Changing attitudes and affecting behaviours in any sector can be a lengthy process. Before the next Timber Trade Federation AGM in June 2019, the Federation is aiming to reach consensus amongst its members to adopt three key proposals: that treated wood is unambiguously labelled as fit for the intended purpose; that customers throughout the supply chain are provided with adequate information to use treated products safely and effectively; and that preservative-treated wood is being procured or purchased from operators who have been independently-assessed by a reputable accreditation scheme. How are TTF members responding, and where do they see the biggest challenges?
Stephen Sabine, managing director of MBM Forest Products, says that action is much needed: “The TTF’s campaign will be great for improving the industry’s credentials. There’s a level of misunderstanding out there at both consumer and builders’ merchant level, to which we need to bring some clarity,” he said.
Kevin Hayes, managing director of AKZ Timber UK agrees: “The TTF’s campaign is long overdue and will eventually benefit the sector and the consumer, but it won’t all be plain sailing,” he said.
“There’s a lot of misinformation out there. From my own experience as a householder trying to buy UC4 posts revealed, there are significant hurdles to overcome. Only one local merchant could guarantee UC4 timber, and I only know that was correct as AKZ supplied it! Others were offering options such as unsuitable UC2 timber with a ‘10-year guarantee’ – presumably they felt we’d have forgotten where we’d bought it from in 10 years’ time.”
The customer base at Arnold Laver ranges from householders through to major contractors, but Andrew Piggott, group supply chain manager, feels end users are the most unaware of the implications of different types of treatment.
“There is a massive lack of understanding out there amongst the customer base, particularly amongst jobbing builders and home-owners,” he said. “Most have no idea of Use Classes and simply ask for ‘treated’ or ‘tanalised’ as if it were a generic description.
At the moment there’s no real value attached to the different types of treated timber.
“All our depots start by asking what the timber is to be used for, and then advise the customer on what’s needed,” continued Mr Piggott. “How much builders and consumers really need to know, compared to our responsibility as a supplier to provide a fitfor- purpose product, is another question.”
Paul Pennick, timber product manager at MKM Building Supplies, feels responsibility for uplifting knowledge and providing suitably-treated products is a shared one.
“We see it as both our own and our suppliers’ responsibility to provide products which are fit for purpose,” he said. “We rely on our suppliers to keep us up to date on standards and to supply the right products for the job. In our business, decisions on which treated timbers to stock are made at branch level, to match their local customer base.
“In procurement, we have made a conscious move to UC4 treatment for all fence posts and sleepers, with UC3 for material used above ground. We’ve also opted for a proportion of fence post stock as incised and treated, so we can give our branches options to maximise their local sales and provide their customers with a longer-term guarantee. On carcassing we look for a minimum of UC2 treatment from suppliers,” said Mr Pennick.
How frequently are merchant customers asking for information on timber treatments? “In general, our customers take it as read that we know what we’re doing and will supply the right treatment for their situation,” said Kevin Hayes. “We do get requests from individual customers for a specific Use Class, such as sleepers for ground contact treated to Use Class 4, and occasionally we get asked whether our carcassing is treated to Use Class 2 or 3. There is a school of thought that internal carcassing should be treated to Use Class 3 instead of Use Class 2, as it is mostly at present. But for some merchants it is a matter of treatment costs.”
Jason Ostler, managing director at Arbor Forest Products, agrees on the negligible information being requested by merchants. “The demand for evidence of timber treatment levels has been minimal up to now,” he said. “Very few customers have asked us to treat timber to a specific Use Class in the past year. To give an idea of scale, we treat around seven million pieces of timber each year but we’ve had only around 30 requests in recent years for timber treated to a particular Use Class. There is a lack of education in the marketplace, but there’s also a degree of apathy. Some would rather sell a product at lowest cost, rather than to fulfil a particular need, if it would require greater treatment.
“Our position is that we should do what’s right for our customers by providing the highest level of treatment appropriate to the end use,” said Mr Ostler. “We’re uplifting treatment on our C24 whitewood carcassing to Use Class 3. It’s a change for our business, but also a step forward in customer service. If we provide merchants with a product treated to cover the worst-case end use scenario, they will be stocking not only the best quality product but one which can benefit their reputation.”
Knowledge levels amongst merchants however, like other customer groups for preservative-treated wood, does vary.
“Our customers tend to be those who already possess the knowledge to order timber treated to specific Use Classes,” said Greg Zuchowicz, general manager at Snows Timber in Glastonbury. “It’s on the orders they send through to us. However, we can offer certificates for all our treated timber. Customers can even request a certificate from a treated timber shipment two to three years ago, and through our database we can provide the information they need immediately by e-mail,” added Mr Zuchowicz.
Part of the TTF’s Action Plan is consulting on how best to facilitate comprehensible information with each shipment. Where are members currently on their journey towards this goal? And what are the practicalities of achieving it?
“We provide the information on the treatment and Use Class on our sales contracts, but we are not yet marking every pack,” said Kevin Hayes.
“We’re backing the Federation’s position that we need to add descriptions which people can immediately identify with, such as TTF’s proposals for describing treated timber as ‘internal’, ‘external above ground’ and ‘external ground contact’,” says MBM’s Stephen Sabine. “For some time, MBM’s documentation has detailed the Use Classes for our treated timber. We will now be going a stage further and describing what those Use Classes mean. If the industry can be more transparent by using meaningful descriptions, we’ll ensure that those on the periphery of our sector, who sell or buy our products, are getting the most appropriate treated timber for their end use. And that can only benefit our reputation.”
Andrew Pigott at Arnold Laver is exploring the practicalities: “From a seller’s perspective, to encompass what the TTF is discussing would mean adapting product codes as we do, say, for FSC and PEFC certified timber.
However, practically-speaking there’s limited space within the product coding system to display wording to explain the end use, as well as a Use Class. Additionally, we treat timber ourselves but we also procure from other suppliers, so any coding system would need to be implemented across the sector, not simply by Arnold Laver, for it to be workable at day-to-day level.”
Arbor Forest Products is also embedding treatment Use Classes into product codes, said Jason Ostler: “Working with the TTF’s Action Plan on treatments, we feel it’s a matter of customer service to make it obvious which level of treatment has been applied to our stock products and what this is suitable for.
We are rolling out training for everyone in the Arbor Forest Products business to ensure we ask about the intended end use at every opportunity in the sales cycle. We will also be producing marketing material to help plug the evident knowledge gap at merchant trade counter level.”
“The ultimate aim of the TTF’s campaign is to ensure that treated timber products are fit for the purpose intended,” said Kevin Hayes. “It will be a hard battle to change attitudes and practices throughout the supply chain, but it’s a battle we should all get behind.
