Nearly three quarters of respondents said that the plan to restore and protect the integrity of product marketing “almost or completely meets their expectations”.
However, there is still debate about some of the detail that is causing concern among manufacturers.
The proposals for a Code for Construction Product Information (CCPI) were published in January by the Construction Products Association (CPA), which represents manufacturers. The document has been produced for consultation by the CPA’s marketing integrity group (MIG), which it set up after the Grenfell Tower fire exposed that construction product marketers were not always honest and transparent – with fatal consequences.
“The reputation of our industry is now at risk and collectively we need to put it right,” the CPA recognised at the time. [See our previous report here.]
The consultation responses are now being analysed by market research firm MRA Research. “Preliminary data shows excellent engagement from across the construction industry,” it said.
More than 200 responses have been received so far, including detailed comments from 33 trade associations representing more than 10,000 member companies.
Although the official deadline for submissions was 31st March, entries are still coming in and being assessed.
So far, only 1% are opposed to the code as drafted while 73% of respondents said that it either almost or completely meets their expectations. Nearly 90% of providers of construction product information and trade associations acknowledged that it was important for their company/members to comply with the new code.
Adam Turk, chair of the CPA’s marketing integrity group and chief executive of Siderise, said: “We’re delighted with the industry’s engagement to the consultation and the detail and breadth of feedback, which the wider team are currently working through. The range of feedback provides us with important insight into the specific challenges different organisations at all levels may face.
“The consultation aims to ensure that every view is heard in equal measure, and so we encourage that all feedback is through the formalised consultation process so we can gather the many responses effectively. We are continuing to seek the views of sectors who’ve left it to others to speak for them or just have not engaged to a significant degree. They also matter and we are making strenuous efforts to include their views. We are pleased to see that the majority of respondents do indeed support the proposed Code for Construction Product Information, and in its current format too.”
Despite broad support, there are still arguments about some of the details that have caused concern among manufacturers. Adam Turk acknowledged that the draft code was not yet the finished article.
He said: “The comments provided highlight a need for clarification around some areas of the Code, together with useful consideration to some of the specific detail, and are giving us food for thought around some concerns and topics for further discussion. These will be addressed in the coming months. We always recognised that more work would be required and the industry’s input is a fantastic sense check for us.”
The responses are currently being assessed by MRA Research and a full report will be released in due course, the CPA said.
See www.buildingsafely.co.uk for details fo the proposed code.