1 / 44

MEASURING PERCEPTIONS OF CEMENT AND CONCRETE THE EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE

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. WHY GO FOR A PERCEPTION SURVEY?.

gelsey
Télécharger la présentation

MEASURING PERCEPTIONS OF CEMENT AND CONCRETE THE EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FICEM - XXII GENERAL ASSEMBLY Santiago, Chile MEASURING PERCEPTIONS OF CEMENT AND CONCRETETHE EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE

  2. WHO ARE WE? RI*QUESTA Dr Bernhard Rieder VisionAble Dr Jean-Marie Chandelle both involved in CEMBUREAU work

  3. 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

  4. reliable base of knowledge to define activities and allocate resources repre- sentative Opinion Surveys entry to constructive dialogue with stakeholders needed tool to measure development and progress

  5. methodology • Targeted audience(s) • Sampling • Interview mode • Questionnaire & order of questions • Common questionnaire or common core + specifies

  6. Core Questionnaire Nat‘l Option supple- mentary questions to be asked AFTER the CORE questions identical in all countries Core Sample identical in all countries Same way of recruiting & interviewing booster sample Nat‘l Option

  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

  8. 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

  9. PUBLIC perceptionsOF CEMENT & CONCRETEIN EUROPE

  10. PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE Profile of the Surveys conducted on behalf of PlasticsEurope DE Germany representative samples of nat’l adult populations, n  1,000 each country ES Spain FR France interviews conducted by well-known nat’l institutes from March 21 – April 27 GB Great Britain IT Italy  totally compatible tracking vs. 2007, 2004, 2002 PL Poland

  11. PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE Overall Image of Cement & Concrete as Material „positive“ 2011 vs 2007 vs 2004 + 3 + 11 + 1 0 + 4 - 1 - 4 - 17 0 - 21 - 1 + 4 * Please, tell me your overall impression of … on a scale from 1=very positive to 6=very negative

  12. PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE Overall Image of Cement & Concrete as Material Time Series “(more) positive” 84 DE 81 75 71 68 GB 64 IT 62 ES 58 FR 56 PL

  13. PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE Overall Image of Cement & Concrete as Industry „positive“ 2011 vs 2007 vs 2004 0 - 2 - 4 - 1 + 8 + 9 - 4 - 18 + 2 + 1 - 1 - 22 * Please, tell me your overall impression of … on a scale from 1=very positive to 6=very negative

  14. 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

  15. PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE Overall Image Development “(more) positive”2011 vs. 2004 2011 DE 2004 as MATERIAL GB IT ES FR PL as INDUSTRY

  16. PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE Overall Image vs. other Materials „positive“ vs 2007 vs 2004 + 2 - 1 + 40 + 3 - 3 + 3 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 0 + 1 * Specific results for Plastics and Chemicals not shown for confidentiality reasons

  17. PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE Overall Imagevs. other Industries „positive“ vs 2007 vs 2004 + 4 - 1 + 6 + 1 + 5 - 4 + 4- 1 + 4- 1 + 1 - 4 + 2 - 3 * Specific results for Plastics and Chemicals not shown for confidentiality reasons

  18. PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE Overall Image vs. other Materials & Industries EU6 total 2011 timber / forestry 2004 glass paper / carton positive as MATERIAL steel / tinplate cement & concrete aluminium positive as INDUSTRY

  19. PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE Overall Image vs. other Materials & Industries INDEXED by Country nat‘l ave industries 2011 2004 DE vs average of all 8 MATERIALS GB nat‘l ave materials FR ES PL IT vs average of all 8 INDUSTRIES

  20. 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

  21. PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE Overall Image Summary [cont’d]  Compared to all surveyed materialsand 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“

  22. PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE Rating as ‘most useful in household’s everyday life’ EU6 total 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 *] * Specific results for Plastics and Chemicals not shown for confidentiality reasons

  23. PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE 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 [plast/chem *] * Specific results for Plastics and Chemicals not shown for confidentiality reasons

  24. PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE Positioning on ‘daily usefulness’ & ‘envt’l impact’ EU6 total paper/ board wood/ timber most use- ful in hh‘s daily life glass cement & concrete steel/tinplate aluminium least negative envt‘l impact

  25. PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE Rating as ‘causing the least negative envt’l impact’ 2011 vs. 2007 cement concrete alumi- nium steel tinpl glass paper board wood timber EU6 total France Germany Great Britain Italy Poland Spain 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

  26. PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE Rating as ‘causing the least negative envt’l impact’ 2011 vs. 2002 cement concrete alumi- nium steel tinpl glass paper board wood timber EU4 total France Germany Great Britain * Italy Poland * Spain + 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

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE Sociodemographics Overall Impression of Cement & Concrete as Material men vs. women old vs. young high vs. low ed. managers vs. genpop op. leaders vs. genpop - 5 - 11 - 3 - 3 - 6 + 13 + 5 - 2 - 6 + 3 - 1 - 5 + 2 0 + 3 - 8 + 3 + 2 - 8 + 3 + 3 EU6 total France Germany Great Britain Italy Poland Spain + 5 + 2 + 3 + 12 + 3 + 10 + 2 0 + 7 - 3 - 4 - 1 - 1 - 7

  30. PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE Sociodemographics Overall Impression of Cement & Concrete as Industry men vs. women old vs. young high vs. low ed. managers vs. genpop op. leaders vs. genpop - 4 - 18 - 12 + 8 - 4 + 11 + 10 - 1 - 15 + 6 + 6 + 3 + 2 - 2 + 1 - 4 + 2 - 6 - 7 + 7 + 1 EU6 total France Germany Great Britain Italy Poland Spain + 5 - 3 + 6 + 9 + 6 + 7 + 1 - 1 + 5 - 7 - 11 + 5 + 1 - 9

  31. PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE Sociodemographics Rating as ‘most useful in household’s everyday life’ men vs. women old vs. young high vs. low ed. managers vs. genpop op. leaders vs. genpop 0 - 1 + 2 - 1 - 1 + 1 - 3 0 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 + 1 0 - 1 - 2 + 1 + 1 - 1 + 3 - 3 EU6 total France Germany Great Britain Italy Poland Spain + 2 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 5 + 1 - 1 - 4 0 - 2 - 3 + 3 + 1

  32. PUBLIC IMAGE OF CEMENT & CONCRETE Sociodemographics Rating as ‘causing the least negative envt’l impact’ men vs. women old vs. young high vs. low ed. managers vs. genpop op. leaders vs. genpop - 1 - 1 0 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 3 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 + 1 - 3 0 - 1 + 1 - 2 0 - 1 - 1 EU6 total France Germany Great Britain Italy Poland Spain + 1 - 2 + 1 + 1 + 3 0 + 1 - 2 - 4 - 2 + 1 - 1 + 3 - 8

  33. 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

  34. 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 20021), 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. maximumlevels 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“

  35. 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

  36. 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

  37. 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“

  38. 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 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 ABSTRACTMACRO-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

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

  40. 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

  41. 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

  42. 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

  43. 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

  44. www.cembureau.eu

More Related