CONSTRUCTION FIXINGS
Barbara Sorgato secretary to the European Consortium of Anchor Producers
Europe and norms Some thoughts as a New Year dawns
ECAP is a European Consortium – this is what I always repeat when I am in Brussels. After all that happened to Europe in 2011, one could ask: what do you mean by ‘European’?
there are no national trade associations, no multinationals, no ‘observers’. The Consortium is simply and exclusively formed from SMEs of different European member states, which entirely finance it, to represent and share their own interests as far as norms go. How could it happen ten years ago that
E
some companies – although competing on the same European market, each deeply immersed in their national dimension, concentrated on protecting their own know-how from competitors, and each with their own linguistic and cultural background (which for SMEs is one of the biggest obstacles to internationalisation) – consciously decided to join and finance a project, sharing efforts, money and even know-how? It happened because these companies
believed in Europe’s sovereignty. When they realised that their economic interests were not safeguarded by a nationally based normative system, swallowing their national pride they decided to turn to Europe - where their complaints were understood and their activity acknowledged and rewarded. Their active role in the normative
process does not solely imply participation in working groups but especially in the part preceding the creation of normative working groups. That is the difference between passively suffering and actively influencing. This means being part of a network of relationships and information that must necessarily bypass the national level, because the system driving force is wider, more global. This is usually very
CAP is composed of small and medium enterprises that produce anchors and fixing systems. Among its members
clear to multinationals, whose structure and strength enables them to have a lobby-organisation; it is less clear to small and medium enterprises. In 2011 ECAP increased its normative
activity by 25%. Our sector is influenced by the drawing-up and amendment of the many norms on anchors, powder actuated tools and related components, as well as woodscrews. It is also influenced by norms on projects (Eurocode), norms on services (for example training installers). Indirectly it is affected by norms on dangerous substances used in construction; by the updating of ISO norms on quality management; and by directives on eco- design. Last but not least, European guidelines on sustainability – which could become new ‘quality marks’ imposed by the ‘big ones’ and not affordable by SMEs. Despite this increase in activity, though,
we face Europe’s limitation; which is not the market, but national sovereignties that insist on managing singularly a reality that is now global. Trade, driven by its own needs, has always been ahead of politics in joining populations. In the specific case of norms, the system forces the use of “best practices” that are way behind the market reality. All this in spite of European strategies that urgently and absolutely ask European SMEs to be leaders in innovation and to compete with the seasoned rivals of the global market. What does it mean to carry out national
normative activity? Why is it so difficult for European SMEs? The only way to vote in these groups is to do so at a national level. This means being part of a national ‘mirror group’. That’s the most difficult part, because bringing globalised economics into a national mirror group is a tortuous process.
104 Fastener + Fixing Magazine • Issue 73 January 2012 One month ago, an Italian colleague
who defended technical positions that were difficult to understand at a national level, justified himself by explaining that he represented the Italian branch of a French company, recently bought by a German competitor, in turn controlled by an American multinational. This is today a typical example, not an exception. In the same way ECAP, even though it represents SMEs from eight member states, votes in national normative organisations through a member, so officially as only one member state. Testing and certification bodies also
have a national vote, but often represent only their own interests. An SME might be represented by a general trade association but the risk, as has happened, is that SMEs find their representative on the national body is someone from a massive, market dominant player. The working group technicians know this.
After studying each other at the meetings, during the coffee breaks we finally ask each other: “who are you, REALLY”? This happens because, while a
multinational can have one representative in each country, a SME cannot afford such a lobby force. Active participation in the different normative groups is affordable for ECAP SMEs only because they share their efforts and finance a staff that works on their behalf. Not one of them could guarantee its presence in all the groups I listed. Never mind considering the cost of doing so. All of that is to say that today ECAP’s
SMEs face issues from the viewpoint of the European market – which is unfortunately rather further than Europe has reached until today.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196