The proposed Building Product Information code is the manufacturers’ response to some of the errors, lies, and deceptions that preceded the Grenfell Tiower fire. The proposed code for building product information is likely to make public safety worse rather than better, says Darren Lister, founder and CEO of SpecifiedBy, an online product database. He says the proposed Building Product Information (CPPI) code, released by the Building Products Association’s Marketing Integration Group, is designed to restore a damaged reputation for marketers, not to solve any of the core issues with building product data. By shedding real problems under the rug, he says, the industry will believe that the problems have been solved while not. “As an industry, we have huge challenges about how we manage product data, from the terminology and the units we use, to how we manage it digitally and share it and how we verify it. The code doesn’t address any of these issues,” says Darren Lister. He continues: “The code will not prevent inaccurate product data. Today, whether on purpose or by human error and errors, inaccurate or misleading product data can pass from company to company or from one individual to another, without any means of easily verifying This data and its validation. This will remain true even with this code in place. CCPI was produced as a response by manufacturers to what was revealed in the Grenfell Tower fire investigation that marketers of building products were not always honest and transparent – with dire consequences. The Building Products Association (CPA) said at the time: “Our industry’s reputation is now in jeopardy, and we collectively have to set it right.” [See our previous report here.]
Darren Lister says the law will not stop cheaters and liars – “bad actors” as he calls them. “What some of the manufacturers participating in Grenfell did in terms of providing misleading information about the performance of their products was indeed illegal. They were not really allowed to do so. Yet they did. And they had to go to great lengths to do so. Wondering what the optional law would be like to be.” Toothless is ultimately more effective than the law and stringent technical testing regimes? He says the proposed code isn’t even a step in the right direction. “There are definitely some people who think that even if it isn’t the perfect solution, it can’t hurt.” It is a step in the right direction. For these people specifically, please consider the issues with this. First, if the CPA forces this despite widespread concerns and lack of support, turns out to be a wrong solution, and is already struggling to gain momentum, we will collectively waste at least 12-18 months before this is eliminated. Finally, we look for a better solution. ”By taking the risk to understand this bug now, we risk pushing a real solution much further. “Most importantly, the danger is that we are making things worse by doing the wrong thing. I have no doubt that this law will increase the stakes through complacency. The worst thing we can do is to create the perception that we have sorted what we have, when not It would be a very dangerous scenario where manufacturers think their product data is accurate and up-to-date because they have subscribed to some magic codes. ”It would be a very dangerous scenario where specifiers undoubtedly trust manufacturers data because they have the flimsy company process badge. Unless there are actual digital checks and verifications, which this code doesn’t address, we need to maintain a healthy dose of doubt. “This symbol will make it easier for bad actors to go undetected. Having the symbol badge will give even the worst companies and the worst people a complete cover they can trust. We cannot let our desperation do something, and allow us to be drawn into doing something wrong. In the grand scheme of things. We still have time to stop, reset and correct this the first time. ” Darren Lester posted a fuller explanation of his views on LinkedIn. So far, only 1% of responses to the consultation opposed the code as formulated while 73% said it either met their expectations almost or in full, the CPA said. [See ‘Support for product marketing code’]
Adam Turk, head of the CPA’s Marketing Integrity Group, said the draft code was not the final article yet. “Reviews provided [in response to the consultation process] It highlights the need for clarity on some areas of the blog, taking useful consideration of some specific details, and gives us material for reflection on some of the concerns and topics for further discussion. These will be dealt with in the coming months. We have always realized that more work is needed and that the industry input is a great test for us. ”Do you have a story? Email [email protected].