FICEM - XXII GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Santiago, Chile
MEASURING PERCEPTIONS OF
CEMENT AND CONCRETE
THE EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE
WHO ARE WE?
RI*QUESTA
Dr Bernhard Rieder
VisionAble
Dr Jean-Marie Chandelle
both involved in CEMBUREAU work
2
WHY GO FOR A PERCEPTION SURVEY?
•
Why does an industry undertake a perception survey
of its products / its own image?
•
Why did European Industries opt for a Pan European
Survey?
Construction products and corresponding industries are
surveyed in Europe experience since 2004, including
cement / concrete
3
reliable base of knowledge
to define activities and
allocate resources
representative
entry to
constructive
dialogue with
stakeholders
Opinion
Surveys
needed tool
to measure
development
and progress
4
METHODOLOGY
•
Targeted audience(s)
•
Sampling
•
Interview mode
•
Questionnaire & order of questions
•
Common questionnaire or common core + specifies
5
Core
Questionnaire
identical
in all
countries
Core
Sample
identical
in all
countries
Nat‘l
Option
Nat‘l
Option
supplementary
questions
to be
asked
AFTER
the CORE
questions
booster sample
6
Minimum Scope of Survey
in order to provide valid and most useful results
 perceptual background
reg. the quality of urban development, the quality of life in the resp‘s residential
area, of the local environment, of waste management
 rating of cement & concrete vs. benchmarks
at least 6 - 8 „materials“ (if not „industries“, too) on 2 - 3 aspects
 party/ies perceived as most responsible for specific issues
e.g. for cleaning up debris/construction waste, abondened/decayed buildings
for providing/ensuring safe and comfortable buildings, for ensuring ………..
 vote on the future of cement & concrete
 most important challenge to be met by cement & concrete
7
SCOPE OF PREVIOUS SURVEYS
ON CEMENT / CONCRETE
•
Comparative analysis on a number of key parameters
•
General public + decision makers
•
Perceptions correlated with perceived knowledge of
sustainability
•
Socio-demographic types
•
But not a detailed survey for marketing purposes or to
measure specific traits PES can be usefully supplemented
by qualitative / quantitative analysis
8
PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS
OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
IN EUROPE
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Profile of the Surveys
DE
10
Germany
ES
Spain
FR
France
GB
Great Britain
IT
Italy
PL
Poland
conducted on behalf of PlasticsEurope
 representative samples
of nat’l adult populations,
n  1,000 each country
 interviews conducted by
well-known nat’l institutes
from March 21 – April 27
 totally compatible tracking
vs. 2007, 2004, 2002
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Overall Image of Cement & Concrete as Material
(more) positive
Germany
Great Britain
Italy
Poland
Spain
France
dk
(more) negative *
62
58
29
+ 1
0
31
+ 4
-
29
-
4
- 17
0
- 21
1
+ 4
15
37
41
-
* Please, tell me your overall impression of … on a scale from 1=very positive to 6=very negative
11
vs 2004
+ 11
14
68
56
vs 2007
+ 3
84
64
 „positive“ 2011
1
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Overall Image of Cement & Concrete as Material
Time Series “(more) positive”
84 DE
81
75
71
2002
12
68
64
62
58
56
2004
2007
2011
GB
IT
ES
FR
PL
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Overall Image of Cement & Concrete as Industry
(more) positive
Germany
dk
(more) negative *
79
 „positive“ 2011
vs 2007
17
0
-
2
4
-
1
Great Britain
62
8
30
-
Italy
62
8
30
+ 8
+ 9
27
-
4
- 18
Poland
50
23
France
54
45
+ 2
+ 1
Spain
53
46
-
- 22
* Please, tell me your overall impression of … on a scale from 1=very positive to 6=very negative
13
vs 2004
1
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Overall Image of Cement & Concrete as Industry
Time Series “(more) positive”
83
79 DE
75
66
62 IT, GB
54 FR
53 ES
50 PL
2002
14
2004
2007
2011
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Overall Image
Development “(more) positive” 2011 vs. 2004
2011
90
DE
2004
80
as
70
MATERIAL
ES
60
GB
IT
FR
PL
50
40
40
50
60
70
as INDUSTRY
15
80
90
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Overall Image vs. other Materials
(more) positive
EU-Ave. 8 MATERIALS *
69
dk
 „positive“
(more) negative
28
+ 2
vs 2004
-
1
Wood/Timber
85
13
+ 4
Glass
82
16
+ 3
-
3
Paper & Board
81
16
+ 3
-
1
0
Steel & Tinplate
69
26
+ 1
-
1
CEMENT & CONCRETE
68
29
+ 1
-
1
Aluminium
65
30
0
* Specific results for Plastics and Chemicals not shown for confidentiality reasons
16
vs 2007
+ 1
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Overall Image vs. other Industries
(more) positive
EU-Ave. 8 INDUSTRIES *
64
dk
(more) negative
30
vs 2007
vs 2004
+ 4
-
1
Forestry
76
20
+ 6
+
1
Glass
74
20
+ 5
-
4
Paper & Board
72
+ 4
-
1
24
Steel & Tinplate
63
29
+ 4
-
1
CEMENT & CONCRETE
62
31
+ 1
-
4
33
+ 2
-
3
Aluminium
58
* Specific results for Plastics and Chemicals not shown for confidentiality reasons
17
 „positive“
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Overall Image vs. other Materials & Industries
EU6 total
90
80
positive as
MATERIAL
2011
timber /
forestry
glass
paper / carton
70
2004
steel / tinplate
cement & concrete
aluminium
60
50
40
40
50
60
70
positive as INDUSTRY
18
80
90
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Overall Image vs. other Materials & Industries
INDEXED
by Country
1,15
nat‘l ave
industries
2011
1,10
2004
1,05
vs average
of all 8
MATERIALS
DE
nat‘l ave
materials
GB
FR
1,00
ES
0,95
PL
IT
0,90
0,85
0,80
0,80
0,85
0,90
0,95
1,00
1,05
1,10
vs average of all 8 INDUSTRIES
19
1,15
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Overall Image
Summary
 Majorities in all countries hold a positive overall image of
cement & concrete - as material and as industry, even
though at different levels [DE highest – FR, ES, PL lowest]
 Rather small changes since 2007, but compared to 2004
 significant improvement for the material in DE and IT
 most significant decline for the material and for the
industry in ES and PL
 slightly more favourable development for important
benchmarks like glass, steel
20
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Overall Image
Summary [cont’d]
 Compared to all surveyed materials and industries
[indexed vs. average of materials and industries by country]
 DE is only country holding an „above-average-position“
 FR improved to a „close to average-position“
 GB declined to a „close to average-position“
 ES, PL, and also IT [because other materials and industries
developed even better] declined strongly to clear
„below average-positions“
21
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Rating as ‘most useful in household’s everyday life’
EU6 total
low
paper/board
23
GB 26
DE 18
wood/timber
23
DE 37
ES 12
FR 17
GB
7
14
glass
steel/tinplate
4
GB
5
PL
2
cement&concrete
4
GB
6
DE
1
ES
4
PL
1
aluminium
2
26
[plast/chem *]
others(plast/chem)
dk/several/none
5
* Specific results for Plastics and Chemicals not shown for confidentiality reasons
22
high
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Rating as ‘causing the least negative envt’l impact’
EU6 total
wood/timber
38
paper/board
22
glass
16
low
DE 51
IT
IT
DE 18
31
23
ES 20
PL
11
steel
4
ES
6
IT
2
cement&concrete
3
ES
6
DE
1
aluminium
3
GB
5
PL
1
[plast/chem *]
others(plast/chem)
dk/several/none
10
4
* Specific results for Plastics and Chemicals not shown for confidentiality reasons
23
high
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Positioning on ‘daily usefulness’ & ‘envt’l impact’
EU6 total
most useful in hh‘s
daily life
cement &
concrete
paper/
board
wood/
timber
glass
steel/tinplate
aluminium
least negative envt‘l impact
24
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Rating as ‘causing the least negative envt’l impact’
2011 vs. 2007
cement
concrete
EU6 total
steel
tinpl
glass
paper
board
+ 1
+ 1
+ 5
+ 7
-
8
0
+ 9
+ 4
-
7
+ 1
-
Germany
-
1
+ 1
-
1
+ 7
+ 10
- 13
Great Britain
+ 3
+ 2
+ 2
+ 8
+ 5
+ 10
Italy
-
+ 2
0
+ 1
+ 7
- 20
Poland
+ 1
1
+ 1
+ 1
+ 1
-
0
+ 3
+ 4
+ 10
- 10
1
0
-
1
wood
timber
France
Spain
25
0
aluminium
8
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Rating as ‘causing the least negative envt’l impact’
2011 vs. 2002
cement
concrete
EU4 total
aluminium
steel
tinpl
glass
paper
board
wood
timber
+ 1
+ 1
+ 1
+ 3
+ 8
+ 2
0
0
-
2
+ 3
+ 1
+ 7
+ 1
+ 1
+ 2
+ 4
+ 8
+ 7
-
1
+ 3
-
1
+ 2
+ 14
- 11
+ 2
0
+ 4
+ 8
+ 9
+ 17
France
Germany
Great Britain *
Italy
Poland *
Spain
* not asked in 2002
26
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Positioning on ‘daily usefulness’ & ‘envt’l impact’
Summary
 Timber, paper/board and glass dominate – although at
country-specific levels - general publics‘ perceptions
 of daily most useful [because highly tangible in daily life]
 and of environmentally friendly materials [because of
high ‚recycability‘-image]
 In contrast:
Cement & concrete, steel & tinplate and aluminium are
„behind the curtain“ of tangible consciousness and
of low-image on both aspects in all countries
27
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Positioning on ‘daily usefulness’ & ‘envt’l impact’
Summary [cont’d]
 In particular glass and [except IT] timber have increased
their envt‘l image-advantage over the past 10 years
 Comparing public ratings
 of glass and paper/board on the one hand
 of cement&concrete, steel, aluminium on the other
indicates the lack of balanced public understanding of these
materials and industries with regard to energy-aspects
28
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Sociodemographics
Overall Impression of Cement & Concrete as Material
29
men vs.
women
old vs.
young
EU6 total
+ 5
0
France
+ 2
Germany
high vs.
low ed.
-
managers
vs. genpop
op. leaders
vs. genpop
5
-
2
+ 3
+ 7
- 11
-
6
-
+ 3
-
3
-
3
+ 3
+ 3
Great Britain
+ 12
-
4
-
3
-
1
+ 2
Italy
+ 3
-
1
-
6
-
5
-
Poland
+ 10
-
1
+ 13
+ 2
+ 3
Spain
+ 2
-
7
+ 5
0
+ 3
8
8
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Sociodemographics
Overall Impression of Cement & Concrete as Industry
men vs.
women
30
old vs.
young
-
4
managers
vs. genpop
-
1
op. leaders
vs. genpop
+ 1
EU6 total
+ 5
-
France
-
+ 5
- 18
- 15
-
Germany
+ 6
-
7
- 12
+ 6
+ 2
Great Britain
+ 9
- 11
+ 8
+ 6
-
6
Italy
+ 6
+ 5
-
4
+ 3
-
7
Poland
+ 7
+ 1
+ 11
+ 2
+ 7
Spain
+ 1
-
+ 10
-
+ 1
3
1
high vs.
low ed.
9
2
4
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Sociodemographics
Rating as ‘most useful in household’s everyday life’
men vs.
women
31
old vs.
young
high vs.
low ed.
managers
vs. genpop
op. leaders
vs. genpop
0
0
-
1
1
0
-
2
EU6 total
+ 2
-
1
France
+ 1
-
4
-
Germany
+ 1
0
+ 2
-
1
+ 1
Great Britain
+ 2
-
2
-
1
-
1
+ 1
Italy
+ 3
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
Poland
+ 5
+ 3
+ 1
Spain
+ 1
+ 1
-
3
+ 1
0
1
+ 3
-
3
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Sociodemographics
Rating as ‘causing the least negative envt’l impact’
men vs.
women
high vs.
low ed.
managers
vs. genpop
op. leaders
vs. genpop
EU6 total
+ 1
-
2
-
1
-
1
France
-
2
-
4
-
1
-
1
-
Germany
+ 1
-
2
0
-
1
+ 1
Great Britain
+ 1
+ 1
-
2
-
1
-
Italy
+ 3
-
1
-
1
-
1
+ 3
-
1
+ 1
-
1
-
-
3
-
-
1
Poland
Spain
32
old vs.
young
0
+ 1
8
3
0
1
2
0
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Sociodemographics
Summary
 Gender-Gap yes:
men tend to rate cement&concrete more positive than women
 Any other sociodemographic patterns:
highly country-specific
 ‚the young‘ NOT consistently more critical than the older
 ‚high formal education‘ and / or ‚high job position‘
NOT a consistent image-advantage, but even
a strong disadvantage e.g. in FR
 ‚opinion leaders‘ more critical than public ave. in FR, IT
33
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Role of ‘Sustainability’ among Public Audiences
Survey-based Theses

Mere Awareness of the term ‚Sustainability‘/‚SD‘
 highest levels measured so far in DE in 2002 1), pushed in
advance of the „World Summit on SD“ in Johannisburg
[gen. public 53%, young better educ. 61%, decision makers 72%]
 NO increase up to 2007 2)
due to focus of public concerns on globalization issues
 est. maximum levels today ca. 15 – 20% higher 3)
due to media coverage relating the term to energy issues,
food issues, climate change, ‚new ways of consumption‘ etc.
1) Ri*QUESTA, PanEuropean Survey on Materials 2002, 2004, in 11 countries
2) Ri*QUESTA, Tracking surveys in DE
3) Verbraucher-Initiative e.V. & Coca-Cola, 03-2011, „Nachhaltige Lebensweisen“
34
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Role of ‘Sustainability’ among Public Audiences
Survey-based Theses [cont’d]

Unaided Interpretation of the term ‚Sustainability‘/‚SD‘
1)
 ca. 20% „global interpretation“ like Brundtland-definition
ca. 40% „no idea of meaning“, just have heard the term
ca. 40% „single-minded interpretation“ focused on either
environmental, economic or social&ethics issues
 strongest focus of „single-minded interpretation“ varies
over time according to priority concerns
 „environmental“ related to e.g. climate change, energy issues
 „economic“ related to e.g. globalization, unemployment
 „social&ethical“ related to e.g. corporate scandals
1) See same sources as mentioned under point 1
35
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Role of ‘Sustainability’ among Public Audiences
Survey-based Theses [cont’d]

‚Sustainability‘/‚SD‘-demands directed to industries
1)
 heavily skewed to traditional, defensive environmental, health
and safety topics [„reduce environmental, health & safety risks
posed by your products and by the way you produce them“]
 supplemented by 2)
 industry-specific aspects [e.g. „stop child labour“ in textiles]
 varying acute issues [e.g. „safeguard jobs“, „create new jobs“,
„provide fair wages“, „stop relocation to abroad“, „stop excessive
top management salaries“, …]
1) See same sources as mentioned under point 1
2) Corporate Social Responsibility Monitor, annual survey in 25+ countries
36
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Role of ‘Sustainability’ among Public Audiences
Survey-based Theses [cont’d]

Behavioural Relevance of ‚Sustainability‘/‚SD‘
1)
 Except for small minorities [mostly in the area of food]: NONE
 Vast majorities of general publics
 have delegated „needs of action on SD“ - acc. to their
interpretation - to industries/companies, NGOs, politicians
 behave in selfish terms
[e.g. even when buying energy-saving items, … if it pays]
 are not willing to make sacrifices to the benefit of
global Sustainability/SD
1) See same sources as mentioned under the previous points, plus
Eurobarometer Surveys on „Europeans and the Environment“
37
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Role of ‘Sustainability’ among Public Audiences
Survey-based Theses [cont’d]

Key Issues and Challenges for Public Communication
 the general term ‚Sustainability / SD‘ evokes a-priori interpretations, which are putting you into a defensive position
 lay audiences are not used to think the way [global, long-term,
multi-factorial assessments, what-if-scenarios, alternative costs / shadow
prices] that makes your rationale of ‚Sustainability / SD‘
DO NOT convey ABSTRACT MACRO-SD-performance MESSAGES
DO present SPECIFIC, TANGIBLE, VALID EXAMPLES of your SDperformance in public terms, that prove your concept of Sustainability
- ,,, even without using the general, unspecific, often misused term
38
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Appendix: The Questions asked
Overall Image-Question
Now, I would like you to rate your overall impression toward several MATERIALS [industries]
on a scale from 1 to 6. On this scale, a rating of 1 indicates that you have a VERY POSITIVE
impression of that material, while a rating of 6 indicates that you have a VERY NEGATIVE
impression. You can use any number from 1 to 6, just remember, the closer to 1, the more
positive, and the closer to 6, the more negative your feelings.
MATERIALS
• aluminium
• cement and concrete
• chemicals
• wood, timber
• glass
• paper and board
• plastics
• steel and tinplate
39
INDUSTRIES
• aluminium industry
• cement and concrete-industry
• chemical industry
• forestry industry
• glass industry
• paper and board-industry
• plastics industry
• steel and tinplate industry
PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE
Appendix: The Questions asked
Positioning-Question
Which one of these materials is from your opinion …
a)
the most useful, valuable, in your personal household’s everyday life?
b)
causing the least negative environmental impact – from their production
along their use and up to their disposal ?
MATERIALS
• aluminium
• cement and concrete
• chemicals
• wood, timber
• glass
• paper and board
• plastics
• steel and tinplate
40
WHAT CAN FICEM LEARN FROM
EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE?
•
Added value from regional, multinational approach
•
Comparison with other materials / industries 
benchmarking
•
Possible to start with a few countries – provided that, in
each country, the methodology is the same (FICEM to
define common methodology)
•
Possible to address country specific issues (flexibility)
•
Typologies essential for communication purposes
41
HOW TO PROCEED PRACTICALLY?
•
Methodology and preparation by RI*QUESTA / VisionAble
in cooperation with FICEM
•
Countries may join on an individual basis
•
Field work by best national agencies / in local language
coordinated by RI*QUESTA
•
Analysis and Report + presentation by RI*QUESTA and
VisionAble
42
HOW MUCH DOES IT COST?
•
Fixed cost
•
Variable cost per each participation country
•
Analysis / Report / presentation
- establish the methodology and concept
- translation of common questionnaire
43
www.cembureau.eu