green buildings illustration

To make sustainable product choices for construction projects, it’s necessary to compare environmental product declarations (EPDs). When different manufacturers make EPDs available for their products, it’s important to look for similarities and differences in the reporting so that appropriate judgements can be made.

On its own, an EPD is not a statement of whether a product is ‘sustainable’ or not. It is a tool for reporting the environmental impact of that product over its life cycle. Only through comparing the EPDs of different materials and products can an assessment can be made as to whether one will help to meet the project’s sustainability goals better than another.

Generic EPDs and manufacturer-specific EPDs

A first step in understanding commonality between EPDs is having an awareness of whether a product is being represented by a generic EPD or a manufacturer-specific EPD.

Generic EPDs use average data for similar products produced by a range of manufacturers, and report environmental impact accordingly. They might be offered by a trade association who has gathered data from its member companies, for example.

You could, therefore, find yourself requesting an EPD from two different manufacturers, and being provided with identical documents.

A generic EPD could be broadly representative of the environmental impact your product specification will have. However, there will always be a question as to how accurate it is, especially if a project is unique in a way that is unlikely to have been captured by ‘average’ data. More preferable is to obtain a manufacturer-specific EPD or, even better, a product-specific EPD.

A manufacturer-specific EPD can apply to more than one product (within a specific category of products) produced by a single manufacturer. A product-specific EPD applies to a single product from a single manufacturer.

In seeking to be transparent about the environmental impact of construction projects, the more specific the data the better.

What is functional equivalence in an EPD?

The environmental impact of a construction product is reported for a ‘unit size’ of that product. The EPDs that Polyfoam XPS makes available, for example, are based on one cubic metre of our extruded polystyrene. In the EPD document, this unit size is called the ‘functional equivalence’.

When comparing two EPDs from different sources, it’s important to check whether the functional equivalence is the same or different. For example, while our EPD uses one cubic metre as the basis for its reporting, there are EPDs for other types of lightweight rigid foam insulation that use one square metre of a specific product thickness.

One square metre of a 100mm thick insulation board has one-tenth the volume of one cubic metre of another insulation type. Even if the two insulation products had a broadly similar environmental impact, there would be a substantial difference in the figures reported by the EPD.

Manufacturers select the unit based on their production processes, so none of this is to say that one way is correct and another is wrong. It is simply something that specifiers have to check for when taking the EPD reporting at face value.

The scope of life cycle reporting in EPDs

In a previous blog post we described how EPDs report environmental impact across a series of stages and modules. The structure of these stages is designed to reflect the distinct stages of how a construction product is manufactured, delivered to site, used on site, and dealt with at the end of the building’s useful life.

‘Cradle to gate’ refers to the processes involved with manufacturing a product and it leaving the factory, and is covered by modules A1 to A3 of life cycle assessment. ‘Cradle to practical completion’ also deals with the installation of the product on site, being covered by modules A1 to A5.

‘Cradle to grave’ spans the complete life cycle of a product, including its use and what happens to it at the end of life – covered by modules A, B and C of life cycle assessment. Module D can also be factored in.

EPDs can be either a ‘cradle to gate’ type or a ‘cradle to grave’ type. There is a third option of ‘cradle to gate with options’, which means that relevant parts of module C can be accounted for alongside modules A1 to A3. This is useful for a product like insulation, which incurs minimal use stage (module B) impacts, but where the manufacturer wants to report a fuller scope than just ‘cradle to gate’.

Again, this is not necessarily a judgement on what is the ‘correct’ way to report impacts. As EPDs continue to mature then it will be desirable that reporting is done consistently across all modules to give the fullest possible picture of environmental impact.

For the purposes of this blog post, the important message is that the scope of reporting for similar types of products might be different. That difference should be taken into account when making an assessment of the reported impacts.

Polyfoam XPS has ‘cradle to gate with options’ EPDs that report on the environmental impact of its flooring and roofing products. The EPDs are independently verified and produced by BRE Global. For more information about EPDs, subscribe to our newsletter, The Build-Up. You can also download our EPDs from our technical support page, or contact us to discuss your current project.


How does rainfall affect inverted roof U-value calculations?

A point thermal transmittance measures heat loss through an isolated thermal bridge, and is expressed as a chi value. A point thermal bridge can occur anywhere in the building fabric, but for this blog post we’ll refer to common examples found in flat roof constructions.

A chi value is a counterpart to a psi value, which measures linear thermal bridging heat losses. Like psi values, chi values can only be calculated using numerical modelling (or 3D modelling) techniques. It is not possible to calculate a chi value using software designed to calculate U-values by the combined method.

What are examples of point thermal bridges in flat roofing?

A common point thermal bridge we’re asked about is when a concrete plinth forms part of the structural roof deck. The plinth, or a series of plinths, is usually required to support rooftop plant whose weight is too much for the roof’s thermal insulation layer to bear.

The plinth(s) must obviously extend high enough above the roof’s finished surface to provide a sufficient upstand, and they therefore cause a break in the continuity of the insulation layer.

When a situation like this occurs in a roof design, our technical helpdesk is often asked if one of the following two solutions can be adopted.

  • Carry out a U-value calculation for the flat roof as normal, but include a bridging percentage in the insulation that equates to the area of the roof covered by the plinth(s).
  • Calculate the U-value for the insulated roof as normal, and a separate U-value for the roof build-up through the plinth. The idea is to then do an area-weighted U-value calculation to adjust the performance of the roof as a whole.

What are the issues with addressing point thermal bridges like this?

The first option effectively treats the concrete as a repeating thermal bridge, even though it doesn’t repeat regularly. (Typical repeating thermal bridges in building fabric include mortar joints in masonry, or timber joists in a roof.)

Not only is it an incorrect application of the combined method, the calculation method is also likely to fail because of a discrepancy between the upper and lower limit values used to work out the U-value.

The second option is problematic because the combined method is designed to calculate heat loss through whole construction elements, and not small areas of unique construction. It might provide a representative heat loss for a small proportion of the (already relatively small) plinth detail, but it doesn’t account for the interaction between the edge of the plinth and the insulated roof build-up.

This interaction needs to be thermally modelled, which is why an appropriately qualified person should be engaged to produce chi value calculations.

What are the advantages of calculating point thermal bridging chi values?

The primary benefit of obtaining numerically modelled chi values is that it provides accurate point thermal transmittance values, in contrast to the two options discussed above.

A follow-on benefit is that, like with linear thermal bridging, numerical modelling also produces surface temperature factors for the detail in question. That means it’s possible to assess any condensation risk at the points of increased heat loss.

The U-value of a flat roof shouldn’t exceed 0.35 W/m2K at any point, in order to avoid the risk of surface condensation inside the building. Sometimes, despite the best design intentions, it’s impossible to avoid a scenario where that threshold isn’t met across the entire roof – for example, if structural requirements, like the plinths we’ve been talking about, need to take precedence.

In such unavoidable situations, the point thermal bridge, and the number of them, should be minimised as far as possible.

Because point thermal bridges are undesirable, it’s even more important to get accurate thermal modelling carried out in order to help assess the heat loss, and any potential consequences of it, at the detail in question.

The U-value of the roof as a whole, meanwhile, can be adjusted by multiplying the chi value by the number of point thermal bridges per square metre, and adding the result to the U-value.

For U-values calculated in accordance with the combined method, and advice on dealing with tricky detailing issues, contact us to discuss your current project.


Can declared thermal conductivity be used in inverted roof U-value calculations?

A life cycle assessment, or LCA, analyses the environmental impact of a construction product across five stages: product, construction process, use, end of life, and the circular economy.

The results of the assessment are reported in a standardised document, an environmental product declaration (EPD), which can cover some or all of these stages.

The five stages are reported across four modules, A to D, each of which contains several numbered sub-categories. Currently, manufacturers can choose the scope of their reporting, but new rules are being introduced to make reporting across all stages and modules mandatory.

What are modules A, B and C of an EPD?

Together, the ‘product’ and ‘construction process’ stages make up module A of life cycle assessment, covering everything up to the practical completion of a building.

The product stage comprises: A1 (raw material extraction and supply), A2 (transport to manufacturing plant), and A3 (manufacturing and fabrication). The onus here is on the product manufacturer to act responsibly, such as by adopting a transparent and traceable approach to raw material sourcing and processing – especially when sourcing from communities and environments that are particularly vulnerable.

A4 (transport to project site) and A5 (construction and installation process) are the construction process stage, covering a product leaving the factory and being delivered to and used on site.

Modules B1 to B7 are the ‘use’ stage, and cover use, maintenance, repair, replacement and refurbishment, together with operational energy use and operational water use.

Some construction products incur relatively low use stage emissions. Insulation, for example, is part of the building fabric and should last for the life of the building. It generally requires little or no maintenance, repair, replacement or refurbishment. On the other hand, some products have shorter life spans and require routine maintenance and replacement, which incurs carbon emissions and other environmental impacts.

The ‘end of life’ stage covers deconstruction and demolition; transport to a disposal facility; waste processing for reuse, recovery or recycling; and disposal across modules C1 to C4.

The topic of how we deal with buildings at the end of their useful life, and how the construction industry can reduce waste associated with demolition, is becoming increasingly important as we look to preserve existing resources and minimise the extraction and use of new ones.

What is module D of life cycle assessment?

The full title of module D is ‘Benefits and loads beyond the system boundary’. It reflects a movement away from the linear economy and towards the circular economy, where the life of materials and products can be extended for use in other projects.

At the moment, many construction products are not designed with reuse, remanufacturing, or even recycling, in mind. As a result, module D is unlikely to be reported in many EPDs. Embodied carbon is a big focus for many within our industry, but it’s possible to choose a low embodied carbon product and still only be able to use it once.

If we choose low embodied carbon products but still need to use a lot of them, is that a ‘sustainable choice’? Construction projects are much more complex than a simplistic question like that, but it’s a helpful way to look at how our thinking needs to shift as we aim for a net zero future.

Over the last ten years, the number of products that have an EPD has grown substantially – but the number of stages reported by each is not necessarily the same. The more stages for which data is reported, the more complete the picture of the environmental impact of the product being assessed.

The focus for the construction industry now, arguably, is ensuring that assessment and reporting are as comprehensive as possible from module A right through to module D.

EPDs from Polyfoam XPS

Polyfoam XPS reports on the environmental impact of its flooring and roofing products through independently verified EPDs produced by BRE Global. Currently, Polyfoam XPS’s EPDs do not report on all LCA modules, but this will be reviewed in future

To receive more information from us about EPDs, subscribe to our newsletter, The Build-Up. Our EPDs can be downloaded from our technical support page, or contact us to discuss the requirements of your current project.


Polyfoam boards

A new white paper from Polyfoam XPS aims to provide specifiers and contractors with advice on insulating cavity walls below damp proof course (DPC) level, while guarding against moisture risk.

“Our technical helpdesk regularly gets asked about improving the thermal performance of junctions between ground floors and external walls,” said Rob Firman, Technical and Specification Manager at Polyfoam XPS. “People want a robust and moisture tolerant insulation solution that can be installed below DPC level, and they look to extruded polystyrene (XPS) to provide that solution.”

The recent update to BS 5250, which widened its scope to address moisture in buildings generally, highlighted the increased awareness that better thermal performance must not come at the expense of other risks to the building fabric.

“Specifiers and contractors want to do the right thing and reduce thermal bridging heat losses without risking moisture uptake through the chosen insulation,” Rob Firman continued. “However, we find guidance and support is limited from building warrant providers.”

To address this lack of information, the new white paper provides a comprehensive overview of the areas of building regulations that below DPC insulation must help to satisfy. It looks at the requirement for cavity wall insulation to have BBA certification above DPC, and whether this applies below DPC as well.

Rob added: “The white paper is fully illustrated with junction details for different floor constructions. We’ve also thermally modelled the details provided, to demonstrate the low psi values that the details provide, and to show that they pose no risk of condensation internally.”

Download a copy of the below DPC insulation white paper here. For support in specifying extruded polystyrene insulation in your ground floor, flat roof, or below DPC in a cavity wall, contact us.


Roof garden

An environmental product declaration, or EPD, is a document that communicates environmental impact.

EPDs are internationally recognised and should be independently verified to ensure they meet the applicable standards. While EPDs can be created for products and services of all types, in all areas of life, there are specific standards and rules covering the creation of EPDs for construction products.

Life cycle analysis’s (LCA) are carried out for construction products, and assumptions are made about the environmental impact at different stages of that life cycle, a EPD is created to describe and report that environmental impact. Designers, specifiers and other construction professionals can then make informed decisions about their product and material choices.

What is the relevant standard for a construction product EPD?

Environmental declarations for construction products are carried out in accordance with EN 15804:2012 Sustainability of construction works. Environmental product declarations. Core rules for the product category of construction products, this standard has been amended twice, most recently in 2019.

Among other things, EN 15804 defines what parameters should be declared and how they should be reported; describes the stages of life cycle assessment; and specifies the quality of data required for reporting.

The six environmental impacts that an EPD reports on are:

  • global warming potential
  • depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer
  • acidification potential of soil and water
  • eutrophication potential
  • formation potential of tropospheric ozone; and
  • abiotic depletion potential.

The full name for an EPD is a ‘Type III environmental product declaration’, where ‘Type III’ refers to the EPD’s environmental data having been quantified according to predetermined parameters based on the ISO 14040 series of standards.

Does having an EPD make a product sustainable?

There is increasing demand for construction products to have EPDs, however, sometimes, there can be a misconception that simply specifying a product that has an environmental product declaration means a ‘sustainable’ choice is being made for the project.

You may have seen or heard people say that the most sustainable building is the one that does not need to be built. The fundamental truth is that processing raw materials and manufacturing construction products has an environmental impact, the first step to minimising the impact of construction projects is therefore to use resources as efficiently as possible.

This means questioning if new construction is necessary, or whether a client’s needs can be met by reusing an existing building. Once that answer is arrived at, design and specification decisions can be made to support longevity and adaptability in the built environment. Ideally, product choices prioritise the efficient use of resources over the long term.

It is key to remember, therefore, that an EPD does not describe whether a product is ‘sustainable’ or not. There is no such thing as a ‘most sustainable’ product. An EPD is a tool that allows materials to be compared, in order that product choices are made to support a construction project’s sustainability goals.

Polyfoam XPS and EPDs

Polyfoam XPS has environmental product declarations for its flooring and roofing insulation products. We partnered with the BRE Global, who produced our Type III EPDs under their programme operatorship. BRE Global’s product category rules were developed in accordance with EN 15804. Our EPDs have been externally verified by an independent third party.

This is the first in a series of blog posts about EPDs. You can keep up to date with all of Polyfoam XPS’s latest blog content by subscribing to the  Polyfoam XPS newsletter, The Build-Up. For copies of our EPDs, visit our technical support page, or contact us to discuss the requirements of your current project.


Specified By

Polyfoam XPS’s range of extruded polystyrene insulation products for ground floors and flat roofs can now be found on SpecifiedBy, the leading building product research platform for architects and specifiers in the UK.

“Supporting our clients and customers with their digital processes, and engaging with projects at an early stage, has never been more important,” said Rob Firman, Technical and Specification Manager at Polyfoam XPS.

“SpecifiedBy provides well-structured and open data, so joining their comprehensive database of construction products and materials was a natural choice.”

The product information is already available on the Polyfoam XPS website, but including it on SpecifiedBy as well means specifiers can easily do side-by-side comparisons of different products, or search for products by specific attributes.

“Finding, understanding and specifying our products online should be as simple as possible,” added Rob, “so we’re very happy to be working with SpecifiedBy.”

Find products and data from Polyfoam XPS on SpecifiedBy. Read more about Polyfoam XPS’s approach to product data on our blog.



The Code for Construction Product Information (CCPI) was published in September 2021, following a consultation process.

The Code has been prepared by the Marketing Integrity Group (MIG), which was established by the Construction Products Association (CPA) in response to Dame Judith Hackitt’s report Building A Safer Future.

We first wrote about the Code in May when a draft version was out for consultation. You can read about the background and aims of the Code, together with our original thoughts on it, in our post on ‘what you need to know about the Code for Construction Product Information’. This new blog post updates our thinking following the Code’s publication.

What has changed now the Code for Construction Product Information has been published?

At the time of writing the CCPI – together with supporting guidance and details of the assessment process – has been published. Assessors for the scheme are being recruited. Manufacturers have been invited to express their interest in signing up, but cannot yet be assessed, meaning no company or organisation can claim to be compliant.

The MIG promised that any necessary changes would be made to the CCPI in response to the consultation, but the published version came out just weeks after the consultation report. Any changes seemed to be minimal and appeared not to address legitimate concerns that were raised at the consultation stage.

According to the consultation report, architects and design professionals who responded to the consultation seemed to be broadly in favour of the CCPI. However, it was interesting to note the number of responses that centred on manufacturers offering specific types of information – especially around sustainability and environmental impact.

The objective of the CCPI is not to make manufacturers provide all of the information that design professionals and specifiers want or will find useful. It is to give reassurance that the information they do provide meets the five criteria set out by the Code.

The consultation suggested there is a demand for information on sustainability that is not currently being met. At the present time, therefore, manufacturers would seem likely to benefit more from investing their time and money in providing transparent information to meet that demand, such as in the form of environmental product declarations (EPDs), over pursuing CCPI accreditation.

It will remain interesting to watch the progress of the CCPI as the first adopters sign up and begin the assessment process.

About Polyfoam XPS

The Polyfoam XPS website has information about our complete range of products, and downloads including EPDs, technical documentation and product certification. We also regularly discuss industry issues, standards, and product performance in our blog.

For any questions regarding our product information, to find out more about how we’re engaging with the CCPI, or to discuss how extruded polystyrene could benefit your current project, contact us.


Questionmark in window mist

BS 5250 has always been an important standard for architects and design professionals to be familiar with. Until 2021 it was titled Control of condensation in buildings, but the publication of an updated and heavily revised version has widened its scope and it is now the code of practice for Management of moisture in buildings.

This wider-ranging approach emphasises a whole-building approach to moisture management. It seeks to identify possible risks, and presents guidance as it relates to both ‘as designed in theory’ and ‘as built/in service’ conditions. It therefore represents an even more comprehensive source of advice for designers and contractors than before.

Why does BS 5250:2021 deal with moisture management more generally?

It’s a commonly acknowledged issue that, as buildings get more airtight and more energy efficient, changes to ventilation provision have not kept pace to ensure the controlled replacement of stale air. Moisture vapour is a significant component of indoor air, exacerbated by social trends such as drying clothes indoors more often, all of which adds to the moisture content.

Warm, moist air combined with poor ventilation provision and thermal bridges in building fabric, all add to the risk of condensation occurring in buildings.

The retrofit of existing buildings is a significant issue in terms of whether the country can meet its net zero targets. Simply insulating existing buildings to reduce their energy consumption is not enough, as any retrofit design must take into account the need for ventilation and the moisture balance of the existing structure.

Applying energy efficiency solutions to existing building fabric must be done while taking into account factors like driving rain, and whether moisture might be pushed to other parts of the structure that are not currently affected by it.

Moisture risks in buildings therefore go well beyond ‘just’ condensation risk. And that’s without us taking into account climate change, the severity of extreme weather, risks of flooding, and potential changes to other moisture sources like the ground.

Does BS 5250:2021 still deal with condensation risk?

Large portions of the updated standard consist of comprehensive design guidance for floors, walls and roofs. The array of construction types covered under each element has been expanded, dealing with a much wider variety of materials and build-ups, and providing specific advice for each.

The altered scope of the standard means all of these constructions are assessed in terms of a variety of potential moisture sources. The text is careful to distinguish between design intent (‘as designed in theory’) and potential real-world issues that could be encountered (‘as built/in service’), giving designers useful context to consider when producing details and specifications.

Nevertheless, condensation risk is still a part of BS 5250:2021. As before, the standard distinguishes between the Glaser method detailed in BS EN ISO 13788, and more detailed assessment carried out in accordance with BS EN 15026.

Guidance is given as to when the simplified modelling provided by the Glaser method is appropriate (and, indeed, occasions when it is not). The standard also makes clear about occasions when calculations are not required at all because there is clear prescriptive guidance on how to avoid risks.

Because ISO 13788, the standard underpinning the Glaser method, has not changed, designers should not expect to see substantial changes to condensation risk analyses produced by construction product manufacturers using common industry software.

Where can I get a summary of the guidance in BS 5250:2021?

Our philosophy behind this series of blog posts looking at standards, and what we think designers and specifiers really need to know about those standards, has been to make them more accessible. By highlighting the key points, we’ve tried to make you more aware of the useful elements of standards without necessarily having to purchase them.

BS 5250:2021 is different to all of the other standards we’ve looked at so far. All of its contents are useful, and are written in accessible way that will help you apply the principles and recommendations to your projects.

As we saw above, elements of moisture risk are so different but also closely interlinked, making it impossible to pick out a series of key points that are universal to every project. The key with BS 5250:2021 is that every building project is unique, and therefore the way in which you will apply the standard could be different every single time you reference it.

We always say that standards are big documents that come with a hefty price tag, and it’s often not clear what you get for that price. In the case of BS 5250:2021, the value is there on every page, and it should be a document that every designer and contractor refers to regularly. Our view is not so much can you afford the standard, but rather can you afford NOT to buy a copy?

About Polyfoam XPS

Polyfoam XPS will continue to digest the comprehensive guidance of BS 5250:2021. We manufacture extruded polystyrene (XPS) insulation for ground floors and flat roofs, so over the first part of 2022 we’ll look in more detail at some of the guidance relating to those applications specifically.

As we have highlighted in this post, however, no amount of summarising can hope to provide the same level of comprehensive advice contained within the standard.

Find out more about Polyfoam XPS and our complete range of products, or learn more about current industry issues and product performance in our blog. Alternatively, to find out how we can help with flooring or roofing solutions for your project, contact us.


Man typing

Product data and product information supplied by manufacturers in the construction industry is currently the subject of much debate and discussion.

For architects and specifiers to make informed decisions about which construction products will help them to deliver safe, healthy and comfortable buildings, product data must be relevant, accurate and up to date.

Underpinning all of this is the goal of achieving a ‘golden thread’ of information on construction projects. The golden thread is a concept that was endorsed by Dame Judith Hackitt as a way of improving safety in buildings and delivering design intent. Terms like ‘golden thread’ can mean different things to different parties, having slightly different definitions depending on the way that different parties use information and data.

What is the difference between construction product information and product data?

Much like the concept of the golden thread, the ways in which people and organisations define information and data relating to construction products can vary.

Speaking as a construction product manufacturer, Polyfoam XPS generally views its data as being ‘raw’ information related to the product itself. Product data describes the performance of our products as determined by testing, whether carried out by ourselves or an independent third party.

Product information, meanwhile, can feature product data, but puts it in a wider context – for example by explaining how the product was tested, or explaining the meaning of a test result so that a specifier knows how to interpret the result.

The Code for Construction Product Information (CCPI) has been developed during the course of 2021, and defines product information as: “Any information about a construction product made available to internal and/or external stakeholders. This includes but is not limited to, product information given in writing, in print, online, electronically or in an advertisement.”

Why is digital product data important?

However you define product data and product information, making information available and accessible is essential for specifiers to be able to use it with confidence. Digitised product data is a key aspect of the golden thread, as The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) has explored thoroughly in their plain language guide, Digitisation for construction product manufacturers.

While the guide has very much been written with product manufacturers as the target audience, the topics explored by the guide are important to specifiers as well. There are clearly written sections looking at the role of product data post-Grenfell, and the place that 3D BIM objects have in the digital landscape.

Developing an understanding of these topics can help specifiers to have more informed conversations with product manufacturers. Through this kind of dialogue, both parties can develop ways of working that will help make the golden thread a reality.

How is Polyfoam XPS managing its product data and product information?

One of the most significant impacts of both the CCPI and the IET’s report is the impetus they have generated within manufacturers’ organisations to assess existing processes and look for areas of improvement. That is something we have done, and continue to do, at Polyfoam XPS.

While we continue to evaluate our internal data management and examine what the concept of ‘structured data’ would mean for us, Polyfoam XPS remains a partner with NBS. That means you can find our products on NBS Source, a free-to-use construction product platform that allows you to quickly and easily find, select and specify our products.

Product data is available in NBS standardised specification format, and our profile includes our third-party certification, giving the detailed information needed to make informed product decisions.

Our NBS Source links are also available in the technical support area of our website, where you can contact us about your project, read more posts from our blog, view our online CPD session, or subscribe to receive our monthly newsletter.



Polyfoam XPS has launched a new email newsletter to share information about construction products and standards, and to highlight useful resources for designers and specifiers.

‘The Build-Up’ arrives in email inboxes on the last Friday of every month, and is free to subscribe to. Each issue is also subsequently published in our News & Blog section of this site.

The short, easily digestible email highlights books, podcasts, magazines and other construction-related resources that can help designers and specifiers to achieve their project goals. It also includes a selection of inspiring news articles that readers may have missed elsewhere.

“We wanted to create something that aligned with our values of providing high quality insulation products and technical services,” explained Rob Firman, Technical and Specification Manager at Polyfoam XPS.

“As an insulation material, extruded polystyrene is robust and provides reliable long-term performance. Achieving quality in the design of construction projects, and ensuring that quality and performance translates to site, is essential for our industry to contribute to a sustainable future.”

Subscribe to ‘The Build-Up’ here and for a taste of the newsletter’s format and content, see this blog post version of the first issue, sent out in early 2021.

For any queries relating to Polyfoam XPS, our newsletter, or extruded polystyrene generally, contact us.