Marketing can be a weird profession at times.

One of my stranger jobs during my tenure at SLG, came way back in 2015 (yikes), as I spent the day in a warehouse in Sheffield with a Construction Industry Detective (or CID) meticulously running the rule over construction products.

Don’t get too excited, CIDs aren’t real, just some poetic license with the job title of one of SIG’s product compliance leads.

There was a point to the project, we were working with SIG to promote its ‘SIG Assured’ initiative, which saw brands having to demonstrate product provenance by providing details of their products’ CE Marking, otherwise face de-listing from SIG branches.

CE Marking wasn’t perfect (part of the reason for the SIG project was to protect the sector from imports from other territories carrying spurious versions of the marque), but it was understood by the sector and straightforward enough, as well as keeping SIG’s product standards in line with other nations.

Then came a certain referendum and a proposed bonfire of legislation…

Understanding CE Marking

For the uninitiated I should perhaps explain, CE Marking simply means European Conformity (or ‘conformité européenne’) Marking. It ensures that the products carrying the marque are safe for their intended application in the European market. Our focus here, of course, is on construction products; that is, products that are manufactured for use in the creation or repair of buildings and their amenities.

As part of a ‘hard Brexit’, the Government of the day introduced an alternative UKCA marque to replace the CE, with all products to be sold for use in Great Britain* needing to conform to all the associated new standards to gain the marque. Only, of course, this didn’t happen.

So as not to put undue pressure on UK businesses at a time of high stress, the then Government set a deadline of 31st December 2024 for all the legislation governing product safety, across all sectors, to be written, passed through parliament, and adopted. And, for all business looking to sell in the UK construction market to have obtained UKCA standards. That’s less than four months away. Gulp.

Let’s be thankful, then, for yesterday’s somewhat surprising announcement that the move has been postponed and that CE Marking (and UKCA Marking) will continue to be recognised.

New Government, new plans?

The Government noted that the UK’s testing and accreditation for construction products simply doesn’t have the capacity to manage the volume of product approvals necessary, potentially causing a logjam effect – limiting the sale of some products into the supply chain, at best, or jeopardising public safety at worst.

This last point is a particularly pertinent one, with the announcement coming just days before the release of the final report on the Grenfell Tower tragedy. In her statement, Rushanara Ali MP – Parliamentary Under Secretary for Building Safety and Homelessness – noted that the Government will include any recommendations from the report into any new product legislation in an attempt to make the public feel confident their homes are safe and well built.

Of course, there is little more important for the construction sector than building safety, and so the above was very welcome. In a similar vein, one other comment stood out to me:

Could this mean the introduction of the Code for Construction Product Information (CCPI) to the legislature?

Might we see CCPI?

I imagine anyone that’s read a blog on construction products to this point will be aware that CCPI is the brainchild of the Construction Products Association and is a set of standards concerning product provenance, product information, performance claims, and marketing that is overseen by the recently-created body CPI Limited.

CCPI was born out of the findings of Dame Judith Hackitt’s report into the circumstances surrounding Grenfell which, sadly, included the realisation that construction product information was misleading, inaccurate, and open to manipulation.

While this was undoubtedly a contributing factor in the events at Grenfell, including inappropriate system selection and installation, it also throws up questions about the way the sector procures systems, and the information associated with them – and not every business in the supply chain is big enough to be able to afford its own Construction Industry Detective.

Speaking personally, I’m a big advocate of CCPI. Most of the steps asked of product manufacturers and their marketing teams is just good practice anyway, and the process has offered the sector the opportunity to voluntarily police itself and prove to the public that we’ve learned the lessons from Grenfell and take our responsibility to the communities we serve seriously, as per Ms Ali’s point on public trust.

Sadly, this hasn’t happened to anything like the degree it should have done. While dozens of businesses have supported the cause and signed up to pilot schemes etc., there are many more that have yet to do anything. The sad likelihood is that many won’t until market forces or legislation compel them to. I believe today’s announcement is the first step towards the latter.

There’s also something of a precedent set with the successful introduction of the Building Safety Act, which has been legislated for and consequently has enjoyed much more public backing from various parts of the supply chain. Yes, there has been some questions about the practical elements of asset registration, particularly from the SME-end of the sector, but it’s fair to say that most accept the positives that following good practice brings.

It pays to do the right thing

For forward-thinking businesses looking to establish a key point of difference and score some competitive advantage, I believe that CCPI could be huge. It demonstrates to customers (and end users) that you’re responsible and take these things seriously, it shows that you have product provenance and a solid supply chain, and it implies that your products may be safer than your competitors’.

In a risk averse sector like construction, the idea that your products, your supply chain, and your business are a safer bet is massive – particularly in the wake of recent market conditions. If we’re calculating risk, what happens to your business if house builders/main contractors/merchants et al declare that they’ll only use CCPI-approved products, much like SIG did with CE Marking? How would you pivot, and could you do it in enough time to minimise commercial risk? Might it be better to do the right thing and follow best practice now so that you get ahead?

Loaded questions that I’ll leave with you. You may be able to infer from these 900 plus words that I’m passionate about this, as are the rest of the team. We developed a white paper on CCPI a little while back that we’d be happy to share with anyone looking to learn more. We’d also be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Failing that, we can always send in the CID to see how your products really stack up.

Postscript – Wednesday 4th September

The final Grenfell report is out, and it’s damning for anyone with a vested interest in the sector. One thing is certain, ‘business as usual’ isn’t going to happen, and nor should it.

The Code for Construction Product Information was, as noted above, was born out of the Hackitt Report into the circumstances surrounding the Grenfell Tower tragedy. While signing up to the Code has, to date, been voluntary, the words of the Prime Minister and the final report make clear that something has to give.

Whether CCPI is mandated or not, it seems clear that something is coming to ensure that construction product data and marketing is clear, fair and unambiguous, and that this will be legislated for. This must be a good thing. The sector needs to be trusted and can only do so if its transparent – I believe that the Code achieves this, and that the steps on technical competence, document management and testing are all good practice for any responsible business anyway.

Whatever happens, one hopes that the Government are serious about seeing through the job of reform. I’d argue that getting across CCPI and its process is now vital for anyone tasked with marketing construction products not only to safeguard your brand, but to safeguard the lives of those that use your products/systems.

As we’ve tragically seen, the cost of us not getting this right is too high. Let’s show everyone that we, as a sector, take our responsibility seriously and let some good come from such a heartbreaking situation.