  A  could  partially  address  climate 
and environmental sustainability already foreseen under the current CPR. But it would not reach 
the same ambition as the SPI and would not be able to mirror the same level of empowerments. 
Therefore,  under  option  A  as  well  as  under  option  E  the  SPI  would  have  to  apply  to  and  to 
prioritise  construction  products  to  address  their  sustainability.  However,  it  would  take  a  long 
time  for  the  SPI  to  cover  a  considerable  number  of  construction  products  owing  to  their 
diversity.  Under  A,  this  would  lead  to  overlapping  requirements,  as  construction  product  be 
covered by two legislation (SPI and CPR) with high risks of unjustified administrative burdens, 
inconsistency and suboptimal results in terms of trade-off between environmental performances 
and CPR ‘traditional’ ones (e.g. safety). In contrast, Option E would avoid this problem, as there 
would  be  no  CPR  anymore.  However,  this  would  be  from  the  CPR  point  of  view  the  least 
optimal option.   

Under option B, which foresees a harmonised framework to assess, communicate and access of 
the  environmental  performances  of  construction  products  and  the  promotion  of  the  reuse  of 
construction  products,  most  of  the  SPI’s  aims  could  be  addressed  in  the  CPR  framework. 
However, only with option D, which additionally foresees the possibility to set inherent product 
requirements  (e.g.  durability,  reparability,  availability  of  spare  parts)  as  is  expected  under  the 
expected  requirements  of  the  SPI,  the  SPI’s  aims  could  be  fully  addressed  within  the  CPR 
framework. For option B these product requirements would have to developed under the SPI.  

Sub-option  C1  would  relate  to  the  SPI  similar  as  option  B  but  even  more  environmental 
requirements would need to be dealt under the SPI considering the refocus of the CPR only on 
test  methods  (i.e.  no  classes  no  thresholds).  However,  under  sub-options  C2  and  C3  a 
considerable  number  of  construction  products  would  not  or  only  partially  be  regulated  by  the 

112 

 
 
CPR. Therefore, the SPI’s aims would have to be addressed by the SPI directly, the CPR would 
cover less products than today, national regulations would cover more with some overlap under 
option C3 and mutual recognition would be relevant for more products. The result would be   a 
complex regulatory structure for construction products.  

Thus,  only  option  D  of  the  CPR  revision,  as  the  preferred  option,  can  provide  a  consistent 
framework for construction products and align with the SPI’s aims. In this case the CPR would 
include  empowerments  to  address  the  climate  and  environmental  sustainability  aspects  of 
construction  products.  Under  all  other  options  the  SPI  would  have  to  prioritise  construction 
products.  

1. Four fundamental principles of the interaction between the preferred option and the SPI 

Four fundamental principles guided the development of a solution on how the two instruments 
shall articulate: 

o  The situation that products are assessed both under the SPI and the CPR should be avoided 

to the extent possible, not least to avoid double burden.  

o  Further,  the  two  legal  frameworks  need  to  be  complementary,  as  e.g.  the  SPI  will  cover 
intermediate products (such as steel, glass or chemicals) that are used in manufacturing of 
construction products; 

o  Construction  products  shall  be  subject  to  the  same  level  of  sustainability  requirements  as 
the  other  products  covered  by  the  SPI.  This  principle  will  have  many  concrete  practical 
consequences, see e.g. below for the empowerments needed to enable measures similar to 
and as stringent as those adopted under the SPI.  

o  The  CPR  system  has  the  longstanding  practice  to  balance  intended  requirements  on 
construction  products  with  construction  work  aspects.  The  SPI  intends  to  set  specific 
minimum  sustainability  requirements  and  information  requirements  for  products,  taking 
into account safety aspects where relevant. In so far as either instrument covers construction 
products,  it  should  be  noted  that  environmental  and  safety  aspects  of  construction  works 
will remain the competency of Member States and therefore will not be regulated at the EU 
level by any of these pieces of legislation. Environmental and safety aspects of construction 
works should nevertheless be taken into account where relevant when setting requirements 
on  products  to  supporting  Member  States’  regulatory  needs.  The  CPR  system  is  a  priori 
better suited to  do so  for construction products,  i.e. to  identify  and  arbiter in  a fine-tuned 
way the possible trade-offs between different safety and environmental aspects236.  

236 E.g. it can foresee, by relating to its load bearing performance classes, low minimum recycling quota for concrete 
intended to be used for high-rises and high minimum recycling quota for the big majority of concrete intended to 
be used for other purposes, thus avoiding that for safety reasons only a low minimum recycling quota can be 
established for all concrete. 

113 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
2. The architecture envisaged 

In view of these principles, the following architecture is envisaged: 

o  For construction products, the CEAP and SPI goals shall be mainly realised by means of the 

CPR. 

o  The CPR shall be able to mirror all obligations and requirements able to be set through the 
SPI  that  are  relevant  for  construction  products.  Hence,  it  must  have  extensive 
empowerments, both for setting environmental product requirements as foreseen in relevant 
policy  option  for  the  revision  of  the  CPR  and  for  information  requirements  on 
environmental performance.  

o  It  shall  aim  at  a  high  level  of  climate  and  environmental  sustainability  at  product  level 

without endangering safety or sustainability of the construction work. 

o  The  CPR  method  for  the  assessment  and  communication  of  environmental  performances 
shall  to  the  extent  possible  follow  the  corresponding  method  used  by  the  SPI,  as  many 
suppliers provide components or materials both to the construction products industry and to 
other industries. 

o  To  be  able  to  close  possible  gaps  in  regulation  between  CPR  and  SPI,  the  SPI  should  be 

empowered to step in.  

The architecture  can be  resumed as follows:  Construction product  will be formally  covered by 
the SPI. However,  the  environmental requirements  for  construction products,  will be  regulated 
via  the  CPR  and  not  via  Commission  acts  based  on  the  SPI.  The  SPI  can  step  in  case  of 
regulatory gaps. 

3. Technical fine-tuning 

A few elements of fine-tuning will be needed: 

o  It  should  be  determined  precisely  under  which  conditions  the  SPI  can  intervene  where 
requirements established within the CPR system fall without justification below the level of 
stringency  needed  to  realise  the  goals  set  for  SPI,  or  where  the  objectives  and  schedule 
pursued  by  CPR  on  sustainability  aspects  are  not  met.  A  set  of  criteria  and  a  process  for 
joint  assessment  could  be  incorporated  into  the  SPI  or  both  the  SPI  and  the  CPR  to 
determine precisely under which conditions the CPR has realised in a satisfactory way the 
goals  set  for  the  SPI.  In  case  of  conflicting  views  of  both  sides,  the  final  decision  on 
whether the CPR has realised the SPI goals in a satisfactory way is incumbent on the SPI 
(administrative) system. 

o  The SPI can cover intermediate products (steel, glass etc.) regardless of what happens under 

CPR. The only exception is cement that has no other use than construction. 

114 

 
 
 
o  For most of the products covered by the current EDD237, they would be primarily regulated 
by the SPI in continuation of the EDD, while respecting/taking into account safety aspects. 
The  CPR  would  only  regulate  these  products  in  a  complementary  way  where  there  is  a 
noteworthy need to do so, also taking account of other legislation on products such as on 
gas appliances, low voltage, and machinery. The rationale for this particular rule is that the 
current eco-design aspects are the dominant aspect to be regulated for these products whilst 
this will not change with the extension of the current EDD to the future SPI.  

As the borderline between these products and ordinary construction products might not be 
always  clear,  both  legal  instruments  shall  obtain  the  empowerment  to  adopt  Commission 
acts  determining  whether  a  given  product  falls  under  one  instrument  or  the  other.  The 
committees  involved  in  the  adoption  of  those  acts  under  CPR  and  SPI  shall  deliberate 
jointly238. 

o  Potential  loopholes  or  overlaps  (e.g.  products  or  components  with  different  possible  uses) 
will  be  addressed  by  coordination  between  the  two  (administrative)  systems.  There  are 
manifold situations that could in theory emerge and that cannot be anticipated other than by 
establishing comprehensive empowerments in both legal instruments.  

4. Example: Bricks  

Modern fired clay bricks are formed and then burned in a kiln to make them durable. Normally, 
bricks contain the following ingredients:  

-  Silica (sand) – 50% to 60% by weight 

-  Alumina (clay) – 20% to 30% by weight 

-  Lime – 2 to 5% by weight 

- 

Iron oxide – ≤ 7% by weight 

-  Magnesia – less than 1% by weight239 

Additives  can  be  added  in  order  to  improve  certain  behaviours  of  the  product  (e.g.  calcium 
carbonate). 

Under the current CPR, the producer would e.g. declare the following characteristics for a certain 
brick (according to the hEN EN771-1:2011+A1:2015): 

237 This concerns in particular products and systems in the field of heating, ventilation, cooling and lighting. A 

detailed analysis between the involved services currently taking place might come to the result that in particular 
certain products formally falling under the current Eco-Design Directive, but for which no effective requirements 
have been set up, namely due to technical difficulties to integrate construction works’ aspects, might better go 
into the basket of the CPR. 

238 A merger of the two committees is unlikely to be legally possible. Conflicting decisions can, however, be 

avoided as the Commission has to adopt the acts, not the committees. The Committees would thus informally 
deliberate together, but give their opinion formally separately. The Commission will have to adopt the act(s) and 
arbiter in case of diverging opinions. 

239 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brick#cite_note-punmia-17 

115 

 
 
 
                                                           
Table 12: Example for a DoP of a certain brick 

Source: Ketley Brick 

Under the new CPR (preferred option, after the citation of the updated standard), the producer 
could  inform  about  the  following  additional  characteristics  as  in  Table  12  below.  Blue 
highlighted are the new elements introduced in the revised CPR. Most  but not all of them also 
address the needs of the SPI (marked with YES in the fourth column).  

The  manufacturer  will  have  to  comply  with  all  future  product  requirements.  Regarding  the 
essential characteristics, the revised CPR will foresee that at least one of these has to be declared. 
Additionally,  the  CPR  could  make  the  declaration  of  certain  environmental  related  indicators 
mandatory (probably “Climate change – total a Global Warming Potential total (GWP-total)”). 
By means of Commission Acts, the declaration of further indicators could be made mandatory.  

The  Member  States,  which  are  responsible  for  the  safety  of  construction  works,  can  require 
certain performances of essential requirements of the product for certain uses of it.  

116 

 
 
 
 
Table 13: Example for a possible future DoP of a certain brick240 

Essential characteristics 

Dimensional tolerances 

Configuration 
Compressive strength 
Dimensional stability 
Bond strength , flexural bond strength 

Active soluble salts content 
Reaction to fire 
Water absorption 
Water Vapour permeability 
Dangerous substances 
Direct airborne sound insulation 

Thermal resistance 
Durability against freeze thaw 

Climate change – total a Global Warming 
Potential total (GWP-total) 

Climate change - fossil Global Warming 
Potential fossil fuels (GWP-fossil) 
Climate change - biogenic Global 
Warming Potential biogenic (GWP-
biogenic) 
Climate change - land use and land use 
change b Global Warming Potential land 
use and land use change (GWP-luluc) 
Depletion of abiotic resources - minerals 
and metals c d Abiotic depletion potential 
for non-fossil resources 
(ADPminerals&metals) kg Sb e 
Depletion of abiotic resources - fossil 
fuels c Abiotic depletion for fossil 
resources potential (ADP-fossil)  
Water (user) deprivation potential, 
deprivation-weighted water consumption 
(WDP) 

Related to 
SPI 
targets? 

hTS 

EN 771-1: 20XX 

NO 

Performance 
Tolerance class T2 
Range Class R1 
Solid Unit Figure 3a 
In Excess of 125 N/mm2 
NPD 
0.15 N/mm2 
Class S2 
Class A1 
<4.5% 
NPD 
NPD 
Net dry density 2200 
kg/m3 
NPD 
F2 

EN 771-1: 20XX 
EN 771-1: 20XX 
EN 771-1: 20XX 
EN 771-1: 20XX 
EN 771-1: 20XX 
EN 771-1: 20XX 
EN 771-1: 20XX 
EN 771-1: 20XX 
EN 771-1: 20XX 

EN 771-1: 20XX 

EN 771-1: 20XX 
EN 771-1: 20XX 

XXXXX kg CO2 eq 

EN 15804: 20XX 

XXXXX kg CO2 eq 

EN 15804: 20XX 

XXXXX kg CO2 eq 

EN 15804: 20XX 

NO 
NO 
NO 
NO 
NO 
NO 
NO 
NO 
potentially 

NO 

NO 
NO 

YES 

YES 

YES 

XXXXX kg CO2 eq 

EN 15804: 20XX 

YES 

NPD 

EN 15804: 20XX 

YES 

XXXXX MJ, net calorific 
value 

EN 15804: 20XX 

YES 

XXXXX m3 world eq. 
deprived 

EN 15804: 20XX 

YES 

240 Blue highlighted are the new elements introduced in the revised CPR. Most of them also address the needs of 
the SPI. 

117 

 
 
                                                           
REQUIREMENTS ENSURING THE APPROPRIATE FUNCTIONING AND PERFORMANCE 

Dimensions for units intended to be used in elements subject to structural  
requirements (coming from old E.R.) 
The content in calcium carbonate is within 3% 
The colour is within the range foreseen at the end of the firing process. 
The bricks are to be installed with the following mortar types: type XXX, type YYY (compatible 
with the full de-installation from the wall to foster the reuse and the re-manufacturing of the 
bricks.) 
INHERENT PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS 

The bricks are transported in packaging of at most 1.000 kg in weight 

The GWP-Total for a cubic metre of bricks is at most 50 kg CO2 eq. 

The calcium carbonate content derives only from a recovery process of the CO2 emitted in 
the production of the bricks (in particular in the grinding and firing process). 

The thermal energy required for the drying process of clay bricks is ensured only by the heat 
recovery of the firing process. 

The minimum durability of the product performances is 100 years 

The minimum recycled quota of clay is 50% 

The packaging of bricks with paper-derived materials. 

INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS 

The packaging informs which type of mortars can be used to install the bricks (compatible 
with the full de-installation from the wall to foster the reuse and the re-manufacturing of the 
bricks.) 
The bricks shall display on the largest surfaces the type of mortars that can be used; 

The packaging shall inform on how the products have to be stocked  

Related to 
SPI 
targets? 

NO 

NO 
NO 

YES 

Related to 
SPI 
targets? 

NO 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

Related to 
SPI 
targets? 

YES 

YES 

YES 

Using the digital product passport (DPP) the producer of the bricks would need to receive data 
from its raw material supplier concerning e.g.  Global Warming Potential total ideally provided 
under  the  SPI.  The  producer  would  provide  all  data  regarding  its  bricks  via  the  DPP  to  its 
customers. This information could then be inserted in the digital building passport of a building 
where the bricks are installed.  

118 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 12: REFINED INDICATIVE OPTIONS PAPER, APRIL 2020 

REFINED INDICATIVE OPTIONS FOR THE REVIEW OF THE  
CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS REGULATION, VERSION 2 - 08.04.2020 

The  purpose  of  this  document  is  to  present  the  options  regarding  the  potential  revision  of  the 
Construction Product Regulation (CPR). At the same time, this document is deemed to become 
the basis for discussion  with  all interested parties in  the course of 2020  and to  inform  the two 
legislators on the many choices and sub-choices to be made.  

To reach these  goals,  the options  need to  be concrete, whilst  remaining  as open as possible as 
neither the Commission nor the legislators have expressed any views with regard to the elements 
contained in these options.  

Therefore, this document follows two approaches: 

It describes different ways how the various elements of the options could materialise; 

 
  Where the presentation of different ways of materialisation becomes too complex, the most 
far-reaching materialisation has been presented. This is meant to open the space between the 
current state and the far-reaching, radical way of materialisation, whilst not favouring any of 
these ways. 

Accordingly, this text is not deemed to express any views in terms of how the future CPR should 
look like, but rather to trigger an open debate. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Table of contents: 

Overview of the options ................................................................... 2 
Detailed presentation of the options ................................................ 4 
Option A – Baseline scenario .......................................................... 4 
Option B – Repairing the CPR ........................................................ 6 
Option C – Focusing the CPR ........................................................ 20 
Option D – Enhancing the CPR ..................................................... 23 
Option E – Repealing the CPR ...................................................... 27 
Annex I – Harmonising decision-making under Option B ............ 28 
Annex II – Enforcement measures under Option B ....................... 31 
Annex III – HTSs under Options A and B ..................................... 34 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
OVERVIEW OF THE INDICATIVE REFINED OPTIONS 

The  following  graph  presents  the  reformulated  options  and  the  logical  relationship  between 
them. A detailed description of each option is provided in the next section.  

1 “NLF“ stands for „New Legislative Framework“ as laid down in Decision 768/2008/EC. The predecessor to the NLF is the so-

called “New Approach”. 

2 “Technical specifications” or “Common technical specifications” are technical provisions adopted by the European Commission 

as Delegated or Implementing Acts. This approach is sometimes also called “Old Approach”. 

3 These would contain concretions of the Essential Product Requirements, as foreseen in the New Legislative Framework laid 

down in Decision 768/2008/EC. 

There is a range of links between the different options: 

  “Repairing  the  CPR”  (Option  B)  is  a  stand-alone  option  especially  based  on  the  issues 

highlighted in the implementation report. 

  However, it would be absurd to be in favour of focusing (Option C) or enhancing the CPR 
(Option  D)  without  at  the  same  time  trying  to  solve  the  issues  identified  in  the 
implementation  report  (i.e.  “Repairing  the  CPR”).  This  aspect  has  been  reflected  in  the 
decision tree graph above. 

  A  combination  of  focusing  (Option  C)  and  enhancing  (Option  D)  is  only  possible  for 
Element  2  of  Option  C  (limiting  scope  to  core  areas),  which  could  also  be  combined  with 
both Options D1 (NLF) or D2 (technical specifications approach).  

 

It  would  not  make  sense  to  combine  Element  1  of  Option  C  (limiting  scope  to  assessment 
methods”)  with  the  enhancement  by  product  requirements  of  Options  D1  or  D2,  as  the 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
enhancement  of  product  requirements  is  only  possible  where  technical  specifications  are 
complete. 

  Likewise, there is a logical contradiction between the goal of Options D1 and D2 to establish 
mandatory  product  requirements  and  making  the  common  technical  language  optional  for 
manufacturers (Element 3 of Option C) 

121 

 
 
 
 
DETAILED PRESENTATION OF THE INDICATIVE REFINED OPTIONS 

OPTION A - BASELINE SCENARIO  

No  legislative  change,  but  improving  implementation  through  guidance  /  soft  law  by  the 
European Commission. 

The Commission would pursue its efforts at implementation level to: 

  Streamline the standardisation work, to  the (limited) extent that it is  in  the hands of the 

European Commission241, e.g.:  
  following initiatives like the Joint Initiative for Standardisation;  
  inviting CEN to ensure clarity of the scope of harmonised standards;  
  inviting  CEN  to  front-load242  acceptability  criteria  to  be  applied  by  the  European 

Commission;  

  inviting CEN to ensure internal quality control;  
  inviting CEN to speed up the revision of CPD-era standards with high market relevance 

or relevance for the safety of citizens; 

  inviting  CEN  to  ensure  fair  and  equitable  representation  of  various  categories  of 

stakeholders;  

  ensuring that the rules in Articles 3(3) and 27 CPR on classes or thresholds are used and 

respected; 

  issuing,  where  needed  and  promising,  new  standardisation  requests  which  respond  to 

current legal requirements, Member States’ regulatory needs and market needs. 

  Go  against  national  marks,  ex  ante  processes  and  verifications,  by  using  informal 
dialogue  and  the  formal  tools  provided  by  primary  or  secondary  EU  law  (pending  Court 
judgement on German case T-229/17), namely by  infringement procedures and support for 
economic operators acting against infringements at national courts; 

  Enhance  market  surveillance  and  enforcement  (e.g.  by  recommending  highly  effective 
default/standard market surveillance controls243), and this clearly in the context of Regulation 
(EU) 2019/1020 on market surveillance244; 

  Improve  the  functioning  of  EOTA  and  Technical  Assessment  Bodies,  Notified  Bodies, 
national authorities, PCPCs245, to the extent that the functioning can be influenced by the 
European Commission;  

  Increase,  to  the  limited  extent  possible  under  the  current  CPR,  the  legal  sustainability  of 
the EAD route to CE marking, namely by formal Commission Decisions on the citation of 
EADs in the Official Journal; 

  Promote the uptake of simplification provisions by clarification / guidance / information, 

to the extent possible246 (incl. Art. 5, 9(2), 37, and 38 CPR); 

241 The elements listed below have indeed already been pursued by the European Commission services, though with 

limited success. 

242  This  would  mean  that  the  acceptability  criteria  become  quality  goals  for  the  development  of  the  respective 

standards during the entire process of development. 

243 E.g., it is very efficient to control formal compliance because in most of the cases of formal non-compliance, the 
manufacturers  are  also  non-compliant  for  requirements  of  substance,  e.g.  regarding  performance.  Hence,  a 
program could be set-up to list elements of formal non-compliance which can be easily verified. 

244 OJ L 169, 25.6.2019, p. 1–44. 
245 Product Contact Points for Construction. 

122 

 
 
                                                           
  Promote the understanding of the CPR in general and in particular with regard to the CE 
marking  and  the  Declaration  of  Performance,  and  this  with  special  focus  on  SME  and 
microenterprises  and  including  the  “Your-Europe-Portal”  and  possibly  the  “Single  Digital 
Gateway”; 

  Apply  the  existing  empowerments  for  delegated  and  implementing  acts,  as  well  as  the 
formal  objections  procedure,  also  to  complement,  correct,  overrule  or  delist  deficient 
standards.  The  empowerments  to  correct  or  overrule  deficient  standards  are  uncertain  and 
content-wise limited. Thus only a small part of the deficiencies of harmonised standards can, 
if any at all, be remedied. 

246 The extent is limited because the European Commission cannot disseminate an authoritative interpretation where 
different interpretations are equally possible due to an unclear wording of the CPR. Only the European Court of 
Justice can provide for authoritative interpretations in such situations. 

123 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                           
OPTION B – REPAIRING THE CPR 

This  option  would  not  so  much  invest  into  the  implementation  of  the  current  CPR,  but 
focus  on  the  repair  of  the  CPR  by  its  revision.  Option  B  might  include  legislative 
amendments  to  realise  the  following  aims  (the  envisaged  amendments  are  outlined 
below)247: 

1)  Scope and objectives 
  Clarifying and streamlining the scope of the CPR  
  Ensuring coherence with other EU legislation 
  Addressing environmental aspects of construction products (BWR7) 
  Promoting circularity of construction products  

2)  Harmonisation 
  Empowering the Commission to act against partial system failures  
  Ensuring the comprehensiveness of the CPR’s Common Technical Language 
  Allowing manufacturers to obtain preliminary CE marking 
  Reducing the administrative burden for manufacturers 
  Improving access to Harmonised Technical Specifications  

3)  Improving effectiveness  
  Improving the use of the CPR’s non-conformity procedures 
  Enhancing market surveillance 
  Improving the efficacy of Notified Bodies 
  Supplementing Notified Bodies with special bodies in charge of BWR7 
  Evaluating the role of PCPCs  
  Better covering information needs 
  Allowing for true claims or no claims 
  Better coverage of Member States’ needs by determining the “harmonised zone” 
  Improving legal certainty  

4)  Transition 

  Ensuring a smooth phasing in of the revised CPR 

1) Scope and objectives 
Clarifying and streamlining the scope of the CPR  

The  future  CPR  would  dispel  confusion  by  specifying  application  to  certain  products  or 
product categories, as well as prevent future confusion by anticipating future developments 
and  allowing  the  Commission  to  modify  the  CPR’s  scope  in  light  of  such  developments. 
This  would  include  the  explicit  exclusion  of  certain  product  categories,  in  particular  to 
avoid overlap with other EU legislation (e.g. Drinking Water Directive). 

247 It follows from the preliminary remarks of this document that, while any of the elements might find its way into 

the final revised CPR, it is extremely unlikely that all the elements will be taken up by the legislator. 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
In order to dispel confusion about the scope of the regulation as much as possible, a revised CPR 
would  make  explicit  its  application  to  possibly  confusing  products  or  product  categories.  It 
would  exclude  some  products  for  which  there  are  little  regulatory  needs  from  Member  States, 
little intra-EU trade and little safety or environmental aspects to be covered as well as explicitly 
include others for which currently there is uncertainty (e.g. construction products manufactured 
for  immediate  incorporation  by  their  manufacturer  in  construction  works248).  In  addition,  a 
revised  CPR  would  provide  clearer  definitions  of  modules,  kits  and  assemblies  and  specify  in 
what circumstances they can be considered construction products, as well as stipulate under what 
circumstances  used  construction  products  newly  made  available  on  the  market  come  under  its 
scope.  

To  prevent  future  confusion  about  the  CPR’s  scope,  a  revision  would  also  anticipate  new 
business models. In anticipation of the increased use of 3Dprinting, a revised CPR would bring 
the  placing  on  the  market  materials  and  datasets  used  for  the  decentralised  3Dprinting  of 
construction  products  by  other  operators  than  those  responsible  for  the  materials  and  datasets 
within  its  scope249.  It  would  assign  to  operators  of  3Dprintshops  the  responsibilities  of 
distributors under the current CPR. In addition, it would bring prefabricated one-family-houses 
of less than 150 m2 exterior ground surface with one floor or of less than 80 m2 with two floors 
within  its  scope  (probably  without  the  fundament,  the  roof  coverage  and  façade  coverage  to 
permit adaptation to Member States’ construction codes). This could be reached by letting them 
become a construction product altogether or by qualifying them as a kit. 

In terms of clarification, lastly, a revised CPR would allow the Commission to modify the CPR’s 
scope,  by  Delegated  Act,  to  exclude  specific  products  or  to  close  regulatory  loopholes,  in 
particular  where  this  is  necessary  to  clarify  the  CPR’s  application  to  emerging  new  business 
models. The control mechanisms foreseen for the adoption of Delegated Acts would guarantee 
the involvement of Member States and the European Parliament. 

Overall,  the  scope  of  the  future  CPR  would  remain  rather  broad.  However,  as  today,  the 
harmonised sphere (i.e. the sphere covered by technical specifications) will be not as large as the 
scope of the CPR. The broad scope of the CPR thus has the function to give room for technical 
specifications to be developed in accordance with the needs of today and tomorrow. 

Ensuring coherence with other EU legislation 
In order to ensure coherence with other EU legislation, a revision of the CPR would clarify 
its  relationship  with  current  rules  as  well  as  introduce  clear  collision  rules  for  potential 
future overlap. 
Coherence  with  existing  EU  legislation  would  be  ensured  by  making  explicit  the  CPR’s 
relationship  to  overlapping  rules  (e.g.  REACH250  or  the  Waste  Framework  Directive251). 
Additionally, a revised CPR would exclude certain construction products to prevent overlap (e.g. 

248  Regarding  this  issue:  see  also  the  possibility  for  Member  States  to  exempt  certain  economic  operators  on  a 

national basis. 

249 Regarding the regulatory issues raised by decentralised 3D-printing, see 

https://www.howtoregulate.org/decentralized-3d-printing-a-regulatory-challenge/#more-23. 

250 OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1–849 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008D0768).  
251  OJ  L  312,  22.11.2008,  p.  3–30  (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1576749547065&uri 

=CELEX:32008L0098).   

125 

 
 
                                                           
in relation to the Drinking Water Directive252). For other legislation (e.g. the Energy  Labelling 
Directive253 and the Ecodesign implementing regulations254), coherence would be ensured at the 
level  of  tailor-made  Harmonised  Technical  Specifications  that  cover  all  aspects  amongst  those 
that  are  not  governed  by  the  other  legal  instrument  (“Harmonised  Technical  Specifications”  in 
this  document  shall  be  understood  as  harmonised  standards  cited  in  the  Official  Journal,  or 
Implementing or Delegated Acts that contain technical specifications).   

In anticipation of the expected increase in energy efficiency, environment, health and consumer 
protection  rules,  a  revised  CPR  would  also  include  provisions  governing  the  CPR  relationship 
with such future rules.  

Addressing environmental aspects of construction products (BWR7) 

A  revised  CPR  would  speed  up  the  operationalisation  of  environmental  aspects  by 
introducing a harmonised method for assessing and communicating construction products’ 
environmental performance. 
Amid  increasing  environmental  concern,  Member  States  are  likely  to    increasingly  implement 
national legislation on how to assess the environmental footprint of construction works and thus 
implicitly  also  construction  products.  As  a  result,  diverging  approaches  could  weaken  the 
internal market. A revised CPR would therefore provide a harmonised method for assessing and 
communicating the environmental performance of construction products. This would take place 
in  full  coherence  with  the  horizontal  approach  regarding  the  environmental  assessment  of 
products, currently under development at EU level. First, Annex I would be amended to include 
all  relevant  environmental  aspects  in  Basic  Work  Requirement  7255.  Second,  the  CPR  would 
prescribe  the  general  principles  of  a  harmonised  method  for  assessing  and  communicating 
construction products’ performance in relation to those aspects; the method itself would be laid 
down  more  precisely  in  a  Commission  act.  The  harmonised  method  would  be  based  on  an 
existing  Life  Cycle  Assessment  method,  such  as  the  Commission’s  Product  Environmental 
Footprint256  or  EN  15804,  and  provide  for  the  development  of  harmonised  Product  Category 
Rules and the use of common datasets in order to ensure fairness and comparability. Importantly, 
a revised CPR would ensure that the resulting environmental data can be used in the assessment 
of the environmental performances of buildings257.  

The supervision of the application of these very specific systems could be based on the current 
Notified  Bodies  system  which  would  ensure  minimisation  of  burden.  However,  in  view  of 
harmonising  the  assessment  of  environmental  footprints  across  all  product  sectors  and  to 
optimise assessment methods, there could also be a separate designation and supervision process 
(see below under Supplementing Notified Bodies with special bodies in charge of BWR7). 

252 OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32–54 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31998L0083).  
253 OJ L 198, 28.7.2017, p. 1–23 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32017R1369).  
254  OJ  L  285, 31.10.2009,  p.  10–35 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0125),  a 
list  of  implementing  regulations  can  be  found  here:  https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/european-
standards/harmonised-standards/ecodesign_en.   

255 One  might regard some environmental aspects as  nowadays being covered in BWR 3 and 6 instead of 7. This 

makes the regulatory management difficult. 

256  Accessible  at  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013H0179&from=EN  (for 

proposed updates see https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/permalink/PEF_method.pdf).   

257  Council  of  the  European  Union,  Conclusions  on  Circular  Economy  in  the  Construction  Sector,  28  November 

2019, Doc. 14653/19, n9. 

126 

 
 
                                                           
Measures  directly  supporting  the  reduction  of  environmental  impacts  of  construction,  such  as 
funding the research and development of more sustainable construction products or the creation 
of incentives to limit the surplus of construction products, as suggested by Member States258, are 
beyond the remit of the CPR. As mentioned below, the CPR could contribute indirectly through 
facilitation of the use of certain recycled or used construction products by allowing them to be 
CE  marked.  It  will  also  contribute  to  the  transparency  of  the  market  by  facilitating  the 
comparability of construction products based on their environmental impacts.  

Promoting circularity of construction products  

In  order  to  promote  the  circular  economy,  the  CPR  would  support  the  placing  on  the 
market  of  certain  used  or  used  and  remanufactured  construction  products.  However, 
several  aspects  of  the  CPR  would  need  to  be  adapted.  In  addition,  the  issue  of  trans-
generational  availability  of  product  data  needs  to  be  tackled.  Finally,  the  CPR  might 
contain  a  series  of  provisions  reflecting  the  Circular  Economy  Action  Plan  and  the 
European Green Deal. 

The revised CPR might cover certain construction products which were used and remanufactured 
or  just  used  but  newly  made  available  on  the  market,  allowing  such  products  to  obtain  CE 
marking and gain access to the European market. We speak here of “remanufacturing” to cover 
processes  like  cleaning,  cutting-off  of  damaged  parts  and  new  coating  because  the  term 
“recycling”  in  the  meaning  of  the  Waste  Framework  Directive  is  limited  to  items  which  have 
become waste in the first place, whilst the regulatory approach of the CPR would be different, 
aiming  at  used  construction  products  to  undergo  a  process  before  they  become  waste259.  The 
purpose would be to promote re-use, in particular to reduce construction products’ climate and 
other environmental impacts. These goals cannot be pursued without limiting obligations for the 
relevant  economic  operators  (when  compared  to  the  original  manufacturer).  This  could  often 
lead  to  a  marginal  loss  in  terms  of  safety  when  compared  to  new  products.  If  the  legislators 
oppose  this  approach,  a  revised  CPR  might  only  define  a  gold  standard  for  certain  used  or 
remanufactured construction products permitting free circulation of these (at the end of the day 
very few) products and empower Member States to regulate on all other products not fulfilling 
the gold standard. Member States would then be empowered  and invited to  decide on the best 
domestic trade-off between two not  fully  compatible goals: promoting re-use on one hand and 
preserving  full  safety  as  for  new  products.  They  would  most  likely  make  different  choices, 
adapted to their domestic balancing of interests. 

Used  construction  products  will  have  to  be  treated  slightly  different  in  terms  of  CE  marking, 
declaration of performance, performance  assessment  and certain  other obligations of  economic 
operators. Maybe, the original manufacturer should remain responsible to some extent, e.g. with 
regard  to  information  that  only  he  can  provide,  whilst  overlapping  responsibility  fields  of 
different economic operators have to be avoided. 

Given  the  likely  enhanced  longevity  of  construction  products,  re-use  and  remanufacturing  will 
depend to a large extent on the trans-generational availability of product data. The establishment 
of a public database is the classic response to such a situation. However, alternatives have to be 

258 Ibid., n7. 
259  See  Article  3(17)  of  the  Waste  Framework  Directive,  OJ  L  312,  22.11.2008,  p.  3–30  (https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098)   

127 

 
 
 
                                                           
investigated.  High  market  value  IT  companies  are  likely  to  be  subject  to  mergers  and 
acquisitions, but not disappearance. Hence, a multi-generational public tender might be a suitable 
alternative  to  the  not  always  efficient  process  of  setting  up  a  public  database.  Alternatively,  a 
tender could be launched every 5 years, with the running contract to be automatically renewed in 
case no competitor makes a potentially better offer. 

In addition, the recently published Circular Economy Action Plan260 and European Green Deal261 
foresee a comprehensive change of our economy. In the next months and years, there will be a 
discussion  on  which  measures  shall  be  taken  across  all  sectors.  It  might  not  be  ideal  for 
construction products to be covered by horizontal regulation as horizontal regulation can hardly 
be  fine-tuned  to  construction  products  and  might  trigger  overlapping  and  partly  conflicting 
obligations.  Hence,  it  is  to  be  considered  to  which  extent  the  CPR  can  and  should  foresee 
measures  applying  the  policies  of  the  Circular  Economy  Action  Plan  and  the  European  Green 
Deal  to  construction  products.  Measures  to  be  considered  in  this  context,  as  applicable  to 
individual construction products and taking into account safety aspects, might notably include: 

  The obligation to take back construction products which, after delivery onto the construction 

site, have not been used262; 

  conformity  assessment  or  other  procedural  privileges  for  construction  products  which  are 
based  on  recycled  materials,  typically  derived  from  a  previous  construction  product  which 
has become waste; 

  minimum recycled content quota; or 
 
 

the obligation to give preference to recycled materials where possible; 
the  obligation  to  give  preference  to  materials  with  a  low  overall  environmental  footprint, 
unless a higher environmental footprint is later overcompensated at the building level; 
the obligation to refrain from premature obsolescence; 
the obligation to reach state-of-the-art durability; and 
the  obligation  to  facilitate  repair,  re-use,  remanufacturing  and  recycling  by  appropriate 
design, information and, for repair, accessibility of spare parts. 

 
 
 

These  measures  describe  only  the  frame  in  which  the  discussion  will  take  place.  Not  all  these 
measures  will  be  taken,  the  more  so  as  hardly  any  of  them  is  applicable  to  all  construction 
products. 

Furthermore, a Sustainable Product Policy Initiative has been announced under the umbrella of 
the  European  Green  Deal  and  the  Circular  Economy  Action  Plan.  The  core  of  this  legislative 
initiative will be to widen the Ecodesign Directive beyond energy related products so as to make 
the  Ecodesign  Framework  applicable  to  the  broadest  possible  range  of  products  and  make  it 
deliver  on  circularity.  As  construction  products  would  potentially  fall  within  the  scope  of  this 
future initiative, there could be multiple interactions between the horizontal policy, its concretion 
within the CPR and the many other elements of the CPR directly or indirectly aiming to enhance 
the  sustainability  of  the  construction  products.  It  even  cannot  be  excluded  that  the  listed 

260 Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1583933814386&uri=COM:2020:98:FIN.  
261 Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/european-green-deal-communication_en.pdf.  
262  This  could  be  economically  interesting  for  both  sides  if  the  manufacturer  reimburses  the  transportation  costs, 
capped by his own manufacturing costs, whilst the dumping of the not used construction product would be costly, 
due to national law. 

128 

 
 
                                                           
measures  will  mostly  be  laid  down  in  the  horizontal  framework.  In  the  latter  case,  defining  a 
clear interface and avoiding duplications will be paramount.  

Finally,  measures  to  promote  the  use  of  tools  that  could  facilitate  the  recycling  or  reuse  of 
construction products, as suggested by Member States263, are, in so far as such tools apply to the 
construction  work  or  demolition  level,  beyond  the  remit  of  the  CPR.  E.g.,  both  economic 
operators  who  remanufacture  used  construction  products  and  those  who  manufacture  new 
products on the basis of recycled (CP) materials need information about the previous use of the 
products,  at  least  so  as  to  appropriately  inform  their  own  customers.  The  CPR  revision  could, 
informally  or  in  the  form  of  a  European  Commission  Recommendation,  be  accompanied  by 
some  prototype  national  legal  provisions  that  would  generate  the  relevant  data.  This  example 
illustrates a  general potential,  still to  be levied,  which consists in  developing finely  imbricated 
regulatory  approaches  both  at  the  EU  and  the  Member  States’  level,  to  jointly  pursue  the 
common goals. 

2) Harmonisation 
Empowering the Commission to act against partial system failures  
The  current  situation  where  the  Commission  is  not  empowered  to  act  against  system 
failures  should  be  remedied.  Therefore,  a  revised  CPR  would  introduce  a  full  range  of 
empowerments for Delegated and Implementing Acts.  
E.g.,  the  situation  today  is  that  the  legislator  has  empowered  CEN  and  EOTA  to  adopt 
Harmonised Technical Specifications, thus bodies outside the EU law legitimation chain, without 
empowering  the  Commission  in  the  first  place.  Thereby  the  CPR  deviates  crucially  from  the 
standard pattern of EU legislation according to which the Commission is empowered in the first 
place  and  outside  bodies  only  in  the  second.  In  the  light  of  the  current  breakdown  of  the 
standardisation system under the CPR264, this unfortunate inversion merits revision, the more so 
as the ECJ has in the meantime set up severe conditions for delegation of regulatory powers to 
bodies not already mentioned in the Treaties. 
But this is only an example of the past, whilst more system failures can emerge in the future. To 
reduce the likelihood of another system breakdown, comprehensive empowerments to act against 
system failures should be foreseen.  
Ensuring the comprehensiveness of the CPR’s Common Technical Language 
Using  its  aforementioned  empowerments  to  act  against  system  failures,  the  Commission 
would complement the Common Technical Language where needed. Furthermore, it might 
become possible for other bodies than CEN to develop harmonised standards. 
At  least  in  cases  where  no  harmonised  standards  exist  or  where  these  are  insufficient265,  the 
Commission would be empowered to adopt Delegated or Implementing Acts in order to ensure 
the availability of complete assessment methods and criteria for essential characteristics related 
to  the  basic  requirements  for  construction  works  listed  in  Annex  I.  Such  acts  would  contain 
Harmonised  Technical  Specifications  or,  where  needed,  normative  references  to  existing 

263  Council  of  the  European  Union,  Conclusions  on  Circular  Economy  in  the  Construction  Sector,  28  November 

2019, Doc. 14653/19, n15 and n16. 

264  For  analysis  and  explanation,  see  the  evaluation  of  the  current  CPR  accessible  at  https://ec.europa.eu/docsr 

oom/documents/37827 (especially pages 28-31).   

265 See e.g. the wording of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/745. 

129 

 
 
 
                                                           
standards or other documents containing technical specifications (e.g. EADs). When formulating 
technical  specifications,  the  Commission  would  gather  information  from  different  actors, 
including  namely  industry,  depending  on  the  products  and  characteristics  under  consideration 
(e.g.  CEN,  private  standardisation  consortia,  the  Joint  Research  Centre,  industry  groups, 
Technical Assessment Bodies or Regulatory Advancement Bodies266, Member States or groups 
of Member States), and all this in addition to the already now mandatory consultation processes. 
The  governance  mechanisms  foreseen  for  the  adoption  of  Delegated  or  Implementing  Acts 
would guarantee the control by Member States. 
In  addition  to  the  development  of  technical  content  for  Delegated  or  Implementing  Acts,  it  is 
conceivable  that  other  organisations  than  CEN  would  be  charged  with  developing  harmonised 
standards. Again we could think of private standardisation consortia, industry groups, Technical 
Assessment  Bodies or their successors, the Regulatory  Advancement  Bodies, but  also  Notified 
Bodies or combinations of these actors. The harmonised standards’ path would thus be enlarged. 
This would lead to a two-tier system of technical specifications, with Delegated or Implementing 
Acts on top and harmonised standards below, the first overruling the second if needed. 

Allowing manufacturers to obtain preliminary CE marking  
Where a harmonised technical specification is in the pipeline, a revised CPR would allow 
manufacturers  to  have  their  products  assessed  by  a  Regulatory  Advancement  Body  in 
order to obtain a preliminary right to CE mark their products. This option would replace 
the current EOTA/TABs route.  

to 

task 

investigate 

the  primary 

Assuming the Commission is  empowered to  ensure the completeness  of the common technical 
language, the current EOTA/TABs route will become less relevant. Moreover, the EOTA/TABs 
route  raises  many  systemic  issues,  the  majority  of  which  have  been  described  in  the  EOTA 
report267. To close the loophole in  case of its deletion  and to  advance the development  of new 
harmonised  technical  specifications  in  particular  for  innovative  products,  the  following 
procedure could be foreseen. The TABs would be replaced by Regulatory Advancement Bodies 
with 
the  potential  for  new  Harmonised  Technical 
Specifications268. Where the Commission  assesses a draft Harmonised Technical  Specification, 
of which the technical content was elaborated by a Regulatory Advancement Body, as likely to 
be cited as Harmonised Standard in the Official Journal or to be transformed into a Delegated or 
Implementing  Act  within  one  year,  this  and  other  Regulatory  Advancement  Bodies  would  be 
allowed  to  issue  certificates  confirming  the  performance  and  the  conformity  of  a  construction 
product as requested in that draft Harmonised Technical Specification. The certificate would be 
valid until the actual citation269 or publication270 takes effect or, if no citation / publication takes 
place, for a maximum of 18 months. Once the certificate has been issued, a manufacturer could 
affix the usual marking followed by the letters “(pr)” and the date of expiry to its products.  
Member States would be invited to designate Notified Bodies or authorities to fulfil the role of a 
Regulatory Advancement Body. The current TABs would become obsolete.  

266 Replacing the TABs, see below under ’Allowing manufacturers to obtain preliminary CE marking.’  
267  Accessible  at  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1571917158693&uri=COM:2019:800:FIN 

(COM/2019/800 final, 24.10.2019). 

268 To be adopted either as Delegated or Implementing Act or as Harmonised Standard. 
269 In case it becomes a harmonised standard. 
270 In case of a Commission act. 

130 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Reducing the administrative burden for manufacturers 
The CPR would strive to reduce the burden for  manufacturers by  offering simplification 
measures, empowering Member States to exempt certain micro-enterprises from the scope 
of  the  CPR,  reducing  overlap  between  CE  marking  and  the  Declaration  of  Performance, 
and  establishing  empowerments  for  the  Commission  to  define  conditions  for  reducing  or 
lifting AVCP obligations in case of coverage by a liability insurance. 

In  order  to  promote  the  uptake  of  simplification  measures,  current  provisions  could  be 
considered  to  be  redrafted  with  a  view  to  clarification,  though  feasibility  has  not  yet  been 
completely ascertained. For example, a revised CPR might strive for a clearer difference between 
Article 5 and 38, clarify the content of Article 37 and 38, notably by defining more clearly what 
is understood as a ‘non-series process.’  

To further promote simplification, Member States will be offered the possibility to exclude from 
the  CPR’s  scope  enterprises,  or  at  least  SME  or  micro  enterprises,  individually  producing 
construction  products  meant  for  direct  final  installation  under  their  own  responsibility. 
Alternatively,  Member  States  could  be  allowed  to  exempt  such  enterprises  from  certain 
conformity assessment obligations. There would be a size-limit: to ensure that such a provision 
does  not  allow  bigger  manufacturers  to  circumvent  their  obligations,  it  would  exclude  cases 
where individual production is based on materials provided by another economic operator who 
manages a network of SMEs or craftsmen, e.g. under a franchising structure.  

To reduce the administrative burden for all manufacturers, a revised CPR would aim to eliminate 
the  current  performance  information  overlap  between  the  CE  marking  and  the  Declaration  of 
Performance. Moreover, all viable possibilities for digitisation will be used. 

Finally, a revised CPR might contain an empowerment for the Commission to adopt Delegated 
Acts  determining  conditions  under  which  AVCP  obligations  can  be  reduced  or  lifted  provided 
that the manufacturer has concluded a liability insurance which is proportionate to the maximum 
damages  potentially  caused  by  non-compliant  or  underperforming  construction  products.  In 
cases where risks are not minimal, the exemption from AVCP obligations can be made subject to 
the application of a risk reduction scheme271 that is established by the insurance or an association 
of insurances and verified by agents acting on behalf of the insurance. 

Improving access to Harmonised Technical Specifications  
The revised CPR would improve access to Technical Specifications by ensuring translation 
into all official languages and free availability. 

Under  the  current  CPR,  accessing  the  content  of  harmonised  standards  is  sometimes  made 
difficult  or  costly  because  they  are  not  available  in  all  official  languages  or  because  they  are 
subject  to  copyright  protection.  If,  under  the  future  CPR,  the  Commission  adopts  Harmonised 
Technical  Specifications  by  Delegated  or  Implementing  Acts,  such  acts  would  have  to  be 
translated  into  all  official  languages,  as  is  the  case  for  all  Union  acts.  Moreover,  their  content 
would be included in the Official Journal and would thus be freely available. Where Harmonised 

271 Covering both aspects of performance and aspects of inherent product safety. 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Technical  Specifications  contain  normative  references  to  other  documents,  the  revised  CPR 
would ensure that the pertinent content of the referenced documents is available in all languages 
and free of charge. 

3) Improving effectiveness 

Improving the use of the CPR’s non-conformity procedures 
By redrafting Articles 56 to 59, a revised CPR would aim to dispel interpretative confusion 
and  facilitate  the  use  of  safeguard  mechanisms,  possibly  even  by  creating  a  more 
streamlined procedural sequence for the different steps to be taken. 
In its current form, Article 56(1) requires for the launch of the procedure both the inaccuracy of a 
product’s declared performance  and a risk to health and safety. This overly restrictive wording 
has led to the current situation where Article 56 is hardly used whilst Article 58 is not used at all. 
Article  58  deals  with  construction  products  that  achieve  their  declared  performance  but 
nevertheless  present  a  risk  to  health  and  safety.  By  removing  the  cumulative  condition  of  a 
product’s inherent safety and the accuracy of declared performance from Article 56(1), a revised 
CPR would therefore aim to unlock the use of the procedures defined in both articles.  

Enhancing market surveillance 
A revised  CPR would enhance market surveillance by strengthening enforcement powers 
and aligning the performance of different market surveillance authorities. For the fill list of 
envisaged measures regarding market surveillance, see Annex II.  

The  strengthening  of  enforcement  powers  would  entail  the  introduction  of  appropriate  sector-
specific  provisions  to  supplement  the  horizontal  provisions  contained  in  Regulation  (EU) 
2019/1020  on  market  surveillance  and  compliance  of  products,  which  are  already  part  of  the 
Baseline scenario (Option A). Such provisions would include stronger empowerments for market 
surveillance  authorities  related  to  fact-finding  (e.g.  the  right  to  confiscate  samples  or  to  seize 
documents related to presumably non-compliant products) and possible punitive measures (e.g. 
the  right  to  impose  financial  sanctions  or  to  exclude  non-compliant  operators  from  public 
tenders). Special focus will be put on internet trade. Surveillance would be further enhanced by 
allowing  manufacturers  to  sue  their  competitors  and  by  allowing  consumer  and  environment 
organisations to sue non-compliant operators, as well as by setting up a sector-specific EU-wide 
whistle  blowing  portal  and  a  Member  State  forum  to  discuss  and  follow  up  on  external 
complaints (using one of the fora provided for by Regulation 2019/1020 if possible272).    

Aligning  the  performance  of  different  market  surveillance  authorities  would  entail  the 
introduction  of  absolute273  and  parameter-based274  minimum  benchmarks  for  Member  State 
authorities, for example in terms of the number of full-time equivalents dedicated to CPR-related 
surveillance, as well as the introduction of procedures designed to ensure the proper performance 
of  market  surveillance  staff.  To  further  improve  alignment,  appropriate  and  effective 
mechanisms would be set up to allow for communication, coordination and cooperation between 

272  See  Chapter  VIII  of  Regulation  2019/2011,  OJ  L  169,  25.6.2019,  p.  1–44  (accessible  at  https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019R1020&from=EN).  

273 Even  the  smallest Member State  should have  available three full-time  equivalences  for  the enforcement of the 

CPR. 

274  Parameters  could  be  the  size  of  the  market  in  terms  of  €,  tonnes  or  numbers  of  products  sold,  inhabitants  etc. 

Evidently, these parameters can be combined. 

132 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
market  surveillance  authorities  and  to  make  them  even  mandatory,  in  particular  where  this  is 
necessary to align decision-making practice, see Annex I. 

Improving the efficacy of Notified Bodies 

A  revised  CPR  would  improve  the  efficacy  of  Notified  Bodies  by  strengthening  the 
designation process and introducing control mechanisms for after designation. 

In order to moderately strengthen the Notified Bodies’ system, a revised CPR would introduce a 
mandatory qualification matrix (matching staff to product groups and technologies), to be used 
by  Member  States  when  designating  Notified  Bodies.  Member  States  would  also  be  asked  to 
provide  an  accreditation  or  another  assessment  report  for  revision  by  peers  and  the  European 
Commission. It would further grant the Commission the explicit right to block the registration of 
a Notified Body in NANDO where there is a lack of evidence of its competence.  

Measures to strengthen the work of Notified Bodies towards manufacturers would include:  

  Asking  Notified  Bodies  to  apply  clear  pass-fail  criteria  in  their  certification  practice,  thus 
avoiding  that  the  Notified  Body  becomes  by  repetitive  feed-back  on  non-conformities  a 
consultant on the way to certification;  
requiring  Notified  Bodies  to  change  the  staff  responsible  for  deciding  on  certification  as 
regards products of a given manufacturer every 3 years;  
introducing structured reporting obligations for Notified Bodies to their respective Notifying 
Authority;  

 

 

  making control of subcontracting stricter; 
  complementing existing provision to make currently implicit obligations of Notified Bodies 

 

explicit; and 
introducing  provisions  covering  the  change  of  certification  from  one  Notified  Body  to 
another. 

Notified Bodies and Notifying Authorities would, together with market surveillance authorities 
also  be affected by a package of measures  enhancing harmonised decision-making, outlined in 
Annex I.  

Supplementing Notified Bodies with special bodies in charge of BWR7 

The current Notified Bodies are not necessarily competent to assess whether the calculation 
of environmental impacts by manufacturers is correct or, subject to the AVCP  system, to 
make  such  calculations  from  scratch.  The  customary  notification  procedures  are  not 
appropriate to assess these competences either. As these calculations are a science of their 
own,  it  might  be  necessary  to  complement  the  current  Notified  Bodies’  system  by 
designating specialised bodies or creating a responsible sub-group. 

Today, only very few, namely extremely big, Notified Bodies designated under the CPR would 
also  be  able  to  obtain  the  competences  for  assessing  these  calculations.  These  extremely  big 
Notified  Bodies  would  have  a  disproportionate,  unjustified  competitive  advantage  if  the 
verification of environmental impact calculations were to be done by the ordinary Notified Body 
in charge. Also to keep the small and medium Notified Bodies which are geographically close to 
the SME manufacturers alive, it might be useful to split the verification functions for BWR 1 to 
6  and  the  one  for  BWR  7.  In  addition,  it  is  questionable  whether  the  current  few  big  Notified 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
in  calculating  environmental 

Bodies able to calculate environmental aspects suffice, capacity-wise, to cover all (manufacturers 
of) construction products. Hence, it might be commendable to integrate other organisations that 
have  specialised 
impacts,  hereafter  called  environmental 
verification organisations (EVOs). Such EVOs could either function separately from the current 
system or function as a sub-group within the current system, like for example the existing sub-
group of Notified Bodies in charge of fire safety aspects. A possible split of functions could have 
another advantage: as some data are relevant both for BWR 3 and 6 on one hand and BWR 7 on 
the other, there could be a kind of mutual control between different verification organisations.  

EVOs would in particular be called upon to scrutinise whether the methodology applied by the 
manufacturer  or  his  suppliers  is  aligned  to  best  available  techniques,  to  verify  samples  of 
particular  calculations,  and  to  assess  the  plausibility  of  the  overall  results  or,  subject  to  the 
AVCP obligations, to undertake themselves such calculations. 

The designation and supervision mechanisms of the EVOs in charge of BWR 7 might differ from 
those  of  the  current  Notified  Bodies  because  a  much  closer  alignment  of  practices  across 
different product sectors must be reached. It cannot be that steel (intended to be) used for cars is 
to  be  evaluated  differently  from  steel  (intended  to  be)  used  for  construction  products,  and  the 
same goes for all other materials or intermediate products. To reach this cross-sector alignment 
of  calculation  practices,  no  designation  of  an  EVO  should  happen  without  a  methodologically 
competent entity (be it the Commission Joint Research Centre or an external, entrusted service 
provider)  having  reviewed  the  qualification  of  the  candidate  EVO.  The  form  of  designation 
might also vary from that of normal Notified Bodies.  

Comparability  of  environmental  impact  calculations  can  only  be  ensured  if  there  is  a  more 
intense control and alignment in day-to-day decision-making, the more so as the same material 
or intermediate product  might find its way both into construction and other products. This will 
imply the need for some knowledgeable supervisory body, e.g. the Commission Joint Research 
Centre,  or  peer  review  or  both.  Where  these  mechanisms  become  unsustainable  due  to  a  high 
number of manufacturers and assessments, a two-level supervisory hierarchy could be envisaged. 
The top-level supervisory body would entrust certain experienced and reliable EVOs to become 
supervisory bodies for less experienced EVOs. 

When  developing  further  concepts  on  the  verification  of  environmental  aspects,  it  has  to  be 
borne in mind that there is an inherent tension between the goal of alignment of practices across 
all  product  sectors  on  one  side  and  the  goals  of  minimising  the  burden  specifically  for  the 
construction  products  industry  and  adapting  to  construction  products  specificities  on  the  other 
side. The two sides cannot be fully served at the same time. But many questions must stay open 
at  this point  in  time as the development  of concepts  regarding these questions  happens also in 
other products sectors or at a cross-sector level. The final proposal for a new CPR cannot create 
a  construction  products  island,  but  must  be  in  harmony275  with  concepts  used  across  other 
products sectors. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that harmony must be sought for in the light of 
the  different  potential  uses  of  environmental  impact  calculations.  In  Member  States,  these 
calculations are starting to play a role in very different contexts, namely in fiscal policy and for 
public tenders. Also for manufacturers of construction products it would not be wishful to have 

275  „Harmony“  does  not  necessarily  mean  full  alignment.  Full  alignment  should  not  be  strived  for  because 
construction  products  need  specific  environmental  read-outs  for  the  environmental  assessment  of  construction 
works. These read-outs are not needed in most other product sectors. 

134 

 
 
                                                           
to  calculate  the  environmental  impact  in  several  different  ways.  Hence,  a  consensus  should  be 
found which goes beyond the field of product regulation. 

Evaluating the role of PCPCs  

The  Commission  will  investigate  how  Product  Contact  Points  for  Construction  are 
currently being used.  
In  case  they  are  not  or  hardly  used  for  their  main  purpose,  i.e.  providing  information  about 
Member  States’  building  regulations  relevant  to  the  intended  use  of  construction  products,  a 
different  purpose  could  be  envisaged.  Namely,  they  could  be  put  in  charge  of  providing 
information on the harmonised system created by and under the CPR. To some extent, they do 
this already today, we learnt. 

Better covering information needs 

In  order  to  better  cover  Member  States’  and  stakeholders’  information  needs,  a  revised 
CPR  would  allow,  in  certain  specified  cases,  additional  information  to  be  included  in  the 
Declaration  of  Performance  as  well  as  empower  the  Commission  to  make  mandatory  the 
declaration of certain characteristics. Manufacturers can declare additional performances 
and characteristics.  
To  better  cover  information  needs  of  architects  and  users,  a  revised  CPR  would  include  a 
positive  list  of  additional  information  that  manufacturers  are  allowed  to  include  in  their 
Declaration  of  Performance  (additional  to  a  product’s  performance  in  relation  to  the  essential 
characteristics  covered  by  Harmonised  Technical  Specifications).  Examples  might  include 
information  on  the  presence  or  absence  of  certain  chemical  components276,  the  product’s 
conformity with Member State regulations, its durability in the meaning of usability endurance 
of  the  product,  or  a  link  to  instructions  for  use  and  installation.  The  Commission  would  be 
empowered to modify this positive list by means of Delegated Acts in light of information needs 
or other developments.   

Currently, manufacturers only have to declare performance for one essential characteristic of a 
construction  product  in  order  to  obtain  CE  marking.  While  it  is  not  intended  to  oblige 
manufacturers  to  declare  performance  related  to  all  product  characteristics  covered  by 
Harmonised Technical  Specifications,  a revised  CPR would, similar to  its current  Article 3(3), 
empower the Commission to lay down mandatory characteristics by Delegated or Implementing 
Acts  where  necessary,  most  frequently  in  the  context  of  having  such  a  specification  cited  or 
adopted.  Thus  the  revised  CPR  would  start  with  the  current  situation  where  only  one  of  the 
characteristics needs to be declared. However, based on a more precise analysis of the respective 
product group, regulatory needs, safety and environmental aspects, certain characteristics can be 
made gradually mandatory. 

True claims or no claims 
Wherever a performance or product characteristic is declared, whilst there is not yet any 
Harmonised  Technical  Specification,  the  manufacturer  would  be  obliged  to  ensure  the 

276  In  line  with,  not  duplicating  REACH  (OJ  L  396,  30.12.2006,  p.  1–849,  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008D0768)  and  other  legislation  on  chemicals  such  as  Regulation  1272/2008 
on  classification,  labelling  and  packaging  of  substances  and  mixtures  (OJ  L  353,  31.12.2008,  p.  1–1355, 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008R1272).  

135 

 
 
                                                           
correctness  of  the  declared  information  by  using  at  least  “state  of  the  art”  methodology. 
This brings standards into play in an additional (third) way. 
To avoid misleading claims, the manufacturer should be obliged to assess the performance or the 
characteristic in accordance with a methodology that fulfils the quality notion “state of the art” or 
“best available technique” (the latter being more severe). The “state of the art” or “best available 
technique” is to be determined on a case-by-case basis in the light of available methodological 
documents, namely but not exclusively international and EU standards. Thus, in addition to the 
incorporation  of  the  content  of  standards  into  Commission  acts277  (1st  path)  and  harmonised 
standards becoming harmonised technical specifications (2nd path), there would be a third, more 
remote  and  indirect  way  of  using  the  valuable  content  of  standards  (3rd  path).  This  third  path 
would  not  be  subject  to  the  same  legal  and  formal  constraints  as  the  other  two.  It  might 
resuscitate  some  of  the  advantages  of  the  “New  Approach”  in  its  initial stage,  meaning  before 
full legal control of harmonised standards became obviously mandatory through Regulation (EU) 
1025/2012 on European Standardisation and rulings of the European Court of Justice. 

Better coverage of Member States’ needs by determining the “harmonised zone” 

Following  a  given  procedural  order,  Member  States  would,  after  a  fair  standstill  period, 
become  free  to  establish  national  requirements  where  EU  provisions  do  not  yet 
satisfactorily cover the relevant aspects.   
In  order  to  better  cover  Member  States’  regulatory  needs,  a  revised  CPR  would  allow  the 
Commission  to  determine  by  Delegated  or  Implementing  Acts  the  exact  borderlines  of  the 
“harmonised zone”278, the sphere effectively covered by EU law. This clarification would work 
with  product  lists  and  lists  of  aspects  covered.  This  would  bring  the  legal  concept  of 
“exhaustiveness” (hindering Member States to regulate or otherwise interfere) in line with the de 
facto degree of “completeness” of the CPR Acquis. It would also reduce a good part of the legal 
uncertainty of the current CPR. 

The  procedure  upstream  to  the  determination  of  the  “harmonised  zone”  together  with  the 
development  of  technical  specifications  would  give  Member  States  the  right  and  obligation  to 
communicate  needs  for  technical  aspects  to  be  covered.  If,  after  determination  of  the 
“harmonised  zone”,  Member  States  discover  additional  regulatory  needs,  they  have  to 
communicate them first to the Commission so as to give opportunity to cover them at EU level. 
Only  after  a  standstill  period  of  e.g.  4  years  Member  States  would  be  authorised  to  establish 
additional  national  requirements,  provided  there  is  evidence  of  the  relevant  Member  State’s 
regulatory need and if the claimed needs are legitimate. In order to avoid too the establishment of 
protectionist  trade  hurdles  by  the  back-door,  some  acceptability  criteria  for  Member  States’ 
needs should be developed – not every need, even when well documented, might be legitimate. 

A variant for the above mentioned standstill period could be that, after obtaining a  formal279 or 
implicit280  validation,  any  Member  State  could  introduce  a  national  assessment  method,  to  be 
used in relation to essential characteristics still lacking a harmonised EU method, for the duration 

277 Either by taking over text or by normative reference where, exceptionally, translations into all languages exist. 
278  The  expression  “harmonised  zone”  has  been  chosen  on  purpose  because  the  expression  “harmonised  sphere”, 
referred to in the context of rulings of the European Court of Justice, is broader and also encompasses aspects 
that are not covered by harmonised technical specifications in reality. 

279 By a decision of the European Commission. 
280 No objection by other Member States or the European Commission. 

136 

 
 
                                                           
of that standstill period. Notified Bodies across the EU could also apply that method and issue 
certificates  on  the  basis  of  it.  Other  Member  States  would  be  obliged  to  recognise  as  well  the 
respective assessment method and certificates. 

Improving legal certainty  

A  revised  CPR  would  improve  legal  certainty  by  addressing  interpretation  issues  and 
clarifying the validity of Commission acts adopted prior to the application date of a revised 
CPR. 
Many of the sections above deal also with legal uncertainty. In addition, the revised CPR could 
contain the following elements: 

Under  the  current  CPR,  several  ambiguous  definitions  have  led  to  divergent  interpretations.  A 
revised  CPR  would  seek  to  address  such  interpretation  issues  as  far  as  possible.  This  would 
include making more specific existing definitions (e.g. for ‘construction product’, ‘construction 
work’ and ‘placing on the market’) as well as introducing new definitions where necessary (e.g. 
for ‘assembly’, ‘module’ and ‘building’).     

An  internal  analysis  showed  that  under  the  current  CPR,  substantive  legal  uncertainty  exists 
regarding the validity of acts  adopted under the CPD, its predecessor, in particular where their 
content is not fully in line with the CPR. To prevent this from occurring again, a revised CPR 
would lay down clear rules on the validity of Commission acts adopted prior to its application 
date. This is evidently also part of the smooth phasing-in of the revised CPR. 

4) Transition 

Ensuring a smooth phasing-in of the revised CPR  
For  a  variety  of  legal  reasons,  only  very  few  of  the  current  Harmonised  Technical 
Specifications,  Commission  Delegated  and  Implementing  Acts  could  be  used  immediately 
and as such under the future CPR. Hence, clear transitional provisions would provide for a 
multiannual  phase-in  period,  during  which  a  large  part  of  the  CPR  Acquis  would  be 
readopted whilst the old CPR remains applicable.   
Almost  the  entirety  of  the  current  CPR  Acquis  has  to  be  rebuilt  and  readopted.  This  will  not 
happen  overnight.  Given  the  size  of  the  current  Acquis  (444  Harmonised  Standards  and  157 
EADs281),  the  entire  exercise  will  take  at  least  5  to  10  years.  In  the  meantime,  transitional 
provisions would provide, where appropriate and for a limited time, for the continued application 
of the current CPR’s Acquis for those product groups not yet covered by Harmonised Technical 
Specifications fit for the future CPR. Both regimes would thus exist in parallel for many years to 
come. This would trigger the need for authorities and economic operators to distinguish between 
products placed on the market under the old CPR and those placed on the market under the new 
CPR, possibly even with a distinct marking. A distinct marking would also make sense in so far 
as,  contrary  to  other  sectors,  the  CE  marking  on  construction  products  refers  to  performance 
declaration, not to conformity. To shift to a distinct marking on the occasion of the introduction 
of the new CPR could thus kill two birds with one stone. 

281 There are 210 in NANDO, but these include superseded ones. 

137 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
To  organise  this  process,  transitional  provisions  would  lay  down  priorities  according  to  which 
the development of the future CPR Acquis could be planned. Priority would be given to product 
groups that are of high importance to Member States (in view of the safety of buildings), that are 
most relevant  for the internal  market,  or that  raise problems  regarding inherent  product  safety, 
consumer protection, or the environment (see legal basis of Article 114 TFEU).  

As it is likely that the harmonised technical specifications adopted under the CPD and the CPR 
cannot  be  transferred  to  the  future  CPR,  there  is  a  need  to  adopt  a  high  number  of  technical 
specifications in very short time, that is to say much less than the previously mentioned 5 to 10 
years. As the first wave of technical specifications will mainly consist of technical content of the 
current  Harmonised  Technical  Specifications,  major  impacts  for  economic  operators  are  not  to 
be expected. Therefore we expect the acts to be adoptable without impact assessments. 

Lastly,  the  transitional  provisions  would  stipulate  the  continuation  of  the  legal  validity  of 
certificates  and  other  documentation  issued  under  the  current  CPR  or  before,  or  clarify  that 
certain document types have to be reissued, either by the end of the general transition period or 
by  the  respective  ends  of  the  “coexistence”  periods  between  the  current  and  the  new  CPR 
regimes per product family. 

138 

 
 
 
 
OPTION C – FOCUSING THE CPR  

improve  the  quality  and 
The  CPR  would  be  focused,  freeing  up  capacity  to 
comprehensiveness  of  the  remaining  harmonised  sphere.  This  option  builds  on  the 
“Repairing CPR” option, meaning that it would, to the extent that there is  compatibility, 
include all the elements described in Option B. The three elements presented here could be 
combined: 

Element 1: Limiting the CPR’s scope to assessment methods 

The Common Technical Language would be limited to assessment methods 
Harmonised  Technical  Specifications  would  include  only  assessment  methods  for  performance 
calculation.  No  performance  threshold  levels  or  classes  would  be  laid  down  at  EU  level.  No 
other requirements or “characteristics” would be established at EU level.    

Assessment methods would be developed as set out under Option B 

As  a  primary  root,  the  Commission  would  adopt  Delegated  or  Implementing  Acts  containing 
Harmonised  Technical  Specifications  indicating  which  assessment  methods  apply  to  certain 
identified  essential  characteristics  of  a  specific  product  family.  In  doing  so,  the  Commission 
would base itself on the assessment methods included in existing standards. The result would be 
a  list  of  assessment  methods  specifying  the  range  of  product  families  and  the  essential 
characteristics they address, published in the OJEU.  

National construction regulation would refer to these harmonised assessment methods 

Member  States  would  be  obliged  to  refer  to  harmonised  assessment  methods  when  setting  up 
product-related  requirements  in  their  construction  regulation  and  to  list  the  product  families  to 
which a particular assessment method should be applied. Indirectly, therefore, manufacturers of 
products covered by harmonised assessment methods will be obliged to use those methods when 
selling on the EU market.  

Entire product groups for which no harmonised assessment methods have been provided would 
fall outside the harmonised sphere and would be covered freely by national legislation, including 
national  assessment  methods  and  EU  rules  on  mutual  recognition.  The  Member  States  would 
have the same freedom with regard to the essential characteristics of a certain product group that 
have not been covered by a harmonised assessment method. 

Element 2: Limiting the CPR’s scope to core areas 

Core areas would be identified during the legislative process 
The CPR’s scope would be redefined to focus on core areas, and this would be done at the level 
of the CPR itself so that the CPR would need to be revised to go beyond the boundaries of that 
scope. The core areas would be identified according to three criteria: the coherence of Member 
States’ regulatory needs282, the relevance for the environment or for citizens in terms of safety283 

282 Thus excluding areas where Member States’ regulatory expectations and needs differ so much that a harmonised 

approach barely makes sense. 

283 “Safety” in a broad sense, including e.g. harmful emissions. 

139 

 
 
                                                           
and market relevance. These criteria are thus not only applied by the Commission when setting 
priorities for formulating Harmonised Technical Specifications as described under Option B, but 
already by the legislator when determining the overall scope of the CPR.  

This approach would permit a better focusing on the regulatory needs of the Member States. It 
would give Member States the certainty that the EU cannot quickly extend the harmonised zone 
beyond what is laid down as the scope of the CPR. It would also to some extent "legalise" the de 
facto market fragmentation that already exists in some areas. On the other hand, it would deprive 
the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  to  react  quickly  to  new  harmonisation,  safety  or 
environmental needs 

Outside core areas mutual recognition would apply 

For essential characteristics and products outside the resulting core areas, Member States could 
lawfully regulate performance assessment and communication (subject to Articles 34-36 TFEU).  
National  requirements  subject  to  notification  under  Directive  2015/1535  would  be  notified 
through TRIS (Technical Regulation Information System284), allowing the Commission to follow 
up  by  initiating  amendments  to  harmonised  technical  specifications  if  appropriate.  If  the 
Commission  does  not,  mutual  recognition  rules  would  apply  (to  the  limited  extent  they  are 
effective  in  the  construction  sector285).  For  all  other  aspects,  Option  B  would  apply,  however 
limited to the reduced scope. 

Element 3: Making the Common Technical Language optional for manufacturers 

Manufacturers could choose whether they use the Common Technical Language  
In  case  manufacturers  choose  not  to  use  the  common  technical  language  to  assess  and 
communicate  performance,  they  would  not  be  allowed  to  affix  CE  marking  or  deliver  any 
document that could be mistaken for a Declaration of Performance. 

Member States would remain obliged to offer market access to manufacturers that choose 
to use the Common Technical Language 

Member States would continue to be required to offer a path to market access based on national 
requirements referring to the Common Technical Language. Manufacturers would thereby have 
the  certainty  of  access  to  the  European  market  if  they  use  the  Common  Technical  Language. 
Thus, the free circulation of products, which is the CPR’s main goal, would be ensured for CE 
marked products. 

Member States would be allowed to regulate for an alternative path to market access not 
based on the Common Technical Language 

Member  States  may  wish  to  take  into  account  in  their  national  requirements  the  possibility  of 
manufacturers not using the Common Technical Language. Such deviating requirements would 

284  The  (EU)  2015/1535  procedure  aims  to  stop  barriers  before  they  materialize  in  the  internal  market.  Through 
TRIS, Member States notify their legislative projects regarding products and Information Society services to the 
Commission  which  analyses  these  projects  in  the  light  of  EU  legislation.  Member  States  participate  in  this 
procedure  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  Commission  and  they  can  also  provide  their  opinions  on  the  notified 
drafts. 

285 See the analysis of the effectiveness below at the end of Option E (the repeal option). 

140 

 
 
                                                           
constitute an alternative path to market access, so that manufacturers have a choice. More leeway 
would thus be given to the use of national marks, to the extent that these do not hinder market 
access based on the Common Technical Language286.  

Evidently, such an alternative national path might lead to higher performance requirements and 
subsequent  marketing  advantages,  although  free  circulation  is  ensured.  Alternatively,  an 
alternative national  path  might  also  lead to  lower requirements than in  the Common Technical 
Language path, e.g. by allowing test methods which are less severe than the ones foreseen at EU 
level  or  by  refraining  from  minimum  threshold  levels.  Therefore,  the  EU  regulation  would  no 
more  achieve  the  goal  of  establishing  minimum  environmental  or  safety  requirements. 
Accordingly, Element 3 might not be in line with the mandate of Article 114 TFEU to pursue a 
high level of protection of these values. 

OPTION D – ENHANCING THE CPR  

Under  this  option,  a  revised  CPR  would  introduce  product  requirements  dealing  with 
product inherent aspects287 in order to protect health, safety and the environment. It builds 
on Option B “Repairing CPR”, which in turn includes the Baseline scenario outlined under 
Option  A.  Such  product  requirements  could  follow  two  different  approaches,  which  are 
outlined under D1 and D2. The elements common to both approaches are outlined here:  

Product requirements would be gradually introduced into the CPR system  

A  revised  CPR  would  gradually  introduce  product  requirements  for  certain  specific  product 
inherent  aspects  of  selected  products  or  products  families.  Going  beyond  the  provision  of  a 
common  technical  language  for  the  assessment  of  performance,  such  requirements  would 
prescribe  a  products’  mandatory  minimum  requirements.288  The  current  common  technical 
language  approach  would  thus  be  complemented  by  proper  product  requirements  aimed  at 
ensuring the health and safety of citizens and protection of the environment. The degree to which 
health and safety of citizens and protection of the environment can be improved would determine 
priorities. 

Tailor-made product requirements would in particular ensure inherent product safety 

This  option  would  allow  for  the  introduction  of  effective  product  safety  requirements  and 
obligations  meant  to  guarantee  inherent  product  safety  into  the  standards  (see  D1)  or  in  the 
technical  specifications  (see  D2).  Inherent  product  safety  should  be  distinguished  from 
construction work safety, which is framed by national legislation. Manufacturers of the products 
concerned would have to comply with such requirements and obligations even if their products 
are not covered by national regulation on construction works, for example in the case of products 
sold directly to consumers in DIY (do-it-yourself) shops.289 They would not have the possibility 

286 However, unless deliberately decided otherwise by the legislator, ECJ ruling C-227/06 would apply, limiting the 

room for national marks. 

287 Thus not with aspects that become relevant for health, safety and the environment via the construction works. 
288 These requirements can go beyond threshold levels as they might also touch upon non-scalable characteristics, 
labelling,  and  instructions  for  use  etc.  They  might  relate  to  physical  characteristics  like  (absence)  of  sharps, 
mechanisms or other characteristics protecting users, IT safety, electrical and mechanical safety etc., but also to 
environmental characteristics like easy disposability or recyclability.  

289  European  Commission  services  took  note  of  the  fact  that  some  national  regulation  on  construction  works  also 
covers  DIY  products.  However,  they  are  also  aware  that  this  is  anything  but  systematic.  Furthermore,  the 

141 

 
 
                                                           
 
to  refrain  from  CE  marking  and  thereby  avoid  EU  regulation.  A  similar  logic  could  apply  to 
environmental product requirements.  

The CPR itself would include a first thin layer of horizontal product requirements 

A first thin layer of “horizontal” environmental and product safety requirements and obligations 
would be laid down in an Annex to the CPR itself. Currently, the European Commission and the 
Member  States  are  assessing  which  types  of  requirements  and  obligations  are  necessary  or  at 
least  useful  for  the  vast  majority  of  construction  products.  In  order  to  avoid  repetition  in  each 
individual  Harmonised  Technical  Specification,  these  requirements  and  obligations  would 
already  be  laid  down  horizontally.  A  certain  number  of  these  horizontal  requirements  and 
obligations  are  likely  to  be  identified  in  particular  with  regard  to  instructions  for  (safe  and 
environmentally friendly) use and environmental information290. Some of them might also be of 
such  fundamental  character  (e.g.  the  obligation  to  disclose  chemical  components)  that  it  is 
legally preferable, if not necessary, to establish them at the level of the CPR itself. 

The establishment of such a thin layer of horizontal requirements and obligations would establish 
a kind of minimum protection of the three goals prescribed by the CPR’s legal basis (Article 114 
of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) besides ensuring the functioning of the 
internal  market:  environmental  protection,  safety  and  (in  our  case:  indirectly)  consumer 
protection.  It  would  have  this  role  wherever  Harmonised  Technical  Specifications  are 
incomplete. In particular in the first phase of the applicability of the new CPR, it is likely that 
some Harmonised Technical Specifications will be incomplete.   

Background: One has to distinguish between the safety of  construction works and the inherent 
safety  of  construction  products  as  such.  Article  114  TFEU,  the  CPR’s  legal  basis,  requires  a 
“high level of protection”. The Commission’s proposal therefore must be oriented towards this 
goal.  The Commission  has an obligation to  investigate possibilities to  enhance citizens’ health 
and  safety  by  establishing  requirements  for  the  inherent  safety  of  construction  products.  It 
should also be remembered, however, that Option D is only an enhancement option, an add-on. 
It  builds  on  the  CPR  as  “repaired”  under  Option  B  and  still  has  the  Common  Technical 
Language approach at its core. It is thus an enhancement option and does not propose a radical 
system change.  

OPTION D1 – NEW LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK APPROACH FOR PRODUCT 
REQUIREMENTS 

Beyond the initial thin layer of horizontal environmental and product safety requirements 
and  obligations  laid  down  in  an  Annex  of  the  CPR,  Option  D1  would  formulate  product 
requirements  based  on  the  New  Legislative  Framework  approach.  In  case  the  resulting 
requirements  address  certain  aspects  covered  by  the  CPR’s  horizontal  requirements  in  a 
more  specific  manner,  these  more  specific  requirements  would  supersede  the  relevant 
horizontal requirements. 
  Essential requirements would be laid down in standardisation requests 

application  and  in  particular  the  market  surveillance  varies  strongly.  In  view  of  all  this  there  is  a  regulatory 
loophole. 

290  Which  could  well  go  beyond  the  information  needed  under  BWR  3,  6  and  7,  namely  in  view  of  chemicals 

legislation. 

142 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                           
For the products or product families concerned, essential requirements would be laid down in 
standardisation requests addressed to CEN.   

  CEN would be requested to develop voluntary standards 

CEN  would  be  mandated  to  develop  standards  providing  technical  detail.  These  voluntary 
standards would be harmonised by referencing in the OJEU.  

  Compliance with standards would provide presumption of conformity  

Following the voluntary standards would lead to the presumption of a product's conformity 
with the relevant essential requirements, but other means to prove conformity would remain 
possible.   

  The Declaration of Performance291 would, depending on the case, be complemented by 

a Declaration of Conformity and both would be combined in one document.  

OPTION  D2  –  TECHNICAL  SPECIFICATIONS  APPROACH  FOR  PRODUCT 
REQUIREMENTS 

Beyond the initial thin layer of horizontal environmental and product safety requirements 
and  obligations  laid  down  in  an  Annex  of  the  CPR,  Option  D2  would  formulate  product 
requirements  based  on  the  Technical  Specifications  Approach.  In  case  the  resulting 
requirements  address  certain  aspects  covered  by  the  CPR’s  horizontal  requirements  in  a 
more  specific  manner,  these  more  specific  requirements  would  supersede  the  relevant 
horizontal requirements. 
  Detailed requirements would be included in Harmonised Technical Specifications 

Considering  the  problems  experienced  with  the  quality  of  the  harmonised  European 
standards  at  the  core  of  the  current  CPR  system292,  it  appears  appropriate  to  envisage  the 
possibility for reconsidering the Technical Specifications Approach for product requirements 
(the “Old Approach”). For the products concerned, the relevant Commission acts would lay 
down technically detailed product requirements.  

  Requirements would be developed in line with Option B 

Like  under  Option  B,  the  Commission  would  be  empowered  to  adopt  Delegated  or 
Implementing  Acts  containing,  alongside  the  technical  specifications  pertaining  to  the 
Common  Technical  Language  approach,  detailed  product  requirements.  When  formulating 
technical  specifications,  the  Commission  would  gather  information  from  different  actors 
depending  on  the  products  and  characteristics  under  consideration  (e.g.  CEN,  private 
standardisation  consortia, 
industry  groups,  Regulatory 
Advancement Bodies, Member States or groups of Member States). Such Commission Acts 

the  Joint  Research  Centre, 

291  One  and  the  same  product  may  fall  under  the  classic  Common  Technical  Language  Approach  (triggering  the 
need for a Declaration of Performance) and the newly introduced product requirements, triggering the need for a 
Declaration of Conformity e.g. for inherent aspects of product safety. 

292  In  most  cases,  harmonised  standards  do  not  cover  all  the  essential  characteristics  impacting  the  Basic  Work 
Requirements listed in Annex I to the CPR; certain draft standards remain blocked by industry representatives to 
protect  national  markets;  most  harmonised  standards  offered  by  CEN  for  citation  in  the  OJ  contain  legal  and 
other formal deficiencies (this is the reason for a high rejection rate by the COM services and cumbersome repair 
exercises,  all  delaying  the  timely  adoption  and  subsequent  OJ  listing  of  harmonised  standards);  harmonised 
standards quite often contain content which aims at the protection of certain major companies and thus turn out to 
be  SME-unfriendly;  finally,  EADs  are  often  cast  in  such  a  way  that  they  cannot  be  used  for  a  broad  range  of 
products (hence they cannot always serve as substitutions for  missing harmonised standards). 

143 

 
 
                                                           
would be developed step by step and in accordance with clear priority setting, in particular 
by Member States. 

  Harmonised standards would continue to play a role  

Harmonised European standards would have a new role because the technical specifications 
adopted  by  the  Commission  would  partly  refer  to  such  standards,  e.g.  to  the  test  methods 
contained in the standards. Other content of the harmonised European standards could simply 
be integrated into Harmonised Technical Specifications.  

  The Declaration of Performance293 would, depending on the case, be complemented by 

a Declaration of Conformity and both would be combined in one document. 

OPTION E – REPEALING THE CPR 

1. The CPR would be repealed without any substitute 

There would be no harmonisation, i.e. no common technical language, no mandatory harmonised 
standards,  no  voluntary  harmonised  standards  either,  no  basic  work  requirements  for 
construction works, no obligation to draw up a Declaration of Performance or communicate it, 
no CE marking, no classes or thresholds, no AVCP systems, and no conditions for classification 
determined at EU level. 

2. Relying on mutual recognition would likely fragment the construction products market 

Based  on  experience  outside  the  sphere  for  which  requirements  are  set  under  the  CPR  doubts 
must be raised as to the effectiveness of the principle of mutual recognition. The main reason for 
the  supposedly  weak  effectiveness  of  the  principle  is  that  Member  States  regulations  on 
construction works (and thus implicitly the product requirements derived therefrom) differ very 
much, as can be proven by the fact that national regulation requires very different performance 
levels. Hence, little conclusions294 can be drawn from the acceptance of a certain product with 
regard to Criteria list A in Member State X for the Criteria list B in Member State Y, the Criteria 
list  B  reflecting  other  construction  work  needs  that  are  easily  explained  by  natural  factors.  A 
manufacturer strategy based on mutual recognition thus becomes particularly risky in the field of 
construction products. These elements may explain why, in reality, manufacturers mostly seem 
to adapt to the different national requirements in all the different Member States where they wish 
to market their products, without relying on mutual recognition. Repealing the CPR is likely to 
compel manufacturers of ever more construction products to go down this road.  

Equally, the current CPR-imposed criteria on the design of public tenders would cease to apply. 
The diversity of requirements established in public tenders would widen even more. 

3. The repeal would not contribute to the European Green Deal 

It  must be noted that a repeal  without replacement  would not,  contrary to  a CPR as revised as 
outlined in Options B and D, provide a substantial contribution to the European Green Deal (e.g. 
by  providing  harmonised  information  on  construction  products’  environmental  performance  or 
introducing environmental product requirements).  

293 See footnote 51. 
294 Regarding the likelihood of acceptance or matching. 

144 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX  I  [OF  REFINED  OPTION  PAPER]  –  PACKAGE  OF  MEASURES  AIMED  AT 
HARMONISING DECISION-MAKING (OPTION B) 

In  order  to  harmonise  the  decision-making  of  market  surveillance  authorities  (MSAs), 
Notified  Bodies  (NBs),  Environmental  Verification  Organisations  (EVOs)  and  Notifying 
Authorities (NAs), a revised CPR would include a package of measures providing for their 
lay  down 
structured  communication,  coordination  and  cooperation,  as  well  as 
requirements for their qualification and performance. The measures described here would 
be part of Option B.  

Note: The measures described here are unlikely to be selected all or even by majority. The 
purpose of this listing is just to describe what might be needed to be considered as possible 
means for harmonising decision-making. 

Setting up a structured information mechanisms 

As a necessary fundament for harmonised decision-making, a revised CPR would set up a 
structured mechanism for the exchange of information between the relevant actors. Such a 
mechanism  would  allow  for  the  identification  and  communication  of  interpretative 
questions, as well as the collection and evaluation of different possible interpretations.   

To achieve this aim, a revised CPR might possibly: 

  Set up a single information infrastructure; 

  Provide  clear  rules  on  when  and  how  relevant  actors  must  report  on  new  interpretative 

questions; 

  Provide for the possible use of artificial intelligence to detect recurring patterns (e.g. similar 
decision types) and deviating decisions (to prevent unjust decisions, any final decision would 
be left to a human agent); 

  Permit 3rd parties (citizens and economic operators) to raise interpretative questions (after the 

single information infrastructure is up and running). 

Ensuring common approach to interpretative questions 

A  revised  CPR  would  provide  for  the  centralised  processing  of  identified  interpretative 
questions, with validity for all relevant actors.  

In addition to possible informal interpretations or interpretation rules, the Commission would be 
empowered  to  adopt  Implementing  Acts  containing  binding  interpretations  or  implementation 
rules.  This  empowerment  would  be  used  to  address  pertinent  interpretative  questions  raised 
through  the  structured  information  mechanism.  The  resulting  binding  interpretations  would  be 
based  on  careful  analysis  of  the  practical,  legal  and  economic  impacts  of  various  possible 
interpretations (maybe even following a testing period of the chosen interpretation). Moreover, 
before  adopting  a  binding  interpretation,  the  Commission  would  discuss  the  options  and  their 
effects with the relevant actors and with Member States in virtual fora. Lastly, from the moment 
an  interpretative  question  is  taken  under  consideration  by  the  Commission  a  standstill  period 
might apply under certain circumstances to avoid a drifting apart of views. 

Introducing rules for the qualification of agents 

Knowledge gaps may lead to wrong decisions. As most actors decide correctly and wrong 
decisions  are  unlikely  to  be  consistent,  knowledge  gaps  also  lead  to  non-harmonised 

145 

 
 
decision-making. Qualification measures addressed at the relevant agents could close such 
gaps.  

To  close  existing  knowledge  gaps  and  to  prevent  the  emergence  of  new  knowledge  gaps,  a 
revised CPR would provide for the following measures aimed at ensuring the qualification of the 
agents of MSAs, NBs, EVOs and NAs:      

 

 

Inserting minimum qualification criteria;  

Introducing mandatory periodic training after qualification;  

  Ensuring  availability  of  online  training  modules  or  at  least  visual  recordings  of  training 

courses to complement live training courses. 

Introducing quantitative minimum requirements 

Non-harmonised  decision-making  often  also  results  from  uneven  or  insufficient  human 
resources.  In  technical  fields,  the  lack  of  laboratory  capacities  plays  a  role.  To  address 
these issues,  a revised  CPR would set up minimum  requirements, in terms of output and 
input, for relevant actors (in addition to those already mentioned in Option B).  

A revised CPR might possibly include two kinds of minimum requirements: 

 

Input  requirements:  proportionate,  parameter-based  minimum  resources  (for  example  in 
terms of full-time equivalents) to be made available by relevant actors; 

  Output  requirements: different  minimum  control measures depending on the relevant  actor, 

e.g. a minimum number of unannounced verification to be performed by MSAs.  

Promoting a common decision-making culture 

Promoting  a  collaborative  attitude  among  the  relevant  actors  can  further  favour 
harmonised decision-making. When relevant agents do not hesitate to inform and ask their 
peers  about  interpretative  issues,  when  such  issues  are  viewed  as  occasions  for  common 
learning, they are more likely to be settled in a harmonised way.  

In order to promote a common decision-making culture, a revised CPR might possibly: 

  Establish requirements for periodic trainings that might bring together actors from different 

Member States; 

  Ensure that such trainings are based on common simulated cases; 

  Ensure that such trainings also address cultural aspects (e.g. pace of decisions); 

  Create  a  legal  basis  for  sharing  national  responsibilities  and  attribution  of  shared  roles 
(depending on the context, roles could be shared according to knowledge and capacities).  

Ensuring the involvement of peers 

At the level of decision-making itself, a revised CPR could provide for the involvement of 
peers where appropriate. The structure of involvement would depend on the context and 
relevant actors. 

Examples of possible measures might possibly include: 

  Reporting obligations on past decision-making practice and discussion thereof; 

  Mandatory participation to meetings dealing with decision-making practice; 

146 

 
 
  Reporting  obligations  on  inspection  planning  (indirectly  disclosing  intended  decision-

making); 

  Peers  observe  each  other’s  enforcement  activities  like  audits  and  inspections  of  economic 

operators and publish a report on their performance; 

  Allow for joint decision-making of different relevant actors; 

  Setting up a formal or informal entity to coordinate decision-making across different relevant 
actors,  which  would  also  disseminate  information  and  promote  alignment  of  views  among 
relevant actors. 

147 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX  II  [OF  REFINED  OPTION  PAPER]  –  PACKAGE  OF  MEASURES  ON 
ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT (OPTION B) 

A revised CPR would improve enforcement by introducing a series of measures already to 
be  foreseen  in  the  legal  text  (which  are  not  or  not  fully  covered  by  Regulation  (EU) 
2019/1020 on market surveillance and compliance of products). The measures listed below 
are part of Option B.  

Note: The measures described here are unlikely to be selected all or even by majority. The 
purpose of this listing is just to describe what might be needed to be considered as possible 
means for enhancing enforcement. 

Rights to sue: 

  Give competitors the right to sue non-compliant manufacturers and their distributors (such a 
right has been foreseen in EU and Member States’ competition law and some Member States 
have extended the right to sue competitors to cases where EU product law is infringed); 

  Give  consumer  organisations  the  right  so  sue  non-compliant  manufacturers  and  their 

distributors (such a right has been foreseen in some pieces of EU environmental law). 

Minimum requirements: 

  Establish minimum benchmarks for market surveillance, e.g. in terms of qualified full-time 

equivalences to be made available or of enforcement measures or actions to be taken; 

  Establish  procedures  and  other  arrangements  for  the  proper  performance  of  the  duties  of 

market surveillance staff, e.g. a qualification matrix to be used when hiring staff. 

Investigative powers: 

  Give  market  surveillance  authorities  the  power  to  require  any  public  authority,  body  or 
agency within the market surveillance authority's Member State, any natural or legal person 
or  any  economic  operator  to  provide  any  information,  data  or  document  (in  any  form  or 
format and irrespective of its storage medium or the place where it is stored) on compliance, 
physical aspects, supply chain, distribution network or quantities? (this empowerment goes, 
except  for  economic  operators,  beyond  the  empowerments  foreseen  in  Article  14(3)  of 
Regulation (EU) 2019/20 - letters (a) and (b) thereof only relate to economic operators);  

  Give market surveillance authorities the right to request information directly from economic 

operators in another Member State; 

  Give  market  surveillance  authorities  the  right  to  obtain  information  from  internet  service 
providers on communication and data-exchange of presumably non-compliant operators and 
supervising the internet communication or telecommunication (meta-data or even content) in 
a personalised or generic way; 

  Give market surveillance authorities the right to acquire product samples, including under a 
cover  identity,  to  inspect  them  and  to  reverse-engineer  them  in  order  to  detect  non-
compliance and obtain evidence; 

  Give  market  surveillance  authorities  the  right  to  visit  and  inspect,  without  prior 
retailing 
announcement,  offices, 
establishments,  laboratories,  research  institutions  and  other  premises  or  vehicles  in  which 
products are produced or kept (this empowerment is broader than the empowerment foreseen 

factories,  warehouses,  wholesaling  establishments, 

148 

 
 
in  Article  14(3)(e)  of  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1020  in  so  far  as  it  is  not  limited  to  premises 
‘that the economic operator uses’); 

  Give market surveillance authorities the right to seize and take possession of all documents, 

data and products which might serve as means of proof for stating the non-conformity; 

  Give  market  surveillance  authorities  the  right  to  confiscate  samples  of  possibly  non-

compliant products; 

  Give  market  surveillance  authorities  the  right  to  seize  and  take  possession  of  all  non-
compliant products, be they in a possession of the person responsible for the infringement or 
another person; 

  Give  market  surveillance  authorities  the  right  to  confiscate  non-compliant  products  or 
property  used  in  or  in  connection  with  the  illegal  activity  or  obtained  in  return  or  in 
connection with the illegal activity; 

  Give market surveillance authorities the right to compel the attendance of witnesses and the 
production of evidence  by third parties, when there  are  reasons  to  believe or first  evidence 
exist that an infringement is ongoing; 

  Give  market  surveillance  authorities  the  right  to  acquire  data  and  documents  from  third 

parties, including against payment or providing advantages. 

Information exchange: 

  Give  market  surveillance  authorities  appropriate  and  effective  communication  and 
cooperation  mechanisms  with  other  market  surveillance  authorities  and  other  relevant 
authorities, including customs authorities for the identification and examination of potential 
risks related to counterfeit products and withdrawal of such products from the market; 

  Give market  surveillance authorities the right   to communicate or exchange data with  third 
parties, other authorities, courts, natural or legal persons or other jurisdictions and adopting 
agreements in this regard to obtain further evidence on possible non-compliance; 

  Give  market  surveillance  authorities  the  right  to  use,  without  any  further  formal 
requirements, evidence produced by a market surveillance authority in one Member State as 
part of investigations to verify product compliance. 

Sanctioning powers: 

  Give  market  surveillance  authorities  the  possibility  to  block  or  to  remove  content  from 
internet websites offering products which are not in compliance with requirements applicable 
to  them  (hereafter:  “non-compliant  products”)  or  to  order  the  explicit  display  of  a  related 
warning  to  end-users  when  they  access  the  website  (this  empowerment  goes  beyond  the 
empowerment of Article 14(3)(k) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 which requires that there is 
no other effective means to eliminate a serious risk); 

  Give  market  surveillance  authorities  the  right  to  recover  from  non-compliant  economic 
operators  costs  for  state  action  triggered  by  infringements  (Article  15  of  Regulation  (EU) 
2019/1020  gives  Member  States  the  right  to  do  convey  such  empowerments  to  authorities, 
but does not itself convey the empowerment); 

  Give market surveillance authorities the right to impose other enforcement costs 

149 

 
 
  Give market surveillance authorities the right to decide on penalties, including fines, for non-
compliant  natural  persons  (Article  41  of  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1020  covers  only  penalties 
against economic operators); 

  Give  market  surveillance  authorities  the  right  to  impose  financial  sanctions  for  non-
compliant  legal  persons  (Article  41  of  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1020  covers  only  penalties 
against economic operators); 

  Give  market  surveillance  authorities  the  right  to  enforce  financial  obligations  and  financial 

sanctions or penalties via confiscation of products, rights or money; 

  Give market surveillance authorities the right to ban non-compliant economic operators from 

receiving subsidies; 

  Give market surveillance authorities the right to exclude non-compliant economic operators 

from public tenders; 

  Give market surveillance authorities the right to practice public naming and shaming of non-
compliant  economic  operators  and,  in  particular,  to  publish  any  final  decisions,  final 
measures,  commitments  given  by  the  economic  operator  or  decisions,  including  the 
publication  of  the  identity  of  the  economic  operator  who  was  responsible  for  the  non-
compliance and of the identity of the natural persons acting on behalf of these operators; 

  Give  market  surveillance  authorities  the  right  to  extend  sanctions  to  mother  or  sister 
companies and their agents, at least in cases where a company has been set-up as a shield for 
illegal activities; 

  Give market surveillance authorities the right to extend sanctions to partner companies and 

their agents where they contributed to illegal activities. 

150 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX  III  [OF  REFINED  OPTION  PAPER]  –  HARMONISED  TECHNICAL 
SPECIFICATIONS UNDER OPTION A (TODAY) AND UNDER OPTION B (POSSIBLY 
TOMORROW) 

1.  Issues of the current HTS system 

As  the  system  of  the  current  HTSs  is  well-known  and  described  in  detail  in  the  Commission 
evaluation295  and  the  EOTA  report296,  we  focus  on  highlighting  the  issues  which  might  be 
regarded as necessary to be solved: 

a)  Both Harmonised Standards and EADs (European Assessment Documents) 

  Translations not available in all EU languages, thus potential formal invalidity; 

 

Infringement of requirements for legal preciseness by imprecise normative references (e.g. 
undated or to standards which have been withdrawn or contradicting normative reference 
chains); 

  De facto little involvement of authorities and stakeholders other than industry; 

  Weak or absent democratic legitimation; 

  High risk of deviation from legal requirements (e.g. giving leeway to economic operators 

not foreseen in law); 

  Mixture of requirements that are necessary for the respective regulation and others that are 

not (“superfluous” ones); 

  Requirements which give privileges to certain manufacturers and keep out of the market 

others; 

  SME underrepresentation; 

  No possibility for authorities to step in when CEN / EOTA do not deliver. 

b)  Only Harmonised Standards 

  Extremely high rejection rate; 

  Refusal of CEN to establish internal legal control, which can be explained by: 

  CEN’s strategic preference for ISO alignment versus EU regulatory alignment. 

c)  Only EADs 

  No formal validation of EADs by Commission decision297 and no empowerment for such 
validation and hence potential formal invalidity in application of ECJ rulings since 1958 ( 

295°COM/2019/800°final,°24.10.2019,°accessible°at°https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?qid=1571917158693&uri=COM:2019:800:FIN (). 

296°COM/2019/800°final,°24.10.2019,°accessible°at°https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?qid=1571917158693&uri=COM:2019:800:FIN  

297 The right of Commission staff to object to the EADs does not constitute a formal decision of the Commission. 

151 

 
 
 
                                                           
see  the  Meroni  case298  -  for  more  recent  rulings  applying  Meroni,  see  for  example 
Parliament v Council299 and the ESMA case300); 

  EAD proliferation – too many variants; 

  EAD proliferation – EADs going beyond the purpose of EADs (“innovation”), becoming 

de facto another type of Harmonised Standard; 

  Too  many  stages  for  EADs,  legal  uncertainty,  which  can  lead  to  ETAs  being  issued 

without formally valid EADs. 

2.  Outline of the HTS / standardisation system under Option B 

a)  The current system of Harmonised  Standards would continue to exist, but  for the time 
being  only  as  a  second  best  (or  “back-up”)  solution301.  The  range  of  standardisation 
organisations would be enlarged, including a follow-up organisation to EOTA. Some of the 
issues listed above can be remedied within the context of the revision of the CPR, but not all. 
Others can only be addressed, if at all, by a future revision of the Regulation (EU) 1025/2012 
on European Standardisation. Therefore, the current system of Harmonised Standards under 
the CPR needs to be complemented. It could become complemented “above” by a thick new 
level  of  Harmonised Technical  Specifications adopted by the  European  Commission (letter 
b)) and “below” by a thin layer of indirect references to standards (letter c)). 

or 

combinations/consortia 

b)  The  main  pillar  of  Option  B  is  the  re-introduction  of  the  centuries  old  principle  that 
regulation is,  as default path, formally adopted by public authorities302, in  this case by 
the  European  Commission.  This  does  not  imply  that  the  technical  content  of  the  HTS  is 
elaborated by the European Commission or other authorities. Private bodies (CEN, EOTA or 
its follow-up organisation, industry associations, private standardisation bodies or consortia, 
Notified  Bodies, 
and  Member  States’ 
authorities/institutes  would  all  be  welcome  to  provide  technical  content  which  can  be  cast 
into a harmonised standard format for Harmonised Technical Specifications adopted by the 
European  Commission.  Subject  to  readiness,  available  resources  and  specialisation,  one  or 
the  other  or  a  combination  of  these  actors  would  become  entrusted  with  elaborating  the 
technical content, whilst the European Commission, together with authorities, would ensure 
by  supervision  that  regulatory  needs  are  covered  and  that  legal  requirements  are  fulfilled. 
Entrusted actors would be asked to provide for transparency towards other stakeholders and 
to invite them to contribute to the development of the technical content. At the level of the 
formal  adoption  by  the  European  Commission,  the  usual  public  consultation  mechanisms 

these) 

of 

298  Judgement  of  13  June  1958,  Meroni  v  High  Authority,  C-10/56,  ECLI:EU:C:1958:8,  https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:61956CJ0010&from=EN   

299  Judgement  of  5  September  2012,  Parliament  v  Council,  C‑355/10,  ECLI:EU:C:2012:516,  paras.  64-82, 
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=126363&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=ls
t&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=935739 

300  Judgement  of  22  January  2014,  UK  v  Council  and  Parliament,  C-270/12,  ECLI:EU:C:2014:18,  paras.  41-55, 
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=146621&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst
&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5618770  

301 In the medium or long term, however, it might become very relevant again, see Section 4. Outlook. 
302 This is anything but  new, history of regulation has not started  with the New  Approach. The New  Approach is 
rather  a  historic  exception  to  the  rule.  It  is  also  an  exception  when  we  compare  the  overall  number  of  sectors 
covered by the New Approach versus others. Finally, the New Approach is also, in a worldwide perspective, the 
exception from the rule. 

152 

 
 
                                                           
would  kick-in.  Hence,  there  would  be  a  double-layer  of  stakeholder  information  and 
participation.  

On an organisational level, neither CEN nor (the follow-up organisation of) EOTA would be 
obliged to substantially change its internal organisation. They can provide technical content 
on the basis of their current internal organisation or another. But both would be discharged of 
formal  adoption  mechanisms,  which  will  facilitate  their  task  and  permits  them  to  focus  on 
what they are particularly good at: developing technical content. 

The integration into Commission acts of technical content can happen in two ways: 

  by inserting the content; 

  by  referencing  the  content  laid  down  in  a  document  which  is  publicly  available  and 

translated into all EU languages. 

The latter path could in particular be practiced if CEN wished to continue to formally adopt 
standards. In this variant, little would change for CEN, except, for the variant of the second 
indent,  the  need  to  ensure  translations  into  all  languages  via  the  national  standardisation 
bodies303.  In  return,  the  complex  administrative  process  in  relation  to  the  European 
Commission,  namely  the  standardisation  requests  and  the  responses  thereto,  could  be 
dropped. 

c)  On a level “below” the current Harmonised Standards, a thin layer of indirect references to 
standards  (not  necessarily  “Harmonised  Standards”, 
i.e.  standards  covered  by  a 
standardisation request of the European Commission) would be added. To avoid misleading 
claims, the manufacturer should be obliged to  assess the performance or  the characteristics 
they claim in accordance with a methodology that fulfils the quality notion “state of the art” 
or  “best  available  technique”304.  Although  “state  of  the  art”  can  be  interpreted  to  mean  the 
best  available  method305,  this  outcome  is  by  no  means  certain.  The  severity  of  this  quality 
notion  will  thus  depend  on  the  formula  chosen  (“best  available  technique”  being  more 
severe).  What  then  constitutes  the  “state  of  the  art”  or  “best  available  technique”  is  to  be 
determined  on  a  case-by-case  basis  in  the  light  of  available  methodological  documents, 
namely  but  not  exclusively  international  and  EU  standards.  De  facto,  standards  would 
become the main source for the concretion of these abstract terms, as they are already today 
in those Member States that use this regulatory technique. The indirect referencing avoids so 
far the need for severe legal scrutiny of the standards. It thereby pursues the intention of the 
now already old “New Approach” of using the flexibility of standards without buying-in the 
formal burdens of regulation. 

303  In  case  of  insertion  of  CEN  technical  content  into  the  legal  acts  adopted  by  the  European  Commission,  the 

translation would be ensured by the European Commission itself.  

304  See  for  example  Article 5  of  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  665/2013  supplementing  Directive  2010/13  on  the 
energy  labelling  of  vacuum  cleaners  (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:0201 
3R0665-20170307&from=NL),  which  states  that  ‘the  information  to  be  provided  […]  shall  be  obtained  by 
reliable,  accurate  and  reproducible  measurement  and  calculations  methods,  which  take  into  account  the 
recognised state-of-the-art measurement and calculation methods’. 

305  See  for  example  Opinion  of  the  Advocate  General  of  26  January  1999,  Commission  v  Germany,  C-198/97, 
21, 

ECLI:EU:C:1999:23, 
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=44378&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst
&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5784189 in which the ‘État optimal de la technologie’ was taken to be equivalent 
to ‘state of the art technology’.  

para. 

153 

 
 
                                                           
3.  Risks and downsides of the HTS / standardisation system under Option B 

a)  The  subsidiary  new  element  of  Option  B  is  the  introduction  of  a  thin  layer  of  indirect 
references to standards. This regulatory technique has been used with success and for many 
decades  by  some  Member  States  and  in  particular  Germany.  It  has  some  downsides  at  the 
level of legal preciseness. However, if courts play the game as they did in Germany, the legal 
preciseness  increases  over  time306.  As  mentioned  above,  the  interpretative  outcome  also 
depends on how the reference is formulated.  

b)  The main element of Option B is the re-opening of the classic, centuries old path for adoption 
or  regulation  by  authorities.  This  path  has  proven  to  be  viable  across  sectors,  across 
jurisdictions and across centuries. There is no reason why it should not be viable in the case 
of the CPR either. 

c)  However, we cannot, at this point in time, estimate the speed of delivery of the system. The 
speed of delivery depends on a long range of factors such as cooperation and engagement of 
industry,  of  CEN,  of  (the  follow-up  organisation  of)  EOTA,  of  Member  States  authorities 
and  specialised  institutes,  but  also  Commission  human  resources  and  intra-administrative 
obligations / hurdles for the formal adoption of HTSs as Commission acts. 

d)  Assuming an equivalent engagement of industry, there is no reason to assume that the output 
in normal times, once basic mechanisms have been established, would be lower than under 
the  current  standardisation  system  –  even  when  we  disregard  that  currently  virtually  no 
harmonised  standards  are  newly  cited  in  the  Official  Journal.  As  can  be  seen  in  many 
different sectors, the European Commission is able to produce a high number of regulatory 
acts in a given sector307. 

e)  However,  a  precondition  is  that  Member  States  engage  slightly  more  than  currently.  They 
should engage at the same level as they used to engage – speaking now across all sectors, not 
just  for  the  CPR  –  in  standardisation  one  or  two  decades  ago.  One  or  two  decades  ago, 
Member  States  were  still  very  active  also  at  the  level  of  Technical  Committees  of 
standardisation bodies, avoiding that standards deviate too much from legal requirements308. 
This level of engagement would need to be re-established to reach a full output of HTSs. Not 
more. 

f)  Without  any  engagement  of  Member  States  and  of  industry,  the  European  Commission 
would, with the help of its consultants, its Joint Research Centre and contractors, still be in a 
position to prepare HTSs. However, the overall speed and thus output would be dramatically 
reduced,  whilst  being  still  higher  than  the  output  of  the  current  system  in  terms  of  HTSs 
really  becoming  law.  Hence,  as  much  as  it  would  be  disappointing  if  there  was  no 
contribution from Member States and from industry, the situation would be much better than 

306  See  for  example  the  Judgement  of  30  September  1996  of  the  German  Federal  Administrative  Court  (http://w 
eb.archive.org/web/19991009005152/http://www.vrp.de/archiv/rupdig/mrz97/aktuell/ar387.htm),  in  which  the 
“generally recognised state of the art” was defined as those methods that “are tested and proven in practice.” 
307  Such  regulatory  „machines“  exist  for  instance  in  the  field  of  pharmaceuticals,  automotive  industry,  transport, 

agriculture, food and feed safety, to name but a few.  

308 With successive budget cuts, the engagement of Member States in standardisation bodies has dwindled and, in 

parallel thereto, the mismatch with regulation has increased. 

154 

 
 
                                                           
today309.  Accordingly,  there  does  not  seem  to  be  an  alternative  for  opening  the  path  of 
adoption of technical regulation by the European Commission310. 

4.  Outlook 

From  the  current  perspective,  where  the  standardisation  path  is  at  least  as  procedurally 
cumbersome  as  the  adoption  of  technical  regulation  by  the  European  Commission, it might  be 
questionable  why  the  standardisation  path  should  be  kept  as  an  alternative  for  the  CPR. 
However, things can change, as they changed in the past. Adopting technical regulation by the 
European Commission was easy three or four decades ago, but became increasingly cumbersome 
in  the  last  two  decades311.  This  gave  standardisation  a  tremendous  comparative  advantage,  in 
addition to the much less severe legal and formal control. With the Regulation (EU) 1025/2012 
on  European  Standardisation312  and  the  fall-out  of  the  James  Elliott  ruling313  in  the  years  after 
2016,  however,  the  standardisation  path  is  now  equally  if  not  more  cumbersome  than  the 
adoption  of  technical  regulation  by  the  European  Commission314.  Hence,  the  adoption  of 
technical regulation by the European Commission is a – comparatively – more promising path. 
Subject  to  a  revision  of  the  Regulation  on  European  Standardisation  and  of  the  regulatory 
policies  for  regulation  of  the  European  Commission  this  might  change  again.  Hence,  it  is 
commendable  to  keep  both  paths  open  and  to  complement  both  with  the  thin  layer  of  indirect 
references to standards.  

In an even broader perspective, having three different regulatory techniques at hand provides a 
large  range  of  choices  and  possibilities  for  intelligent  combinations  that  can  be  arranged  in  a 
flexible way in accordance with the concrete situation at a given time. The actual handling of the 
three  regulatory  techniques  should  be  made  in  view  of  the  concrete  situation,  namely  the 
respective product family, the knowledge, performance and willingness of potential cooperation 
partners,  the  specific  regulatory  needs  of  authorities  and  industry,  the  speed  of  update  to 
technical progress needed etc. Our services are confident that, if all parties involved realise the 
full potential given by pragmatic tailor-made combinations of these three techniques, the current 
debate on whether this or that path “is the right one” will be quickly forgotten.  

309 Admittedly, the situation could be hardly worse than today. 
310  The  detailed  reasons  for  the  failure  of  the  current  standardisation  system  in  the  field  of  the  CPR  have  been 
described 
the  recently  published  evaluation,  accessible  at  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1571917158693&uri=COM:2019:800:FIN  (COM/2019/800  final,  24.10.2019).  Many 
efforts have been spent in vain to get the system afloat again. 

in  detail 

in 

311  There  were  many  very  valid  reasons  for  the  establishment  of  the  different  procedural  steps,  from  the  better 
integration of EU policies to a better control by the legislators to more transparency towards trade partners and 
stakeholders. 

312 OJ L 316, 14.11.2012, p. 12–33, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32012R1025 
313 

Judgement  of  27  October  2016,  James  Elliot  Construction,  C-613/14,  ECLI:EU:C:2016:821, 

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=184891&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst
&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5620375 

314 We exempt cases where an impact assessment is needed. 

155 

 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 13: OPTIONS AND ELEMENTS DISCARDED 

1. Discarded options 

During various surveys315 of the years 2018 to 2019, stakeholders and Member States gave their 
view on the idea of reverting to voluntary standards under the CPR. Almost unanimously, they 
voiced  massive  concerns  against  replacing  the  current  mandatory  standards  by  voluntary 
standards  for  the  assessment  of  the  construction  products’  performance,  e.g.  in  terms  of  load 
bearing  capacity  or  fire  resistance.  The  main  argument  was  that  voluntary  standards  cannot 
guarantee that manufacturers  assess the performance of their products  in the  same  way so  that 
the national building codes can rely on the assessed performance. This view coincides with the 
Commission services’ view. Accordingly, the return to voluntary standards has been sidelined in 
the Refined indicative options paper and thus from the later surveys and the public consultation, 
whilst elements of the voluntary standards’ concept could be maintained in Options C and D. 

In late 2019, two Member States voiced the view that the CPR revision should focus on “getting 
the  boat  afloat  for  standardization”  in  a  first  round,  tackling  the  remaining  issues  in  a  second 
legislative procedure. The same view was taken by numerous stakeholders. A deeper analysis of 
this  suggestion  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the  issues  of  the  CPR  are  so  much  intertwined  that 
focusing  on  standardization  cannot  even  solve  the  standardization  issue.  Moreover,  political 
imperatives, in  particular the need to  incorporate the goals  of the European Green Deal  and of 
the Circular Economy Action Plan, made it necessary to go for a more comprehensive solution. 

Late 2020 and early 2021, business associations presented a concept paper containing a so-called 
“Option  F”316.  This  concept  paper  was  focusing  on  a  new  way  of  elaborating  technical 
specifications which resembled to the elaboration mode of Option D2 for product requirements. 
As  a  result,  there  would  be  only  Commission  acts  with  –  to  the  extent  possible  -  mandatory 
references to standards, and this also for the performance assessment of essential characteristics. 
Besides  the  fact  that  this  “Option  F”  could  not  anymore  be  integrated  into  the  public 
consultation,  it  was  perceived  as  being  too  radical,  for  scrapping  completely  the  use  of 
harmonised standards as distinct path for the development of technical specifications. Instead of 
having at its disposal two elaboration modes for technical specifications, the Commission would 
again only have one. Bearing in mind that one elaboration mode can easily fail, as seen today, 
the likelihood of a system functioning can only be increased by having two or more elaboration 
modes.  

315 VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute (DTI), 
Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study for the Review of the Construction Products 
Regulation: Evaluation. 

     VVA Economics & Policy, Joint Institute for Innovation Policy (JIIP), Danish Technological Institute (DTI), 
Global Data Collection Company (2018). Supporting study for the Review of the Construction Products 
Regulation: Impact Assessment. 

     Public consultation on EU rules for products used in the construction of buildings and infrastructure works 

(January-April 2018), https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/32082. 

316 See Results of the Survey on the Refined indicative options paper, April-August 2020, Annex II on option B, 

available: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/43103. 

156 

 
 
                                                           
2. Discarded elements 

In  April  2020,  Option  B  was  designed  as  a  full  package  of  repair  elements  that  could  be 
combined in  multiple combinations.  It  had been  decided to keep all the  debatable elements  on 
the  table  as  long  as  possible  in  order  to  be  transparent  towards  the  stakeholders:  only  by 
presenting all the elements, we made clear how big the playing field of the CPR revision is. This 
with the view of allowing them to comment on all the elements which potentially could find its 
way into the revision.  

The downside of not discarding some of the potential elements of the options at an early stage 
was that the options containing these elements were assessed by the stakeholders more critically 
than they would have been  otherwise. However,  the differentiated views  with  regard to  all the 
elements permitted identification of the precise interests of the stakeholders and thus correction 
of the bias in favour of keeping the current regulatory system. 

For several elements the iterative process with stakeholders and deeper analysis has triggered the 
need to discard them at a later point in time, just before or even during the drafting of the Impact 
Assessment report. This was the case in particular where the feedback was turning out to be very 
negative.  

In  consequence,  after  the  feedback  received  on  the  Refined  indicative  options  paper,  several 
elements initially considered within the context of Option B and presented as such in April 2020, 
in the Refined indicative options paper, have been discarded, amongst them namely: 

-  Preliminary  CE  marking  on  the  basis  of  assessments  of  Regulatory  Advancement  Bodies 
which  were  to  replace  the  Technical  Assessment  Bodies  (EOTA  route):  Stakeholders  and 
authorities feared legal uncertainty, in particular regarding the transition from the preliminary 
to the definitive CE marking; 

-  Establishment  of  special  bodies  for  the  environmental  assessments:  Stakeholders  and 
authorities saw no need for these dedicated bodies as the current notified bodies framework 
permits specialisation, e.g. on fire safety, and the combination of the involvement of different 
notified bodies; 

- 

Improving the efficacy of notified bodies: Deviation from the default provisions established 
by the NLF would create different practices amongst different product sectors; 

-  Streamlining  of  the  procedures  in  case  of  non-conformities:  Deviation  from  the  default 
provisions established by the NLF would create different practices amongst different product 
sectors; 

-  Enhancing  market  surveillance:  Instead  of  extending  the  empowerments,  some  measures 

were taken in line with the SPI; 

-  Reducing  or  lifting  AVCP  obligations  in  case  of  coverage  by  liability  insurance:  This  was 
felt to be  an important  further complication of the system  with  little practical  added value; 
and 

-  Better  access  to  harmonised  standards  by  translation  into  all  official  languages  and  free 

availability: Budgetary constraints made it necessary to drop this point. 

157 

 
 
ANNEX 14: JAMES ELLIOTT JUDGMENT (C-613/14)317  

In the James Elliott judgment,318 the Court gave a preliminary ruling addressing important issues 
in  relation  to  the  role  of  the  European  standard-setting  bodies  and  the  harmonised  standards 
adopted in compliance with New Approach directives. In particular, for the first time, the Court 
established  its  jurisdiction  to  give  preliminary  rulings  on  the  interpretation  of  harmonised 
standards, clarifying their position in relation to EU law. For the ground-breaking outcome of the 
case and for the institutional implications it  entails, the judgment in James Elliott Construction 
represents a fundamental step in the evolution of the case law concerning  standardisation in its 
relation to the EU legal system and to the law in general. 

The Court started by recalling its case law according to which it has jurisdiction to interpret not 
only “acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union”, but also other acts which 
are  “by  their  nature  measures  implementing  or  applying  an  act  of  EU  law”319.  Thus,  in  a 
teleological reading of Article 267 TFEU, the Court can establish its jurisdiction also over such 
acts of other bodies in order to ensure the uniform application of EU law320. Acknowledging that 
the standard-setting bodies cannot be described as “institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the 
Union”, the Court considered whether the standard at issue represents a measure implementing 
or applying an act of EU law. 

For this purpose, it analysed the provisions of the Construction Products Directive and stressed 
the  relevance  of  the  essential  requirements  set  out  by  European  legislation321,  as  well  as  the 
control  exercised  by  the  European  Commission  in  initiating,  managing  and  monitoring  the 
procedure for the adoption of a harmonized standard322. In light of this, the Court concluded that 
the  standard  at  issue  is  “a  necessary  implementing  measure”  of  the  Construction  Products 
Directive323, and therefore it can be considered as “part of EU law”.324 As such, the harmonised 
standard can be subject to interpretation by the Court, which thus establishes its jurisdiction to 
give  a  preliminary  ruling.  Moreover,  the  lack  of  binding  effects  of  harmonised  standards  does 
not preclude the Court from ruling on its interpretation, having regard to the legal effects of the 
presumption of conformity to the New Approach directives that the compliance with the standard 
entails.  

With reference to the third question, the Court clarified that the presumption of fitness for use of 
a construction product manufactured in compliance with a harmonised standard must be read in 
connection with its purpose of guaranteeing the free circulation of the product within the internal 
market and is meaningful only in this context. Therefore, national courts cannot apply it to give 
meaning  to  general  clauses  of  national  law,  such  as  the  obligation  to  supply  products  “of 

317 Excerpts from the Common Market Law Review 54: 591–604, 2017. 
318  Judgment  of  27  October  2016  in  case  C-613/14  James  Elliott  Construction  Limited  v  Irish  Asphalt  Limited, 

ECLI:EU:C:2016:821. 

319  Judgment,  para  34.  The  ECJ  refers  to  Case  C-192/89,  S.Z.  Sevince  v.  Staatssecretaris  van  Justitie, 

EU:C:1990:322; Case C-188/91, Deutsche Shell AG v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Harburg, EU:C:1993:24. 

320 Judgment, para 34. 
321 Ibid., para 43.  
322 Ibid., para 45. 
323 Ibid., para 43. 
324 Ibid., para 40. 

158 

 
 
                                                           
merchantable quality” or “fit for purpose”.325 Having replied to the referring court’s question in 
the negative, the fourth and fifth questions could be omitted. 

Finally,  as  regards  the  second  question,  concerning  the  application  of  the  CIA  Security 
International  and  Unilever  case  law  to  the  Irish  provision  on  the  need  to  provide  products  “of 
merchantable quality”, the Court considered whether this provision falls within the scope of the 
notification duty imposed by Article 8 of Directive 98/34. Since the Irish provision did not fall 
within the concepts of “technical  specification”,  “technical  regulation” or “other requirements” 
within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 98/34, the Court concluded that there was no need 
to notify such a provision to the European Commission and, therefore, the Irish judge may apply 
it in the proceedings before it. 

325 Ibid., para 59. 

159