 |
You get what you pay for
It’s a sad fact of life that quality costs, whether you are talking big ticket luxury items, or everyday necessities. This is also a maxim that should be applied when selecting sign and display substrates. Val Hirst reports
We all love a bargain, don’t we? Whether it’s shopping for cut price designer fashions, or snapping up supermarket ‘bogofs’, we can’t resist. However, our initial elation is often short-lived, when, in the cold light of our own bedroom mirrors, we realise precisely why that suit was consigned to the sale rail or find our fridges and cupboards stuffed with more cheese, baked beans and Jaffa cakes than we can actually consume in one lifetime. Occasionally, it takes a bit longer for the ‘bargain’ to reveal its in built deficiencies and we find ourselves ruefully shelling out for a full price replacement much sooner than we had anticipated. If we are sensible, we heed these experiences and restrict all further bargain hunting to clothes we can actually wear and foods we can eat in advance of their sell by dates. But, human nature being what it is, the thrill that accompanies acquisition often overrides common sense.
Of course, the forces that drive signmakers to buy cut price products are rather different. They are not indulging in retail therapy for its own sake; in their defence most would claim that the sourcing of cheaper material alternatives is often the only thing that enables them to enjoy a vestige of profitability. Now this might not matter too much when the material is used on a project with a very short lifespan, but when long term durability is required, it could matter very much indeed, with consequences ranging from a disgruntled client, at best, to, at worst, member of the public being fatally injured if a sign fails. When faced with a lawsuit that threatens not only his business, but also his personal financial stability for years to come, a signmaker may well have cause to bitterly reflect that the product he originally thought was cheap, has turned out to be the most expensive option of all.
 But the problems don’t just start with the finished sign or graphic – often cheaper materials can pose a very real threat, both in the long and short term, to those working with them and to the environment too. To mitigate this, the EU has issued a raft of new guidelines over recent years, most notably REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of CHemicals), which was first introduced in June 2007, and designed to protect human health and the environment from the use of chemicals, by obliging the manufacturers and importers to understand and manage any associated risks. Similarly, RoHS, (Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive) was introduced in July 2006 to restrict the use of six hazardous materials in the manufacture of all electrical and electronic equipment.
All European manufacturers are obliged to abide by REACH and RoHS regulations and face the most punitive measures if they fail to comply. In addition, they are now also expected to implement ISO 14001, the internationally accepted standard for environmental management, as a matter of course.
However, those operating elsewhere, notably in the Far East have no such obligations. That isn’t to say that all such manufacturers deliberately fill their products with nasties; indeed, many who view Europe as their main marketplace, will do their utmost to ensure their products are on a par with those of their European competitors. But any monitoring processes are necessarily haphazard. Many exporters supply products made in a variety of different factories, so it’s virtually impossible to guarantee that every batch is manufactured to the same high standard. So even when signmakers buy imported substrates from reputable UK suppliers they might inadvertently find themselves working with materials that contain high levels of banned chemicals.
To better understand the true impact of all of the above, it helps if we relate it to a specific product, for example, that popular signmaking staple, aluminium composite panels. First introduced in the early 90s, ACM is now widely available under a host of different brand names. Prices vary considerably and since there is very little visible difference between the various brands, it is tempting for signmakers to plump for the cheapest one available. However when they subjected to independent tests, it was revealed that different batches of ACM made in the Far East had higher than permitted EEC levels of lead, cadmium and chrome, all of which are potentially hazardous.
The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) has issued very clear rules regarding the use of products that contain lead. The relevant regulation is the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulation 2002 and its guidelines state that it is the duty of an employer to ensure that workers aren’t endangered by their exposure to it. The guideline lists all of the adverse effects of absorbing lead, which includes everything from headaches and nausea to, most alarmingly, kidney, nerve and brain damage. It also sets out all of the things an employer must do to ensure employee safety, including the provision of specialist extraction, washing and changing facilities and protective clothing, to name but a few. In addition, employees must be fully informed as to the dangers involved and must be regularly monitored to ensure that their blood levels remain within the permitted safety zone. If these measures aren’t implemented and the employee subsequently becomes sick, even if this happens many years later, the employer can be severely penalised.
If the deviant ACM is then used to make signs containing any electrical component, such as LED illumination for instance, it is categorised as an electrical product and is subject to RoHS compliance, which is enforced in the UK by the Numerical Measurement Office (NMO). NMO enforcement officers enjoy the same wide ranging powers as Customs and Excise and the Police, in as much as they can enter premises without a search warrant. If they find that a sign is non-compliant, they have the right to seize and dispose of it, whilst also imposing a fine of up to £5,000 per product. Or, to put it another way, five non compliant signs could end up costing a signmaker and/or his customer a cool £25,000!
And it doesn’t end there! When the signs eventually reach the end of their natural life they come under the auspices of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Signs made from materials containing higher than permitted levels of hazardous chemicals require expert disposal methods, that involve applying for a special license and hiring an approved contrasctor. Failure to do this, will, once again attract a hefty fine.
At this point, signmakers might be resentfully wondering how on earth they are expected to make any profit at all, especially when the burdens of REACH, RoHS, HSE and NMO compliance are added to the already onerous tasks of working out Tax,and VAT payments, stakeholder pensions and maternity/ paternity rights etc. However, resentful or not, careful note should be made of the fact that ignorance will not be accepted as a defence if any rules are broken, either knowingly or unknowlingly.
Where does that leave us then? At first glance, it might seem that material choice has been seriously eroded. But in this, as in much else, knowledge is power. Consider cheaper, non European products by all means, especially for projects with a limited life span, but it also makes sense for signmakers to really quiz their suppliers as to the provenance of their substrates and to seek documented proof that all of the required checks and tests have been properly carried out.
As a matter of course, everything should be done to safeguard employees’ health and well being, erring on the side of extreme caution if there is any doubt at all about the hazard load of any product.
The other alternative is to plump for the more expensive products and the peace of mind they provide. And before everyone protests that sign buyers won’t be prepared to accept any price hikes that this route might necessitate, perhaps they would be more willing if they were properly acquainted with the facts. When faced with a straight choice between paying a little more and having all of their signs summarily seized, I suspect that many customers would go for the former!
Alternatively, you can simply accept the risks and keep your fingers firmly crossed – the choice is yours!
|
