CEPROCON.COM • BLOG ARTICLE • WEEK 11
What manufacturers get wrong — and how a consultant helps
CE marking mistakes for construction products are more common than most manufacturers realise — and more costly. A flawed scope determination, an incomplete technical file, an outdated Declaration of Performance, or a misidentified AVCP system can each undermine the legal validity of a CE mark that a manufacturer believes is fully in place.
The problem is rarely a lack of effort or good intentions. Most manufacturers who get CE marking wrong are doing their best with incomplete information or without the specialist expertise that the Construction Products Regulation (CPR) genuinely requires. The mistakes that follow are the ones CEProCon encounters most frequently when working with manufacturers — and the ones that an experienced consultant is best placed to identify and fix before they become serious problems.
Mistake 1: Applying CE marking to a product that is out of scope
It might seem counterintuitive, but one of the most common CE marking mistakes is applying it when it is not actually required — or not permitted. This happens when a manufacturer finds a harmonised standard with a title that sounds like it covers their product, assumes it applies, and proceeds with CE marking without carefully reading the scope clause.
The consequences are more serious than they might appear. Under the CPR, affixing CE marking to a product that falls outside the scope of any harmonised standard is a regulatory offence. It misleads buyers about the product’s regulatory status and can attract enforcement action from market surveillance authorities.
How a consultant fixes it: The first step is always a careful scope determination — reading Clause 1 of the candidate standard in full, checking the defined intended uses, and reviewing the exclusion list. Where the product sits at the edge of a standard’s scope, a consultant documents the reasoning in a scope determination record that supports the conclusion and provides a defensible audit trail. If the product is genuinely outside any harmonised standard’s scope, the consultant advises on whether the EAD/ETA route is appropriate or whether CE marking simply does not apply.
Mistake 2: Using the wrong harmonised standard — or the wrong version
With over 440 harmonised standards under the CPR, finding the right one is not always straightforward. Manufacturers sometimes work from a standard that covers a similar product category but does not actually apply to theirs — or from a version of the correct standard that has since been superseded.
A CE mark based on a withdrawn standard is not compliant, even if every other aspect of the process was followed correctly. This is a particularly common problem because standards are revised periodically and the transition dates published in the OJEU are easy to miss if no one is actively monitoring them.
How a consultant fixes it: A consultant verifies the applicable standard by cross-referencing the OJEU list and confirms that the version in use is current. Where a revised standard has been published, the consultant assesses what has changed — whether re-testing is required, whether the FPC system needs updating, and whether a revised DoP must be issued. For manufacturers with multiple CE marked products, a consultant can establish a monitoring system so that standard revisions are flagged automatically.
Mistake 3: Misidentifying the AVCP system
The AVCP system determines the entire structure of a CE marking project — who does what, whether a Notified Body is required, what the Notified Body does, and what documents are produced. Misidentifying it at the outset cascades into every subsequent step.
The most common version of this mistake is underestimating the AVCP system — for example, treating a product as system 4 (manufacturer self-declaration) when Annex ZA of the applicable standard actually assigns system 3 for certain essential characteristics. This means the manufacturer has conducted type testing in-house when a Notified Testing Laboratory was required, and the resulting test reports are not valid for CE marking purposes.
How a consultant fixes it: A consultant reads Annex ZA.1 carefully for each essential characteristic, noting the AVCP system assigned to each. Where a product has different systems for different characteristics — system 3 for reaction to fire and system 4 for all others, for example — the consultant maps out exactly what is required and by whom. If the manufacturer has already conducted testing under the wrong system, the consultant advises on what needs to be repeated and with which type of body.
Mistake 4: Engaging a Notified Body whose scope does not cover the product
When a Notified Body is required, manufacturers sometimes engage one based on familiarity, cost, or convenience — without verifying that the body’s notification scope actually covers the relevant harmonised standard. A Notified Body can only carry out CE marking-related tasks within its specific notified scope. Work carried out outside that scope has no legal standing.
This is a surprisingly easy mistake to make because Notified Bodies are often large organisations with broad capabilities across many standards — but their formal notification scope may not extend to every standard they are technically capable of testing against.
How a consultant fixes it: Before any Notified Body is engaged, a consultant verifies the body’s current listing in NANDO — the European Commission’s database of Notified Bodies — and confirms that the relevant harmonised standard is explicitly listed within their notified scope. If it is not, the consultant identifies alternative bodies whose scope does cover the standard and advises on selection criteria including lead times, cost, and relevant experience.
Mistake 5: A Declaration of Performance that does not reflect the product
The DoP is the legal heart of CE marking — and it is one of the documents most frequently prepared incorrectly. Common problems include: DoPs copied from similar products without adaptation; DoPs referencing the wrong standard version; performance tables with excessive use of “No Performance Determined” (NPD) for characteristics that target markets actually require; and DoPs that have not been updated after product modifications.
A DoP that does not accurately reflect the product and its assessed performance is not just a paperwork problem — it is a legal liability. If a product liability claim arises, the DoP is the document that establishes what the manufacturer claimed and whether that claim was accurate.
How a consultant fixes it: A consultant reviews the DoP against the product, the applicable standard, and the Notified Body documentation. They check that the standard reference is current, that the performance table accurately reflects test results, that NPD is only used where genuinely appropriate for the intended market, and that the DoP is consistent with the CE marking label. Where the DoP needs to be reissued, the consultant prepares the revised version and ensures it is correctly version-controlled and retained.
Mistake 6: An FPC system that exists on paper but not in practice
Factory Production Control is required under all AVCP systems, and under systems 1+, 1, and 2+ it is subject to Notified Body certification and ongoing audit. A well-written FPC manual is a good start — but it is not the same as a functioning FPC system.
The most common failure mode is an FPC system that was put in place to pass the initial Notified Body audit but has since drifted out of operation. Records are incomplete, calibration is overdue, non-conformances are not being logged, and the procedures on paper no longer match what happens on the production floor. When the Notified Body conducts its annual surveillance audit, this becomes visible — and the consequences range from corrective action requirements to suspension of the certificate.
How a consultant fixes it: A consultant conducts a pre-audit review of the FPC system — essentially an internal audit against the requirements of the harmonised standard — and identifies the gaps between documented procedures and actual practice. They then work with the manufacturer to close those gaps before the Notified Body visit. Where the FPC manual itself is outdated or incomplete, the consultant revises it to reflect current production reality.
Mistake 7: No process for managing product changes
CE marking covers a specific product type as it was assessed at the time of type testing. When a product changes — a new raw material supplier, a reformulation, a change in dimensions, a new production process — the manufacturer must assess whether that change affects the product’s performance against its essential characteristics. If it does, the DoP must be reviewed and potentially revised, and re-testing may be required.
Many manufacturers have no formal process for triggering this review when product changes occur. Changes happen through normal business operations — a supplier switch, a cost reduction initiative, a process improvement — and their CE marking implications are simply not considered.
How a consultant fixes it: A consultant establishes a change management procedure that integrates CE marking review into the manufacturer’s normal change control process. Whenever a product or production change is proposed, the procedure triggers a review of whether the change could affect any essential characteristic — and if so, what CE marking action is required. This procedure becomes part of the FPC documentation and is reviewed during Notified Body audits.
Mistake 8: CE marking treated as a one-off project rather than an ongoing programme
The most pervasive mistake of all is treating CE marking as something that gets done once and then requires no further attention. In reality, CE marking creates a set of ongoing obligations that must be actively managed for as long as the product is on the market.
Standards are revised. Certificates expire and must be renewed. Notified Body surveillance audits must be prepared for. DoPs must be updated when products or standards change. Technical documentation must be retained for ten years after the last unit is placed on the market. None of this happens automatically — it requires someone to be actively responsible for it.
How a consultant fixes it: A consultant helps manufacturers transition from a project mindset to a compliance programme mindset. This means establishing clear ownership of CE marking obligations within the organisation, setting up monitoring systems for standard revisions, scheduling FPC review activities, and ensuring that CE marking is embedded in product development and change management processes rather than treated as an afterthought.
The value of an independent perspective
Many of the mistakes described above are not obvious to the people making them. A manufacturer who has always done CE marking a certain way may not realise their approach has a fundamental flaw — particularly if their products have not yet attracted market surveillance scrutiny.
An experienced consultant brings an independent perspective that is difficult to replicate internally. They have seen the same mistakes across many different manufacturers and product categories. They know what market surveillance authorities look for, what Notified Bodies flag during audits, and where the CPR requirements are most commonly misapplied. That pattern recognition is one of the most valuable things they bring to any engagement.
A CPR compliance audit — a structured review of a manufacturer’s CE marking documentation and processes against the requirements of the applicable harmonised standard — is often the most efficient way to identify where the problems are before they become serious. It provides a clear picture of what is working, what needs fixing, and what the priorities should be.
Summary
CE marking mistakes are common, consequential, and — crucially — fixable. The eight mistakes covered in this article represent the most frequent issues CEProCon encounters when working with construction product manufacturers: wrong scope, wrong standard, wrong AVCP system, wrong Notified Body, flawed DoP, paper-only FPC, no change management process, and a one-off project mentality.
None of these mistakes require starting from scratch to fix. With the right expertise, a clear gap analysis, and a structured remediation plan, manufacturers can bring their CE marking into full compliance — and keep it there.
For a deeper understanding of how the CE marking process should work from the start, see our step-by-step overview of the CE marking process for construction products. And for a closer look at the technical file — one of the areas most commonly affected by these mistakes — see our guide to building your technical file.
Think your CE marking might have gaps?
CEProCon offers a structured CPR Compliance Audit & Gap Analysis for construction product manufacturers — a clear, expert review of your CE marking documentation and processes that identifies exactly what is working, what needs fixing, and what to prioritise. We also deliver professional training for those building CE marking expertise from the ground up.
contact@ceprocon.com • ceprocon.com
