MEASURING PERCEPTIONS OF CEMENT AND CONCRETE THE EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE

MEASURING PERCEPTIONS OF CEMENT AND CONCRETE

THE EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE

FICEM - XXII GENERAL ASSEMBLYSantiago, Chile

RI*QUESTA Dr Bernhard Rieder

VisionAble Dr Jean-Marie Chandelle

both involved in CEMBUREAU work

WHO ARE WE?

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

4

repre-sentative

OpinionSurveys

reliable base of knowledgeto define activities and

allocate resources

entry toconstructive

dialogue withstakeholders

needed tool to measuredevelopmentand progress

METHODOLOGY

• Targeted audience(s)

• Sampling

• Interview mode

• Questionnaire & order of questions

• Common questionnaire or common core + specifies

5

6

CoreQuestionnaire

CoreSample

supple-mentary

questions

to be askedAFTER

the COREquestions

Nat‘lOption

booster sample Nat‘l

Option

Same w

ay of recruiting & interview

ing

identicalin all

countries

identicalin allcountries

7

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

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 conducted on behalf of PlasticsEurope

DE Germany

ES Spain

FR France

GB Great Britain

IT Italy

PL Poland

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

10


Overall Image of Cement & Concrete as Material

58

62

56

64

68

84

41

37

29

31

29

14

15

France

Spain

Poland

Italy

Great Britain

Germany

(more) positive dk (more) negative *

* Please, tell me your overall impression of … on a scale from 1=very positive to 6=very negative

„positive“ 2011vs 2007 vs 2004

+ 3 + 11

+ 1 0

+ 4 - 1

- 4 - 17

0 - 21

- 1 + 4

11

2002 2004 2007 2011


Overall Image of Cement & Concrete as MaterialTime Series “(more) positive”

75

84 DE

71

62 ES58 FR

81

64 IT68 GB

56 PL

12


Overall Image of Cement & Concrete as Industry

* Please, tell me your overall impression of … on a scale from 1=very positive to 6=very negative

53

54

50

62

62

79

46

45

27

30

30

17

23

8

8

Spain

France

Poland

Italy

Great Britain

Germany

(more) positive dk (more) negative * „positive“ 2011vs 2007 vs 2004

0 - 2

- 4 - 1

+ 8 + 9

- 4 - 18

+ 2 + 1

- 1 - 22

13

2002 2004 2007 2011


Overall Image of Cement & Concrete as IndustryTime Series “(more) positive”

75

79 DE

66

53 ES54 FR

83

62 IT, GB

50 PL

14


Overall ImageDevelopment “(more) positive” 2011 vs. 2004

40

50

60

70

80

90

40 50 60 70 80 90

asMATERIAL

as INDUSTRY

DE

ES

PL

GB

IT

FR

2011

2004

15


Overall Image vs. other Materials

* Specific results for Plastics and Chemicals not shown for confidentiality reasons

65

68

69

81

82

85

69

30

29

26

16

16

13

28

Aluminium

CEMENT & CONCRETE

Steel & Tinplate

Paper & Board

Glass

Wood/Timber

EU-Ave. 8 MATERIALS *

(more) positive dk (more) negative

„positive“vs 2007 vs 2004

+ 2 - 1

+ 4 0

+ 3 - 3

+ 3 - 1

+ 1 - 1

+ 1 - 1

0 + 1

16


Overall Image vs. other Industries


„positive“vs 2007 vs 2004

+ 4 - 1

+ 6 + 1

+ 5 - 4

+ 4 - 1

+ 4 - 1

+ 1 - 4

+ 2 - 3 58

62

63

72

74

76

64

33

31

29

24

20

20

30

Aluminium

CEMENT & CONCRETE

Steel & Tinplate

Paper & Board

Glass

Forestry

EU-Ave. 8 INDUSTRIES *

(more) positive dk (more) negative

17

40

50

60

70

80

90

40 50 60 70 80 90


Overall Image vs. other Materials & IndustriesEU6 total

positive asMATERIAL

positive as INDUSTRY

timber /forestry

glasspaper / carton

steel / tinplate

aluminium

cement & concrete

2011

2004

18


Overall Image vs. other Materials & IndustriesINDEXEDby Country

vs averageof all 8MATERIALS

vs average of all 8 INDUSTRIES

2011

2004

0,80

0,85

0,90

0,95

1,00

1,05

1,10

1,15

0,80 0,85 0,90 0,95 1,00 1,05 1,10 1,15

DE

ES

PL

GB

IT

FR

nat‘l avematerials

nat‘l aveindustries

19


Overall ImageSummary

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


Overall ImageSummary [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


Rating as ‘most useful in household’s everyday life’EU6 total

5

26

2

4

4

14

23

23

dk/several/none

others(plast/chem)

aluminium

cement&concrete

steel/tinplate

glass

wood/timber

paper/board

high low

GB 26 DE 18

DE 37 ES 12

FR 17 GB 7

GB 5 PL 2

GB 6 DE 1

ES 4 PL 1

[plast/chem *]


22


Rating as ‘causing the least negative envt’l impact’EU6 total high low

DE 51 IT 23

IT 31 DE 18

ES 20 PL 11

ES 6 IT 2

ES 6 DE 1

GB 5 PL 1

4

10

3

3

4

16

22

38

dk/several/none

others(plast/chem)

aluminium

cement&concrete

steel

glass

paper/board

wood/timber

[plast/chem *]


23


Positioning on ‘daily usefulness’ & ‘envt’l impact’EU6 total

most use-ful in hh‘s

daily life

least negative envt‘l impact

wood/timber

paper/board

glass

steel/tinplate

aluminium

cement &concrete

24


Rating as ‘causing the least negative envt’l impact’2011 vs. 2007

EU6 total

France

Germany

Great Britain

Italy

Poland

Spain

cementconcrete

paperboardglass

steeltinpl

alumi-nium

woodtimber

0

+ 1

- 1

+ 3

- 1

+ 1

0

+ 1

- 1

+ 1

+ 2

+ 2

- 1

0

+ 1

0

- 1

+ 2

0

+ 1

+ 3

+ 5

+ 9

+ 7

+ 8

+ 1

+ 1

+ 4

+ 7

+ 4

+ 10

+ 5

+ 7

+ 1

+ 10

- 8

- 7

- 13

+ 10

- 20

- 8

- 10

25


Rating as ‘causing the least negative envt’l impact’2011 vs. 2002

EU4 total

France

Germany

Great Britain *

Italy

Poland *

Spain

cementconcrete

paperboardglass

steeltinpl

alumi-nium

woodtimber

+ 1

0

+ 1

- 1

+ 2

+ 1

0

+ 1

+ 3

0

+ 1

- 2

+ 2

- 1

+ 4

+ 3

+ 3

+ 4

+ 2

+ 8

+ 8

+ 1

+ 8

+ 14

+ 9

+ 2

+ 7

+ 7

- 11

+ 17

* not asked in 2002

26


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


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


Sociodemographics

Overall Impression of Cement & Concrete as Material

EU6 total

France

Germany

Great Britain

Italy

Poland

Spain

men vs.women

op. leadersvs. genpop

managersvs. genpop

high vs.low ed.

old vs.young

+ 5

+ 2

+ 3

+ 12

+ 3

+ 10

+ 2

0

+ 7

- 3

- 4

- 1

- 1

- 7

- 5

- 11

- 3

- 3

- 6

+ 13

+ 5

- 2

- 6

+ 3

- 1

- 5

+ 2

0

+ 3

- 8

+ 3

+ 2

- 8

+ 3

+ 3

29


Sociodemographics

Overall Impression of Cement & Concrete as Industry

EU6 total

France

Germany

Great Britain

Italy

Poland

Spain

men vs.women


managersvs. genpop

high vs.low ed.

old vs.young

+ 5

- 3

+ 6

+ 9

+ 6

+ 7

+ 1

- 1

+ 5

- 7

- 11

+ 5

+ 1

- 9

- 4

- 18

- 12

+ 8

- 4

+ 11

+ 10

- 1

- 15

+ 6

+ 6

+ 3

+ 2

- 2

+ 1

- 4

+ 2

- 6

- 7

+ 7

+ 1

30


Sociodemographics

Rating as ‘most useful in household’s everyday life’

EU6 total

France

Germany

Great Britain

Italy

Poland

Spain

men vs.women


managersvs. genpop

high vs.low ed.

old vs.young

+ 2

+ 1

+ 1

+ 2

+ 3

+ 5

+ 1

- 1

- 4

0

- 2

- 3

+ 3

+ 1

0

- 1

+ 2

- 1

- 1

+ 1

- 3

0

0

- 1

- 1

- 1

+ 1

0

- 1

- 2

+ 1

+ 1

- 1

+ 3

- 3

31


Sociodemographics

Rating as ‘causing the least negative envt’l impact’

EU6 total

France

Germany

Great Britain

Italy

Poland

Spain

men vs.women


managersvs. genpop

high vs.low ed.

old vs.young

+ 1

- 2

+ 1

+ 1

+ 3

0

+ 1

- 2

- 4

- 2

+ 1

- 1

+ 3

- 8

- 1

- 1

0

- 2

- 1

- 1

- 3

- 1

- 1

- 1

- 1

- 1

+ 1

- 3

0

- 1

+ 1

- 2

0

- 1

- 1

32


SociodemographicsSummary

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


Role of ‘Sustainability’ among Public AudiencesSurvey-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

1) Ri*QUESTA, PanEuropean Survey on Materials 2002, 2004, in 11 countries2) Ri*QUESTA, Tracking surveys in DE3) Verbraucher-Initiative e.V. & Coca-Cola, 03-2011, „Nachhaltige Lebensweisen“

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.

34


Role of ‘Sustainability’ among Public AudiencesSurvey-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

1) See same sources as mentioned under point 1

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

35



‚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“]

1) See same sources as mentioned under point 12) Corporate Social Responsibility Monitor, annual survey in 25+ countries

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“, …]

36



Behavioural Relevance of ‚Sustainability‘/‚SD‘ 1)

Except for small minorities [mostly in the area of food]: NONE

1) See same sources as mentioned under the previous points, plus Eurobarometer Surveys on „Europeans and the Environment“

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

37



Key Issues and Challenges for Public Communication

the general term ‚Sustainability / SD‘ evokes a-priori inter- pretations, 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 SD-performance in public terms, that prove your concept of Sustainability- ,,, even without using the general, unspecific, often misused term

38


Appendix: The Questions askedOverall 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.

INDUSTRIES• aluminium industry• cement and concrete-industry• chemical industry• forestry industry• glass industry• paper and board-industry• plastics industry• steel and tinplate industry

MATERIALS• aluminium• cement and concrete• chemicals• wood, timber• glass• paper and board• plastics• steel and tinplate

39


Appendix: The Questions askedPositioning-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 - establish the methodology and concept

- translation of common questionnaire

• Variable cost per each participation country

• Analysis / Report / presentation

43

www.cembureau.eu

Date post:	11-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	gelsey
View:	19 times
Download:	0 times

MEASURING PERCEPTIONS OF CEMENT AND CONCRETE THE EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE

Documents