Is composite decking all its cracked up to be?
An article by the TDCA (Timber Decking and Cladding Association)
Composite decking article response because of a blatantly biased report. A news worth report that underpins the current state of decking representation in the UK.
It is presented by an organisation exclusively focused on, and funded by, the timber industry.
Nothing is wrong with that, of course.
However, when it offers misleading and ill-considered negative statements against competitive products, it does two things.
does not diminish the value of the competition.
It simply highlights the fear that its funders have of that competition.
Using negativity as the only sales tool demonstrates not the natural beauty of wood.
It undervalues the fact that wood is the most versatile material in existence.
Nowhere does it distinguish its negative comments as relative against either softwood or hardwood decking.
It only generalises at one value point.
Wood is also a composite
The first thing they fail to recognise is that wood is, in fact, a composite itself.
It is made up of organic fibres, along with lignin, cellulose, and hemi-cellulose.
All three are classified as plastics, for clarity.
“Wood is a natural, organic composite material composed primarily of cellulose (approx. 50%), lignin (20–30%), and hemicellulose (15%–25%), which together form a fibrous structural tissue.”
Global market share and value
Globally, composites hold around 50% of the deck board market value.
They hold only around 20% to 25% of the number of linear metres, or feet, used.
This clearly demonstrates the general cost difference between the two high-level options.
However, it does not show the real spread of materials used.
The vast bulk of wood used is still softwood.
That is around 95%, whether raw or treated.
As with wood, there is a wide range of composite products available.
These are offered at differing quality and performance levels, and of course prices.
Performance data and standards
The lack of comparable performance data remains a global issue.
However, each manufacturer offers comprehensive data, which includes installation guidance.
In the USA, code standards vary across the 50 states.
They deliver strong performance criteria in installation.
They do not do so in terms of individual technical criteria.
It would be anti-competitive to generalise.
In Europe, there was an attempt to build a standard.
The result was EN 15534-4 (2014).
It ended up missing the objective by a country mile.
Frankly, it is pointless, as it is material-based, not decking-application relative.
In fact, across greater Europe, well outside North America, there are no official standards.
That applies to either composite or wood in deck construction.
The TDCA PAS and composite products
The TDCA’s PAS, or Product Approval Scheme, is a positive step.
However, it has never been generated or adapted to the composite world.
The range of tests for wood is not the same for composite.
That should be noted.
It should also be noted that most composite manufacturers use proprietary technology.
They are therefore not able to open up that area to any form of third-party investigation.
Most certainly, they will not do so for an organisation openly biased towards wood.
That bias is at the expense of composites.
Would the DeckMark scheme be of value?
Yes, of course it would.
However, the requirements of the testing do not currently allow for it.
Equally, the TDCA has long been advised that it does not represent the whole industry.
It represents only part of it. Yet it has chosen not to adapt.
Why manufacturers have not taken part
All of the test data stated as part of the TDCA PAS testing is available from every manufacturer.
Yet none of them have taken up the opportunity.
The reasoning behind this is not just the proprietary technology base.
It is also the need to give access to view and inspect the product sites themselves.
That is simply not viable.
Add in the lack of interest in having products compared directly to competitors by a biased organisation.
Is it really any surprise that it has not happened?
Most likely, it never will through the TDCA in its current form.
The cost aspect is also a consideration.
That is due to the location of the vast majority of composite decking manufacturers being outside the UK.
This does not diminish the great work that the TDCA does when promoting wood.
It also promotes good decking building practices generally.
That includes the DeckMark scheme.
However, it uses only wood as a material.
What the TDCA knows about composites
Within the article, the most disappointing part is that headed, “What the TDCA knows about composites”.
Anyone involved in the composites industry will no doubt agree with me.
Based upon what is written, it is clearly “Not much”.
If the same approach was taken to promote the performance of basic-level softwood decking, the comments would generally be the same.
Yet hardwoods offer much better aesthetics at a higher price.
However, as with all woods, they need chemical treatments.
Those treatments are needed to retain their looks and performance.
Buyers should be cautious
So, “Buyers should be cautious” applies to both composites and woods alike.
Everything needs a level of maintenance.
Better-quality composites need far less.
The data and information presented by the TDCA is relative only to the lowest-level composite products.
These come primarily from Asia.
They do not represent the premium products from Europe and North America.
Framing, education and know-how
Equally, the use of wood in framing should be a minimum of C16.
C24 should be used if budget allows.
Even here, the market is seeing usage transfer across to aluminium, steel, and even recycled plastics.
The real issue that transcends the material used is education and know-how.
Pro-channel and DIY comparisons
The much-reported “Pro-channel” deck builders are presented as such mainly against the volume of a specific manufacturer’s products they use.
It is not purely about build quality.
Within the pro-channel, there are many solid deck designers and builders.
There is also a good depth of deck artists.
They design and build some simply stunning results.
That applies not just to composites, but also wood.
The DIY channel is exclusively price-focused.
Actual product performance and consumer value sit much lower on the viability ladder.
Generally, at the lower-budget end of the market, softwood decking is the first product consumers use.
They then look to move to composites as an upgrade.
That move is all too often to the lower end of the composites ladder.
That usually means hollow, uncapped product from Asia.
As budget increases, so does the demand for performance and aesthetics.
That applies not just to the deck surface products.
It also applies across the whole construction project.
Final thoughts
It is, of course, disappointing that negativity is the driver of competitive marketing.
That is especially so when knowledge is poor, focus is biased, and scope for growth is limited by structure.
The TDCA is a well-managed association with all the right intentions.
However, it does not represent the whole market.
It represents only the wood part.
That remains the case despite many attempts by the non-wood sector.
Those attempts were made to move it into a space where they could benefit from and through it.
That wider benefit could then be passed on to the market.
This Composite decking article response is Written by Barry John Davis
NADRA International Ambassador
