‘Dishonest’: The verdict on Grenfell’s manufacturers

Manufacturer Kingspan’s dishonest marketing created a “spurious” market for polymer-based insulation for use on high-rise buildings, according to the Grenfell Inquiry phase 2 report.Some of the harshest words in the report were aimed at the cladding manufacturer Arconic and insulation suppliers Kingspan, Celotex,whose products were used in the refurbishment of the West London tower block that completed the year before the fire.Kingspan’s K15 product was used without its knowledge and only made up 5 per cent of the insulation on the building.However, the inquiry report was clear about the firm’s responsibility. “The story of the development and marketing of K15 for use on buildings over 18 metres in height between 2006 and 2019 is one of deeply entrenched and persistent dishonesty on the part of Kingspan in pursuit of commercial gain coupled with a complete disregard for fire safety,” the report said.This dishonesty was “facilitated, albeit inadvertently” by the British Board of Agrément and Local Authority Building Control, which cleared the products for use but failed to rigorously examine the product materials.“Both those bodies, although supposedly independent, compromised their independence by entering into negotiations with Kingspan over the wording of their certificates and agreeing to include language that was inappropriate and in some cases misleading,” the report said.Celotex: ‘Manipulated’ test reportThe effect of Kingspan’s dishonest marketing of K15 was to “create a spurious market for a polymeric insulation product suitable for use on high-rise buildings generally, which drew in Celotex as a competitor”.Celotex, whose insulation product was used on 95 per cent of the building, “embarked on its own campaign to break into the market by dishonest means”.Celotex marketed RS5000 as “the first PIR board to successfully test to BS8414” and as “acceptable for use in buildings above 18 metres in height”.But the report on which Celotex based that claim had been “manipulated… a fact that Celotex did not disclose in its marketing literature”, the inquiry report said.In conclusion, the inquiry report said that while Kingspan could not be blamed for Celotex’s dishonesty, “it did create the conditions that encouraged it and in which it was able to flourish”.Arconic: ‘Aware for many years’The inquiry report also said that Arconic, the manufacturer of the external aluminium composite material cladding, “had been aware for many years before the Grenfell Tower fire that the statements the company was making about the fire performance of Reynobond 55PE were inaccurate and, in particular, that the fire performance of asset-fixed panels was significantly worse that that of riveted panels.”Despite knowing its product was unsafe by 2012, senior managers at the firm did not withdraw Reynobond 55PE from sale.“Arconic thus promoted and sold a product knowing that it presented a significant danger to those who might use any buildings on which it was used.”More Grenfell phase 2 report coverageConstruction industry shake-up recommended by Grenfell Inquiry report‘Casual and complacent’: Grenfell report’s damning verdict on RydonHarley Facades: The role of the cladding subcontractor“Serious and longstanding failures”: The role of government and regulators