REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION 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

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
SEC(2022) 167
16.1.2022
REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION
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
SWD(2022) 88 - 89
Offentligt
KOM (2022) 0144 - SEK-dokument
Europaudvalget 2022
________________________________
This opinion concerns a draft impact assessment which may differ from the final version.
Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles - Belgium. Office: BERL 08/010. E-mail: regulatory-scrutiny-board@ec.europa.eu
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Regulatory Scrutiny Board
Brussels,
RSB
Opinion
Title: Impact assessment / Construction Products Regulation
Overall 2nd
opinion: POSITIVE WITH RESERVATIONS
(A) Policy context
The Construction Products Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 (CPR), lays down harmonised
conditions for the marketing of construction products in the EU. It sets harmonised rules to
express the products’ performance in relation to their essential characteristics (e.g. reaction
to fire, thermal conductivity, sound isolation). Through a common technical language, the
CPR aims to make the single market work better and improve the free movement of
construction products in the EU.
The initiative builds on a 2016 Commission implementation report and a 2019 evaluation
of the CPR that both revealed a number of weaknesses. It also aims to respond to the new
EU policy ambition set out in recent initiatives, in particular the European Green Deal
(2019), the Circular Economy Action Plan (2020), and Commission Communications on
the Renovation Wave (2020) and the European Climate Pact (2020). It is linked to the
parallel Sustainable Product Initiative (SPI).
(B) Summary of findings
The Board notes the information added in the report in response to the Board’s
previous opinion.
However, the report still contains significant shortcomings. The Board gives a
positive opinion with reservations because it expects the DG to rectify the following
aspects:
(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
2
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 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 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
3
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 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.
The Board notes the estimated costs and benefits of the preferred option in this initiative,
as summarised in the attached quantification tables.
(D) Conclusion
The DG must revise the report in accordance with the Board’s findings before
launching the interservice consultation.
If there are any changes in the choice or design of the preferred option in the final
version of the report, the DG may need to further adjust the attached quantification
tables to reflect this.
Full title Revision of the Construction Products Regulation
Reference number PLAN/2017/972
Submitted to RSB on 16 December 2021
Date of RSB meeting Written procedure
4
ANNEX: Quantification tables extracted from the draft impact assessment report
The following tables contain information on the costs and benefits of the initiative on
which the Board has given its opinion, as presented above.
If the draft report has been revised in line with the Board’s recommendations, the content
of these tables may be different from those in the final version of the impact assessment
report, as published by the Commission.
I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option
Description Amount Comments
Direct benefits
Improved market
surveillance
2.5 billion EUR There appears to be significant
benefits that can be reaped from
improved market surveillance, with a
potential 2.5 billion EUR to be
gained in terms of revenue, equalling
more than half the costs (burden)
associated with the CPR.
Indirect benefits
Increased safety of
construction products
No quantification available Benefits would occur thanks to
enhanced safety of construction
products, implying better protection
particularly of construction workers
and users/consumers using
construction products.
Increase in economic
actors’ compliance with
relevant rules and
regulations
No quantification available 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).
Increased quality of the
built environment in the
EU
No quantification available Benefits particularly for the citizens,
stemming from more sustainable and
durable built environment (buildings,
urban architecture etc.).
Increase in cross-border
trade in construction
products within the EU
Single Market
No quantification available 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.
Source: 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.
5
II. Overview of costs – Preferred option
Citizens/Consumers Businesses Administrations
One-off Recurrent One-off Recurrent One-off Recurre
nt
Direct
costs
Increase in
total costs
an increase
of ~200
mEUR in
costs among
manufacturer
s associated
with the
CPR, equal
to
approximatel
y 8% of the
baseline
costs and
correspondin
g to 0.05%
of the
construction
product
manufacturin
g sector's
total revenue
Increase in
administrativ
e costs and
resources to
administratio
ns in all
Member
States related
to the
progressive
adaptation to
the revised
CPR and the
changes it
brings with it.
Increase in
substantive
compliance
costs in
relation to CE
marking and
Declaration of
Performance
(DoP)
78 mEUR
Increase in
administrative
burden in
relation to CE
marking and
Declaration of
Performance
(DoP)
70 mEUR
Increase in
regulatory
charges in
relation to CE
marking and
64 mEUR
6
Declaration of
Performance
(DoP)
7
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Regulatory Scrutiny Board
Brussels,
RSB
Opinion
Title: Impact assessment / Construction Products Regulation
Overall opinion: NEGATIVE
(A) Policy context
This initiative aims to revise the Construction Products Regulation (EU) No 305/2011,
which lays down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products in the
EU. The Construction Products Regulation (CPR) sets harmonised rules to express the
products’ performance in relation to their essential characteristics (e.g. reaction to fire,
thermal conductivity, sound isolation). Through a common technical language, the CPR
aims to make the single market work better and improve the free movement of construction
products in the EU.
The initiative builds on a 2016 Commission implementation report and a 2019 evaluation
of the CPR that both revealed a number of weaknesses. It also aims to respond to the new
EU policy ambition set out in recent initiatives, in particular the European Green Deal
(2019), the Circular Economy Action Plan (2020), and Commission Communications on
the Renovation Wave (2020) and the European Climate Pact (2020).
(B) Summary of findings
The Board notes the additional information provided in advance of the meeting and
commitments to make changes to the report.
However, the Board gives a negative opinion, because the report contains the
following significant shortcomings:
(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 and the options.
(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 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
8
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 also better explain what aspects of the Regulation’s underperformance are within
the scope of this revision and which are not.
(2) The report should make better use of the evidence available in the 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 design and
implementation issues with this Regulation are. It should substantiate with evidence the
environmental protection and sustainability problems related to construction products, so
that the need for harmonised environmental 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.
(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.
(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 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.
Some more technical comments have been sent directly to the author DG.
9
(D) Conclusion
The DG must revise the report in accordance with the Board’s findings and resubmit
it for a final RSB opinion.
Full title Revision of the Construction Products Regulation (CPR)
Reference number PLAN/2017/972
Submitted to RSB on 23 June 2021
Date of RSB meeting 22 July 2021
Electronically signed on 26/01/2022 12:07 (UTC+01) in accordance with article 11 of Commission Decision C(2020) 4482