Alongside Eurovent, LightingEurope and Orgalim, we support MEP Christian Doleschal's definition of permanent construction products and call to avoid double legislation on goods between the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation and the Construction Products Regulation.
This paper has been developed in order to contribute to the legislative debate on the Construction Products Regulation (CPR) proposal.
Our core messages:
We see the need for a clearer definition of a construction product. While we understand the Commission’s goal to broaden the scope of the regulation, we believe that the new definition of “permanent” regarding construction products is not fit for purpose.
Double regulation of products between ESPR and CPR should be avoided. Two different and conflicting models of Digital Product Passports in the two regulations will increase administrative burdens and create confusion in the market.
Definition of permanent
The new CPR has seen its scope significantly broadened: from traditional construction products permanently installed in buildings – as per the current CPR – to products which may be used or placed inside a building for a duration of two years (or longer) but have no direct function in the construction work itself (new art. 3 (1)).
Such a wide and unclear definition of “permanent" constitutes a major risk of potential overlap with other regulations and market confusion, and directly undermines legal certainty. The possibility of broadening the scope by extending the new CPR to other product areas not expressly mentioned in the proposal further increases the confusion (new Annex IV, table 1, row 33).
We recommend that the criteria defining a “construction product” as per current CPR (art. 2.1) is maintained to make sure that the new art. 3(1) only covers a product which "has an effect on the performance of the construction works with respect to the basic requirements for construction works".
In this direction, we support amendment 67 of the Rapporteur MEP Christian Doleschal, on the definition of “permanent”.
Double Regulation between ESPR and CPR & Digital Product Passport
One set of rules for all Digital Product Passports in the ESPR and the CPR
We believe that it is vital to promote strict alignment between the CPR and ESPR to ensure a consistent and coherent implementation of the new rules across the whole EU and avoid differences in the interpretation of rules.
In particular, a consistent approach on basic requirements such as the Digital Product Passport (DPP) is necessary.
The European Commission has established a framework for the Digital Product Passport via the proposal for an Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR). Concurrently, it has decided to broaden the scope of the new Construction Product Regulation (CPR) and to introduce another DPP in the CPR.
We request that the provisions of the ESPR and corresponding standards on the DPP should also be applicable to the DPP-related requirements to be developed under the CPR with an explicit reference to the ESPR. In other words, the data model for the DPP should be the same for CPR as for ESPR, whereas the specific content of the DPP for products under the CPR must be defined according to the individual needs of the construction products categories. Duplication of different DPP models in the different product legislations can only create red tape and confusion for companies subject, for their different products, to both the ESPR and the CPR and for authorities who must enforce the rules.