The Association of Businessmen Constructors and Developers of Las Palmas (AECP) has denounced the "express" and irregular approval of the new standard that defines the concept of industrialized construction, considering that it will exclude the Canary Islands and limit the technological solutions that the sector is committed to in the islands. The employers' association calls for the suspension of the procedure and its redirection.
Among its main criticisms, the AECP maintains that the procedure followed by the Spanish Association for Standardization (UNE) omitted the legal procedure prior to the vote on the final text, thus failing to comply with the applicable regulations and without responding to the allegations presented by the employers' association.
The alarm comes at a time when the Government of the Canary Islands and the construction companies of the archipelago were coordinating a major boost to this type of construction in the islands to combat the housing emergency.
It also considers that the committee responsible for defining the future of industrialized construction is not representative of the sector and that the standard imposes a restrictive and biased definition of the concept of industrialized construction, leaving out the Canary Islands, limiting its technological evolution, and restricting competition and competitiveness.
The AECP has filed a formal challenge with the Spanish Association for Standardization (UNE) regarding the approval process of the new UNE 41610 standard, whose objective is to define the concept of industrialized construction. The organization considers that a "procedural outrage" has occurred by violating the principles set out in the Regulations of Technical Standardization Committees and the entity's Code of Ethics.
The employers' association has communicated this situation to the Directorate General of Industry of the Government of the Canary Islands and to the National Confederation of Construction (CNC), considering it particularly serious that, despite having participated in the procedure and having presented allegations and warnings, the committee responsible for the standard has ignored both its own regulations and European legislation.
A construction committee without constructors
The AECP describes it as "irresponsible, striking, and intolerable" that the body responsible for approving the standard lacks the necessary representativeness. According to its complaint, the main organizations in the sector, such as the National Confederation of Construction (CNC) and the Construction Labor Foundation (FLC), which bring together more than 80,000 companies in Spain, are not present on the committee.
In the employers' opinion, this absence makes the decisions adopted restrictive and biased, compromising the sector's evolution towards automation, robotization, and the incorporation of advanced technological solutions.
The proposal defended by the AECP advocated for a broader and more inclusive framework, defining industrialization as a process developed under digitized, traceable, repeatable, automated, and controlled conditions, both on-site and off-site.
According to the organization, this definition would allow the standard to be applied flexibly and adapted to the innovation that is already transforming the sector. It also recalls that the promotion of these systems responds to the need to offer faster, more efficient, and sustainable solutions in the face of the housing emergency, especially in the Canary Islands.
A standard that hinders the development of industrialized construction
The employers' association warns that the approved wording does not consider the complexity of the logistical processes of transport, pre-assembly, and pre-fabrication necessary to implement these construction systems.
In the case of the Canary Islands, the condition of being an Outermost Region and island fragmentation make it essential to have a production fabric capable of developing the different phases of the process. However, the AECP maintains that the standard does not take this reality into account.
It adds that the problem also affects other territories, as in many cases it is unfeasible to transport three-dimensional modules directly from the factory to the construction site, which makes it difficult to achieve higher levels of industrialization.
Therefore, the organization proposes incorporating intermediate assembly or pre-fabrication centers close to the final destination of the modules. In this way, they could be transported under better logistical conditions and completed later, maintaining quality and traceability controls and favoring the development of these solutions without creating unnecessary barriers.
Barriers to the market and innovation
The AECP considers that the text approved by UNE excessively restricts the concept of industrialized construction to the prefabricated product in the factory or workshop.
By excluding automated or robotic processes executed directly on the construction site, the standard would leave out numerous traditional companies and startups that are already investing in on-site construction technologies, even though these systems are included in European regulations and are used in both public and private works.
Furthermore, the employers' association warns that this definition could affect access to public funds. Although UNE standards are voluntary, they are often used as a reference in tenders and aid linked to PERTEs, meaning numerous innovative solutions would be excluded.
Likewise, it maintains that the standard could conflict with the European Construction Products Regulation by establishing a technical barrier against digital innovation and robotization on site.
Request for suspension
The AECP has requested that the Spanish Association for Standardization revert the procedure to the moment of the agreement's adoption, involve the representative organizations of the sector—which group approximately 80,000 companies and 60 activity codes—in the debate, and develop a definition of industrialized construction that is inclusive, flexible, and in line with current technological reality.
The employers' association believes that the definition that is finally approved will condition the present and future of the sector and demands that the procedure be reviewed to correct any detected defects, ensuring transparency, impartiality, and effective participation through the holding of necessary technical committees and subcommittees.