Start 
dr inż. Jacek Michalak, Atlas sp. z o.o.
ORCID: 0000-0001-7186-6774
Adres do korespondencji: Ten adres pocztowy jest chroniony przed spamowaniem. Aby go zobaczyć, konieczne jest włączenie w przeglądarce obsługi JavaScript.
W miesięczniku „Materiały Budowlane” 8/2025 opublikowany został artykuł pt. „Analiza wprowadzenia oceny właściwości użytkowych wyrobów budowlanych w świetle zrównoważenia środowiskowego” [1]. Jego autor, dr inż. Sebastian Wall omówił podstawowe aspekty techniczne i prawne wprowadzenia obowiązkowej oceny zrównoważenia środowiskowego wyrobów budowlanych, jaką zdefiniowało rozporządzenia (UE) nr 2024/3110 (zwane także nowym CPR lub CPR-2024), które zastąpiło rozporządzenie (UE) nr 305/2011 (CPR lub obecnie także nazywane starym CPR albo CPR-2011). Wykorzystując uniwersalną metodę analizy strategicznej SWOT, w artykule zidentyfikowano główne obszary mocnych i słabych stron, a także szans i zagrożeń zarówno w odniesieniu do europejskich producentów wyrobów budowlanych, użytkowników, jak i do jednostek pełniących rolę strony trzeciej. Zdaniem autora, związanego zawodowo z instytutem naukowo-badawczym prowadzącym badania i jednocześnie będącym jednostką oceny technicznej, wykorzystanie analizy SWOT może stanowić element wspierający efektywną transformację dotyczącą, przede wszystkim, podmiotów przemysłowych i jednostek notyfikowanych.
Literatura
[1] Wall S. Analiza wprowadzenia oceny właściwości użytkowych wyrobów budowlanych w świetle zrównoważenia środowiskowego. Materiały Budowlane. 2025; https://doi. org/10.15199/33.2025.08.13.
[2] Słownik Języka Polskiego. PWN: Warszawa; 2025. https://sjp. pwn. pl/slowniki/zmaga% C4%87. html.
[3] Nieściór B. Prawo i ekonomia. Interdyscyplinarna analiza wpływu prawa na gospodarkę. Łódź: Archae Graph Wydawnictwo Naukowe. 2025.
[4] Głowacz M, Wall S. Ocena trzech lat funkcjonowania Rozporządzenia UE nr 305/2011 (CPR): wnioski i perspektywy zmian. Materiały Budowlane. 2016; https://doi. org/10.15199/33.2015.08.15.
[5]Wall S. CE marking of construction products – evolution of the European approach to harmonisation of construction products in the light of environmental sustainability aspects. Sustainability. 2021; 6396. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116396.
[6] Wall S. Analiza propozycji dotyczącej nowego podejścia UE do harmonizacji technicznej warunków wprowadzania do obrotu wyrobów budowlanych. Materiały Budowlane. 2023; https://doi.org/10.15199/33.2023.05.06.
[7] Sala S, Amadei A. M, Beylot A, Ardente F. The evolution of life cycle assessment in European policies over three decades. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2021; https://doi. org/10.1007/s11367-021-01893-2.
[8] EUMEPS. Position Paper 27.03.2024 Stimulating ‘Green growth” to secure competitiveness. The Expanded Polystyrene industry’s key recommendations to the future European Commission. https://eumeps. eu/images/newsroom/position- -papers/2024.05.27_Green_Growth_CI. pdf (data dostępu 10.09.2025).
[9] EUMEPS. Relaunching European Competitiveness. A Joint European Industry Manifesto. 2024. https://eumeps. eu/images/newsroom/publications/ Joint_European_Industry_Manifesto_- _Relaunching_Competitiveness. pdf (data dostępu 11.09.2025).
[10] Unia Europejska.The future of European competitiveness. PartA.Acompetitiveness strategy for Europe. 2024; https://commission.europa.eu/topics/ eu-competitiveness/draghi-report_en#paragraph_ 47059 (data dostępu 11.09.2025).
[11] Unia Europejska. The future of European competitiveness. Part B. In-depth analysis and recommendations. 2024; https://commission. europa. eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/draghi- -report_en#paragraph_47059 (data dostępu 12.09.2025).
[12] EN 15804: 2012. Sustainability of ConstructionWorks- Environmental ProductDeclarations- -Core Rules for the Product Category of Construction Products. 2012.
[13] Asdrubali F, Grazieschi G, Roncone M, Thiebat F, Carbonaro C. Sustainability of building materials: Embodied energy and embodied carbon of masonry. Energies. 2023; https://doi. org/10.3390/en16041846.
[14] Capolini F, Cova M, Acampora A, Martucci O. Environmental Product Declarations:AComprehensive Review of Current Research and Practices. Fostering organizational transformation for a sustainable future: Enhancing synergies between quality, innovation and sustainability. 2024; https://www. researchgate. net/profile/Mohamed- -Nasaj-2/publication/391804398_Investigating_ the_Relationship_Between_Employees’_Demogra phics_and_First-Time-Right_Measurement_ of_Quality_Performance_An_Empirical_Study_in _the_Banking_Sector/links/686cfa5f39c35835120 7eb17/Investigating-the-Relationship-Between- Employees-Demographics-and-First-Time-Right- Measurement-of-Quality-Performance-An- Empirical-Study-in-the-Banking-Sector.pdf(data dostępu 16.09.2025).
[15] Michalak J. Environmental Assessment of Construction Products – Challenges, Priorities, and Needs from Producers” Perspective. A Review. Cement Wapno Beton. 2024; https://doi. org/10.32047/CWB. 2024.29.1.2.
[16] Olanrewaju OI, Enegbuma WI, Donn M, Oyefusi ON. Assessment of environmental product declaration and databases: Towards ensuring data quality assurance practices. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2025; https://doi. org/10.1016/j. eiar. 2024.107803.
[17] Moré FB, Galindro BM, Soares SR. Assessing the completeness and comparability of environmental product declarations. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2022; https://doi. org/10.1016/j. jclepro. 2022.133999.
[18] Michalak J. Sustainability Assessment of Cementitious Ceramic TileAdhesives. Buildings. 2023; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13051326.
[19] Vasić M, Spasojević-Šantić T, Radojević Z. Some aspects of the comparative analysis of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for clay construction products.
[w:] Book of abstracts of Conference Advanced Ceramic and Application XIII: New Frontiers in Multifunctional Material Science and Processing, Belgrade: Serbian Ceramic Society; 2025.
[20] Piasecki M. Z góry ustalone zasadnicze charakterystyki środowiskowe oraz ich ocena. Konferencja Szkoleniowa ITB: Nowy CPR – zmiany przepisów UE w sprawie wprowadzania do obrotu wyrobów budowlanych. Ożarów Mazowiecki: ITB; 2024.
[21] Konradsen F, Hansen KSH, GhoseA, Pizzol M. Same product, different score: how methodological differences affect EPD results. The International Journal of Life CycleAssessment. 2024; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02246-x.
[22] SäynäjokiA, Heinonen J, Junnila S, Horvath A. Can life-cycle assessment produce reliable policy guidelines in the building sector? Environmental Research Letters. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa54ee.
[23] Johnsen FM, Tellnes LG. Verification of Environmental ProductDeclarations (EPDs) – howstrict should it be?. E3S Web of Conferences. 2022; https://doi. org/10.1051/e3sconf/202234908002.
[24] Sambataro L, Bre F, Ukrainczyk N, Koenders EA. Environmental benchmarks for the European cement industry. Sustainable Production and Consumption. 2024; https://doi.org/10.1016/j. spc.2024.01.020.
[25] Bayram B, Greiff K. Life cycle assessment on construction and demolition waste recycling: A systematic review analyzing three important quality aspects. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2023; https://doi. org/10.1007/s11367-023-02145-1.
[26] Rasmussen FN, Malmqvist T, Birgisdóttir H. Drivers, barriers and development needs for LCA in the Nordic building sector – a survey among professionals. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/588/3/032022.
[27] Douziech M, Ravier G, Jolivet R, Pérez- López P, Blanc I. How far can Life Cycle Assessment be simplified? Aprotocol to generate simple and accurate models for the assessment of energy systems and its application to heat production from enhanced geothermal systems. Environmental Science & Technology. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c06751.
[28] Gradin KT, Björklund A. The common understanding of simplification approaches in published LCAstudies – a review andmapping. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01843-4.
[29] Michałowski B, Michalak J. Sustainability- -oriented assessment of external thermal insulation composite systems: A case study from Poland. Cogent Engineering. 2021; https://doi. org/10.1080/23311916.2021.1943152.
[30] Kanafani K, Zimmermann R. K, Rasmussen F. N, Birgisdóttir, H. Early design stage building LCA using the LCAbyg tool: New strategies for bridging the data gap. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2019; https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/323/1/012117.
[31] Anderson J, Rønning A.Using standards to maximize the benefit of digitization of construction product Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) to reduce Building Life Cycle Impacts. E3S Web of Conferences. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202234910003.
[32] De Laurentiis V, Amadei A, Sanyé-Mengual E, Sala S. Exploring alternative normalization approaches for life cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life CycleAssessment. 2023; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02188-4.
[33] Aragón A, Alberti M. G. Limitations of machine- interpretability of digital EPDs used for aBIM-based sustainability assessment of construction assets. Journal of Building Engineering. 2024; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe. 024.110418.
[34] CardosoVE, Sanhudo L, Silvestre JD,Almeida M, Costa AA. Challenges in the harmonisation and digitalisation of Environmental Product Declarations for construction products in the European context. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2024; https://doi. org/10.1007/s11367-024-02279-w.
[35] MaibaumJ, BlockM, KönigM,Wachsmann A. BIM-based EPD adaptation in the context of ecological sustainability and municipal infrastructures,
[ w:] Life-Cycle of Structures and Infrastructure Systems, eds. F. Biondini, D. M. Frangopol, London: CRC Press; 2023.
[36] Goulouti K, Padey P, Galimshina A, Habert G, Lasvaux S. Uncertainty of building elements service lives in building LCA & LCC: What matters? Building and Environment. 2020; https://doi. org/10.1016/j. buildenv. 2020.106904.
[37] Mattinzioli T, Sol-Sánchez M, Martínez G, Rubio-Gámez M. A parametric study on the impact of open-source inventory variability and uncertainty for the life cycle assessment of road bituminous pavements. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2021; https://doi. org/10.1007/s11367-021-01878-1.
[38] Barahmand Z, Eikeland MS. Life cycle assessment under uncertainty: A scoping review. World. 2022; https://doi.org/10.3390/world3030039.
[39] PannierML, Schalbart P, PeuportierB.Dealing with uncertainties in comparative building life cycle assessment. Building and Environment. 2023; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110543.
[40] Lubecki A, Szczurowski J, Zarębska K. The importance of uncertainty sources in LCA for the reliability of environmental comparisons:Acase study on public bus fleet electrification. Applied Energy. 2025; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy. 2024.124593.
[41] Mahlan S, TokedeO, SadickAM, CostinG. P. Capital goods in life cycle inventory of products: a global systematic review and future research agenda. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2025; https://doi. org/10.1007/s11367- -025-02476-1.
[42] Michalak J. Standards and assessment of construction products: Case study of ceramic tile adhesives. Standards. 2022; https://doi. org/10.3390/standards2020013.
[43] Michalak J, Ziomek R. Assessment of cementitious ceramic tile adhesives in the light of repeatability and reproducibility of the tensile adhesion strength measurements. Materials. 2023; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16124245.
[44] Wyrok Naczelnego SąduAdministracyjnego w Warszawie z 19 lutego 2021 r., sygn. II GSK 1339/20.
[45] Wyrok Wojewódzkiego Sądu Administracyjnego w Warszawie z 19 października 2023 r., sygn. akt V SA/Wa734/23.
[46] Eickelkamp T. Significance of fixed assets in life cycle assessments. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2015; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2015.03.075.
[47] Klint E, Peters G. Sharing is caring-the importance of capital goods when assessing environmental impacts from private and shared laundry systems in Sweden. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2021; https://doi. org/10.1007/s11367-021-01890-5.
[48] Tokede O, Rouwette R. Problematic consequences of the inclusion of capital goods inventory data inEnvironmental ProductDeclarations.The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2024; https://doi. org/10.1007/s11367-023-02231-4.
[49] Backes JG, Schmidt L, Bielak J, Del Rosario P, Traverso M, Claßen M. Comparative Cradle- to-Grave Carbon Footprint of a CFRP-Grid Reinforced Concrete Façade Panel. Sustainability. 2023; https://doi. org/10.3390/su151511548.
[50] Hoxha E, Birgisdóttir H, Röck M. Climate IMPACT of EU building materials: Data compilation and statistical analysis of global warming potential in environmental product declarations. Sustainable Production and Consumption. 2025; https://doi.org/10.1016/j. spc.2024.12.015.
[51] Palander S, Lorentzon K, Hammar T, Sanne K, Nilsson J, Hallberg L, Spak B. Environmental footprint in Sweden – increased competence and communication – lessons learned of working with Product Environmental Footprint. Gothenburg: Swedish Life Cycle Center, Chalmers University of Technology; 2021.
[52] OteroMS, Garnica T,Montilla S, CondeM, Tenorio J. A. Analysis of sectoral environmental product declarations as a data source for life cycle assessment. Buildings. 2023; https://doi. org/10.3390/buildings13123032.
[53] Castro SMH, Rodríguez RC, Arquillo JDL, de Eulate MPÁ. Comparative evaluation of construction insulation materials: Environmental performance across production, end-of-life, and beyond system boundaries. Journal of Building Engineering. 2025; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe. 2024.111570.
[54] Hasselsteen L, Stapel EB, Birgisdóttir H, Sørensen CG, Kanafani K. Evaluating the environmental impact of construction waste: A comprehensive analysis of End-of-Life scenarios in Environmental Product Declarations. Building and Environment. 2025; https://doi. org/10.1016/j. buildenv. 2025.113159.
[55] Šinik B, Tošić A. Testing life-cycle assessment data qualitywith Benford’s lawreveals geographic variation. Ecological Informatics. 2025; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2025.103227.
[56] Komisja Europejska. Commission to cut EU Taxonomy red tape for companies. 2025; https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/det ail/en/ip_25_1724(data dostępu 25.09.2025).
[57] Eco Platform. Call to Actionby the undersigned ECO Platform EPD Programme Operators on Worst-Case Approach and Initial Site Inspections in the new Construction Product Regulation (CPR – Regulation 2024/3110). 2025; https://www.eco-platform.org/publications.html (data dostępu 25.09.2025).
[58] Anderson J. Over 130,000 Construction Product EPD Available Globally. 2023. https://constructionlca.co.uk/2023/03/01/over- 130000-construction-product-epd-availableglobally/ (data dostępu 26.09.2025).
Materiały Budowlane 11/2025, strona 211-216 (spis treści >>)
