好色先生TV

Can firms be trusted to 鈥渕ark their own homework鈥� when it comes to the veracity of claims made about their products? For long-time consumer rights champion Amanda Long, the answer is a firm 鈥渘o鈥�.

Long spoke to 好色先生TV just weeks after being appointed to head up CPI Ltd, the body tasked with verifying product manufacturers鈥� compliance with the new Code for Construction Products Information (CCPI). Formerly director general of Consumers International, a non-profit body that 鈥渃ampaigns to promote corporate accountability and to protect consumers from deceptive marketing practices,鈥� she is an industry outsider ideally placed to compare construction鈥檚 records on consumer protection and product information with those of other industries.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 think construction does consumer protection well at all, I don鈥檛 think it has prioritised it and I don鈥檛 think that 鈥� until the Grenfell tragedy 鈥� it realised the level of responsibility it has,鈥� she says, pulling no punches.

鈥淐onstruction is starting to wake up to the realisation that it is responsible for the places where we all live, work and play. It鈥檚 a backbone of society and that makes major hazard and building safety critical.鈥�

The 2017 disaster at Grenfell Tower, in which 72 people died, shone a spotlight on the importance of safety in building products. The Construction Products Association鈥檚 marketing integrity group responded by drawing up the CCPI between 2019 and 2021.

The code was also prompted by Dame Judith Hackitt鈥檚 review of building safety regulations, which found construction鈥檚 product testing, labelling and marketing regime to be 鈥渙paque and insufficient鈥�. Allegations of misleading marketing claims were also aired at the Grenfell Inquiry, only strengthening the case for change.

So what is the code? Its ultimate aim is to ensure that product information meets five tests, namely that it is 鈥渃lear, accurate, up-to-date, accessible and unambiguous鈥�.

The code is made up of 11 clauses (see box below) covering areas such as the control and responsibility for product information, transparency of performance information and competency. The aim is that 鈥� eventually 鈥� clients, specifiers and users will insist on only working with CCPI-compliant products, as verified through the scheme.

While in her role as chief executive of the non-profit Considerate Constructors Scheme (which seeks to improve standards in the industry), Long helped to develop the CCPI.

So, with the code duly drafted, what is Long鈥檚 remit now, and why is the CPI Ltd, another non-profit body set up by the CPA, even needed? Why was Long, who was announced as CPI Ltd chief executive last month, appointed?

She explains: 鈥淢y message to the CPA was that I am delighted we have a code but, unless it has got independent verification, then actually all you have really got is an industry claiming that it is doing something. From a consumer protection perspective, unless it has independent verification, and is robustly implemented, it is not going to be worth the paper it is written on.鈥�

Long, who set up the 好色先生TV the Safer Future Charter, was therefore asked by the CPA to develop a verification process and then to come back and oversee its implementation.

Long stresses again and again how the industry cannot be marking its own homework. But isn鈥檛 this problematic when CPI Ltd has itself been set up and is owned by the CPA, which represents product manufacturers?

She says she insisted on the non-profit CPI Ltd being independently governed, despite being owned by the CPA. And although it had some initial seed funding by the CPA, it will take fee income to fund itself.

From a consumer protection perspective, unless it has independent verification, and is robustly implemented, it is not going to be worth the paper it鈥檚 written on

Another tactic to try and guarantee independence from the CPA was to appoint a chair of CPI Ltd who is not well-known in construction. David Topliffe, who was appointed in March following an interview process overseen by Long, has worked in the oil and gas industry for several decades, including 36 years at Shell and a stint on the board of trade bodythe Chemical Industries Association.

鈥淲e deliberately wanted to find someone outside of the sector not associated with construction products, but who understands major hazard safety, because that really is central to the, the fallout of the Grenfell tragedy, and also someone who understands businesses,鈥� explains Long.

鈥淚 am not remotely interested in protecting the reputation of the industry 鈥� that is not my job,鈥� she says.

But if that鈥檚 the case, why was the code itself drawn up by industry through the CPA?

The fact that the code itself was set up by the industry, while the verification process is overseen by an independently governed body, is for Long a way of getting the best of both worlds. She says: 鈥淚f you鈥檙e there working in the consumer voice [role], as I always was, what happens is you sit there arguing from the consumer perspective. The powers that be will listen to you to some extent but then they will say, 鈥榶ou鈥檝e got to have industry engagement鈥�.

I am not remotely interested in protecting the reputation of the industry, that is not my job

鈥淪o, for me, seeing a code that has come from what I think was a really substantial consultation process which has significant industry support but at the same time has now been given to an independently governed body means you get the strengths of both sides.鈥�

So how will Long鈥檚 independent verification process, which is expected to take around three months for an organisation to complete, work in practice? 

Long says the first thing she 鈥渄emanded鈥� for the process was a requirement for a sample of a firm鈥檚 employees to complete a 鈥渓eadership and culture survey鈥�, looking at the ethics and behaviour of the company. Indeed, this is the first thing firms will be required to do, long before product sets are looked at.

鈥淚t鈥檚 almost like psychometric testing,鈥� explains Long. 鈥淎nonymous questions [are sent] to a sample of a company鈥檚 employees from the C-suite right the way through to the frontline, [people] who are managing product information or are a part of the creation of product information.鈥� The purpose of this is to probe the overall culture of the organisation.

Seeing a code which has significant industry support but at the same time has now been given to an independently governed body means you get the strengths of both sides

鈥淏efore we start looking at the management systems of a company, I鈥檝e got to understand whether this is a company that actually has the right culture and ethics to want to take product information management seriously and understand the responsibility they have.鈥�

The second part of the process involves another survey to assess manufacturers鈥� product information management systems. This, Long stresses, still takes place before manufacturers 鈥済et anywhere near鈥� sharing information about actual products.

鈥淚 want to see your product information management systems 鈥� what are the processes that you have in place that are documented that show me you can manage product information properly? At the moment these are not things this industry has even thought about.鈥�

Only when a company has completed these first two assessments will CPI verifiers actually look at the firm鈥檚 set of products (a 鈥渟et of products鈥� refers to a grouping of products with a similar function and certification).

Verifiers will, Long says, sample information to check whether the information is there to back up the claims the firm is making about its product, while corrobating previous information on the company culture and information management systems. If CPI verifiers are happy, it will award the company what Long terms a 鈥渕ark鈥� to show it has achieved verification.

I want to see your product information management systems - what are the processes that you have in place that are documented that show me you can manage product information properly?

But that is not the end of the story. 鈥淵ou鈥檙e not using the mark as a company鈥� you can only make the claim about the product information that was presented to us and you can only do it for two years, then you have to come back to us again.鈥�

If a firm鈥檚 leadership changes before the end of the two years, they have to complete a new leadership and culture survey, she adds.

Currently 26 organisations are going through the process in a 鈥渇irst wave鈥� and, by next month, Long says that the first product sets should have been verified.

The CPI is building up its bank of verifiers, which currently numbers 14. These verifiers come from different backgrounds and, while some construction product knowledge is essential, Long says their ability to 鈥渕anage and rol lout audit processes鈥� is of more interest to the CPI.

PRICING EXAMPLE	ORGANISATION ASSESSMENT FEE	VERIFICATION FEE
Small company (拢0-5m turnover); 1 set with 25 products; General construction	拢1,750	拢750
Medium company (拢5m-拢50m turnover); 3 sets with 999 products; Safety critical	拢3,000	拢8,200
Large company; (拢50m-拢100m turnover) 1 product set with 450 products; Safety critical	拢4,250	拢5,200
Very large company (拢100m+ turnover); 2 sets with 700 products; General construction	拢5,500	拢5,000

Firms going through the process will have to pay an organisation assessment fee based on the size of their company plus a verification fee which is determined by size and number of product sets verified and whether the products assessed are 鈥渟afety critical鈥� or not (see illustrative examples above).

With an estimated 28,000 construction product manufacturers in the UK though, the CPI surely faces a formidable task in achieving enough sign-up to make a difference.

Long鈥檚 strategy here is to get 鈥渟izeable chunks鈥� of firms in different size categories to reach a critical mass. 鈥淵ou don鈥檛 just want all the very large and you can鈥檛 just focus on the micro,鈥� she says.

She also says the CPI will be going live soon with a version of the code for building merchants and distributors, as it feels that 鈥測ou鈥檝e still got a duty or responsibility to be part of making sure product information that gets to market is clear, accurate and up to date鈥�.

In addition to the targeting strategy, CPI is in the process of trying to increase take-up by signing up tier one contractors and housebuilders to its 鈥渟upporters offer鈥�. This would see these clients and tier one contractors pledging over time to ensure they only use suppliers who are CCPI-verified.

Long refuses to give details of how many contractors or housebuilders have signed up to this offer but states that a number have been 鈥渉elpful and supportive.鈥� She says they won鈥檛 be able to ensure suppliers can get verified 鈥渂y next week鈥� but sternly warns: 鈥淚 do want to see them getting it done.鈥�

She says tier one contractors are keen to make sure they meet the requirements of the 好色先生TV Safety Act, under which they will have to provide assurance products meet regulations, and therefore the CCPI could help them.

Long is also aiming to bring government procurement into the process and says she is 鈥渋n very good conversations鈥� about this, although she does not reveal with which part of government. She points out that she was previously able to get Crown Commercial Services, a branch of the Cabinet Office which manages procurement, to sign up to the 好色先生TV a Safer Future charter.

>> See more: 好色先生TV bridges: how Paul Morrell would fix our broken products testing system

>> See more:  We are entering a new era for building safety - but are we ready for the new regulator?

>> See more: Passive fire protection: do we need a new construction discipline?

Ultimately, by persuading a critical mass of manufacturers of different sizes to sign up, and by putting pressure through clients, including the public sector, and tier one contractors, Long is hopeful of scaling up the CCPI verification process to a significant size very soon.

While we await the government鈥檚 response to Paul Morrell鈥檚 report into products testing and the outcome of the Grenfell inquiry, the CPA, CPI and others will be hoping that the CCPI work means nobody can accuse the construction industry of failing to do its own bit to ensure manufacturers are taking product information seriously.

But, as Long keeps insisting, we need fast action from the industry. 鈥淲e want to see progress and we want to see progress with rocket fuel,鈥� she says.

鈥淚鈥檓 not interested in some tickbox progress 鈥� it needs to be real change.鈥� The extent to which product manufacturers agree and then sign up to the code remains to be seen.