The Construction Innovator Paradox: Why Innovative Construction Products May Face Digital Product Passports First

The Construction Products Regulation (EU) 2024/3110 introduces a Digital Product Passport (DPP) framework in Chapter X (Articles 75–80) that will eventually cover all construction products placed on the EU market with a CE mark. Most industry analysis focuses on the family-by-family rollout driven by the Commission's Working Plan and the development of new harmonised technical specifications. But this framing misses a critical structural feature: the DPP obligation is tied to the Declaration of Performance and Conformity (DoPC), and harmonised standards are not the only way these are required. There is also the route of European Assessment Documents (EADs), used for voluntary CE marks on construction products of certain families, that will also require a DoPC.

Two Routes to CE Marking

Construction products reach CE marking through one of two routes under EU law. Understanding both is essential to understanding why DPP obligations will not arrive uniformly.

Route 1: Harmonised standards (hENs)

The vast majority of construction products are covered by harmonised European standards (hENs) — technical specifications developed by CEN Technical Committees under a formal Commission mandate and cited in the Official Journal of the EU. If a product falls within the scope of a cited hEN, CE marking is mandatory. Today, there are approximately 450 harmonised standards cited in the Official Journal across the 37 product families defined in Annex VII of the CPR (based on the nlfnorm.cz harmonised standards database; exact counts vary as the Commission's lists are updated).

Under CPR 2024/3110, each existing hEN will eventually be replaced by a new Harmonised Technical Specification (HTS). The Commission's Working Plan (COM(2025) 772) tracks six milestones per product family, typically spanning 4.5–5.5 years from preparatory work to enforceable standard:

1. Milestone I — Product scope definition (~6 months)
2. Milestone III — Essential characteristics defined (~6 months)
3. Standardisation request (SReq) adopted — Formal mandate to CEN/CENELEC
4. Standard development by TC (~36 months)
5. Delegated act making standard mandatory (~6 months)
6. Coexistence period (12–24 months)

A crucial detail: the standardisation request sets individual deadlines for each standard within its scope — not a single blanket date. An SReq may cover 15 hENs across a product family, each with its own delivery date reflecting the complexity and state of readiness of the underlying standard. This means products within the same family will transition to new HTS at different times.

Deep dive

The Construction Products Regulation and Digital Product Passports: What the Industry Needs to Know

All 37 product families, their harmonised standards, milestone progress, and estimated DPP obligation dates.

Route 2: European Assessment Documents (EADs) and European Technical Assessments (ETAs)

When no harmonised standard covers a product — typically because it is innovative, niche, or uses novel materials or construction methods — a manufacturer can request a European Technical Assessment (ETA). The ETA is based on a European Assessment Document (EAD) developed by EOTA (European Organisation for Technical Assessment). This is a voluntary route: no manufacturer is obliged to seek an ETA, but many do because it provides the only path to CE marking for products outside the scope of harmonised standards.

The EAD/ETA route covers a substantial and growing part of the construction products market. EOTA has developed nearly 700 EADs to date, of which 453 are cited in the Official Journal (as of EOTA's 2024 Annual Report). Some product families rely heavily or exclusively on them:

• Building Kits (KAS) — ~32 EADs, zero harmonised standards. The entire family is EAD-based.
• Fire-stopping, fire-sealing and fire-protective products (FFF) — ~73 EADs, the highest of any family.
• Roof Coverings (ROC) — ~21 hENs alongside ~32 EADs, covering green roof kits, BIPV systems, and other innovations.
• Concrete, Mortar and Grout (CMG) — ~16 hENs plus ~19 EADs, including circularity innovations like steel fibres from recycled tyres and municipal waste incinerator bottom ash aggregate.

(Note: per-family hEN and EAD counts are approximate, based on the nlfnorm.cz harmonised standards database and the EOTA EAD database, mapped to CPR Annex VII product families. Exact counts may vary as the Commission's official lists are updated.)

The DPP Trigger: DoPC, Not Family Membership

Here is the critical legal mechanism that most industry analysis overlooks. DPP obligations under Chapter X of CPR 2024/3110 are linked to the Declaration of Performance and Conformity (DoPC) — the new version of the declaration that replaces the old Declaration of Performance (DoP) from CPR 305/2011.

The logic is binary:

• A product that issues a DoPC under CPR 2024/3110 falls under Chapter X → DPP required (once the Article 75 delegated act is in force).
• A product that still issues a DoP under CPR 305/2011 → no DPP obligation.

Both routes lead to a DoPC:

• Route 1 (hEN): A product covered by a new HTS adopted under CPR 2024/3110 must issue a DoPC.
• Route 2 (EAD/ETA): A product with a new ETA issued against an EAD adopted under CPR 2024/3110 must issue a DoPC.

In the new CPR architecture, the DoPC is the core mechanism linking both routes to DPP obligations. Any product that issues a DoPC under CPR 2024/3110 falls within the scope of Chapter X. Limited exemptions exist under Article 14 (e.g., individually manufactured products not placed on the market), but for mass-market construction products the DoPC — and therefore DPP — is the standard path.

The Innovator's Paradox

This is where the timing becomes paradoxical. The two routes operate on fundamentally different timescales:

*These year-specific estimates are scenario assumptions based on current Working Plan milestones and typical standardisation timelines, not regulatory commitments. Actual dates depend on when the Article 75 delegated act is adopted and when individual standards complete the adoption process.

The paradox: provided the Article 75 delegated act is in force and the 18-month lead-in has elapsed, a manufacturer of an innovative green roof kit, structural building system, or novel insulation product could obtain a new ETA under a CPR 2024/3110 EAD and be required to issue a DoPC — triggering DPP obligations — years before the mainstream products in the same family have their harmonised standards replaced. The clay roof tile manufacturer, the standard concrete block producer, and the conventional mineral wool insulation maker all continue under their old hENs (and old DoPs) while the innovator is already operating under the full DPP regime.

Why the EAD Route Does Not Defer DPP

Some in the industry may assume that if no standardisation request (SReq) covers their product, or if their product is "only" covered by an EAD rather than a harmonised standard, they might avoid or defer DPP obligations indefinitely. The regulatory structure does not support this assumption.

The SReq system — through which the Commission mandates CEN/CENELEC to develop new HTS — only applies to Route 1 (hENs). SReqs set individual deadlines per standard within their scope, defined in the standardisation request's Annex I. But SReqs do not cover EADs. The EAD route operates through EOTA under a completely separate governance structure.

This separation does not create an escape route — it eliminates one. Consider the following scenarios:

• Product covered by an hEN: DPP applies once the hEN is replaced by a new HTS → DoPC → DPP.
• Product covered by an EAD/ETA: DPP applies once a new EAD is adopted under CPR 2024/3110 and the manufacturer obtains a new ETA → DoPC → DPP.
• Product with no applicable standard at all: Cannot obtain CE marking under the CPR → no market access for regulated construction products in the EU.

For mass-market construction products requiring CE marking, the transition to a DoPC — and therefore to DPP obligations — is a matter of timing, not of whether it applies. The practical question is when each product's route transitions to the new CPR regime, subject to the Article 75 delegated act being in force and the 18-month lead-in having elapsed.

The EAD Transition Timeline

The regulation sets clear deadlines for the transition of EADs from the old to the new regime:

• Old EADs (adopted under CPR 305/2011) remain valid for issuing new ETAs until 9 January 2031 (five years from the Regulation's entry into force, per Article 95).
• ETAs issued under old EADs remain valid for CE marking until 9 January 2036 (ten years from entry into force).
• New EADs under CPR 2024/3110 must include environmental sustainability requirements: Global Warming Potential (GWP) declaration from day one, core life cycle assessment by 2029, and full LCA by 2031.
• New EADs have a 10-year validity period. ETAs issued under new EADs have no expiry.

This creates a clear clock. After 9 January 2031, no new ETAs can be issued under old EADs. Manufacturers who need new or renewed ETAs will have no choice but to use new EADs — which trigger the DoPC — which triggers DPP. By 9 January 2036 at the latest, all old ETAs expire, and every EAD-route product on the market will be under the new regime.

What This Means for Industry

The practical implications cut across the entire construction value chain:

For innovative manufacturers (EAD/ETA users)

If you are planning to request a new ETA or renew an existing one after CPR 2024/3110 fully applies, you should prepare for DPP obligations on a shorter timeline than the family-level estimates suggest. Your DPP readiness depends not on when your product family's hENs are replaced, but on when EOTA adopts a new EAD applicable to your product and on when the Article 75 delegated act enters into force. If the Article 75 delegated act is adopted on the current expected schedule, both conditions could converge as early as 2028–2029 — but this remains a scenario estimate, not a confirmed date.

For mainstream manufacturers (hEN users)

The family-level DPP estimates (2029–2034 depending on the wave) still apply for hEN-route products. But be aware that DPP infrastructure and regulatory expectations will already be established through EAD-route early movers within your own product family. By the time your HTS is in force, DPP will not be a greenfield exercise — it will be an operational system with established practices, service providers, and enforcement precedents.

For Technical Assessment Bodies (TABs) and EOTA

EOTA's role becomes even more significant under the new CPR. Every new EAD adopted under CPR 2024/3110 effectively triggers the DPP clock for the products it covers. TABs will need to ensure that new EADs incorporate the sustainability requirements (GWP, LCA) that are prerequisites for meaningful DPP data — and that the assessment process supports the data generation that DPPs require.

For the Commission and standardisation bodies

The per-standard granularity of DPP activation means that the sequencing of SReqs and the prioritisation of standards within each SReq directly affect which manufacturers face DPP obligations first. This is a policy lever: prioritising standards for high-impact product categories (by volume, environmental footprint, or market significance) can shape the practical rollout of the DPP in ways that the family-level Working Plan does not capture.

The Bottom Line

The construction industry's discussion of DPP timelines has been anchored in product families and Commission Working Plan waves. This framing is useful but incomplete. The real trigger for DPP obligations is the Declaration of Performance and Conformity — and the two parallel routes to CE marking (hEN and EAD) mean that DPP obligations will arrive at different times for different products within the same family. The innovator's paradox — where EAD-route products face DPP before their hEN-route siblings — is not a bug in the regulation. It is a structural consequence of the two-route system that the industry needs to plan for.

For the vast majority of CE-marked construction products, DPP is not a question of whether but of when — and the "when" differs by route.

The Paradox Is Also an Opportunity

And yet — this is truly a paradox, because it cuts both ways. At first glance, Digital Product Passports look like an unwanted regulatory burden: more data requirements, more compliance costs, more complexity layered on top of already demanding CE marking processes. But construction product innovators who look past the compliance surface will discover something more interesting. The digital infrastructure you build around your product information — to meet DPP obligations — also generates significant business value. Structured, machine-readable product data enables smarter supply chains, automated procurement matching, faster BIM integration, and differentiated sustainability claims that customers increasingly demand. Companies that treat DPP as a catalyst for digital innovation rather than a checkbox exercise will build competitive advantages that extend far beyond regulatory compliance.

An important nuance applies to the EAD timeline. Existing EADs — those adopted and published in the Official Journal under the old CPR 305/2011 — remain valid for issuing new ETAs until 9 January 2031. ETAs already granted under those old EADs remain valid for CE marking until 9 January 2036. In practical terms: if you secure your ETA under an existing EAD before 2031, you are safe to continue placing products on the market under the old regime until 2036. That is a meaningful window. However, for new EADs that EOTA develops and adopts under the new CPR 2024/3110 framework, the situation is fundamentally different. These new-generation EADs will be born into the DPP-ready regulatory environment from day one. If a new EAD is published in 2026 and the Article 75 delegated act enters into force on the anticipated schedule, DPP obligations for products covered by that EAD could materialise as soon as 2028. This creates a stark split: legacy EAD products with an ETA in hand get nearly a decade of runway, while products entering via newly created EADs may face DPP requirements within two years of their standard's publication.

The message for the construction sector is clear: do not treat DPP preparation as a distant compliance exercise. Treat it as an opportunity to innovate digitally — because the companies that build this capability early will not only be ready when obligations hit, but will already be reaping the business benefits of having their product data in order.

Navigating DPP readiness for construction products? Get in touch to explore what is possible.