Pfeifer Group: products and EPD coverage

What Pfeifer makes

Pfeifer is not a pure play. The portfolio spans five broad construction‑relevant families: mass timber for building (CLT, glulam, one‑ and three‑ply panels), concrete formwork components (panels and beams), packaging timber and pallet blocks, structural sawn timber and profiles, and bioenergy pellets and briquettes. Within those ranges, configuration options by thickness, grade, length and surface put the total SKU count comfortably in the hundreds.

CLT: visible scale and a published EPD

Their CLT line is substantial and marketed with technical depth, including panel build‑ups to 15 layers and standard thicknesses from 60 to 120 mm. The company communicates a 50,000 m³ per‑year CLT capacity at the Schlitz plant, with an intent to scale as demand rises (Pfeifer Group, 2025) (CLT Vorteile). Pfeifer lists an Environmental Product Declaration for CLT that conforms to ISO 14025 and EN 15804 on its product page, a must‑have in today’s material submittals (CLT product page, EPD link).

Glulam and panels: likely best‑sellers without product‑specific EPDs

Glulam shows up prominently on Pfeifer’s site with declarations of performance and chain‑of‑custody credentials. We did not find a product‑specific, publicly listed EPD for Pfeifer glulam or for their one‑ and three‑ply panels as of December 20, 2025. That matters commercially. On projects chasing LEED v5 or owner policies that prefer product‑specific EPDs, lack of one forces teams to fall back to generic factors that come with penalties in carbon accounting.

Formwork components: still a blind spot

Formwork panels and beams are ubiquitous in Pfeifer’s lineup. Public operator libraries checked for this review do not show a product‑specific EPD attributed to Pfeifer for these items. Since temporary works increasingly appear in whole‑project carbon models, a simple, cradle‑to‑gate EPD here would reduce friction for contractors and GCs who need enviromental paperwork fast.

Competitor benchmarks specifiers already see

Several direct competitors surface frequently on mass‑timber bids and publish product‑specific EPDs. Two examples architects and LCA teams cite often:

• Stora Enso publishes CLT and LVL EPDs in the International EPD System with validity into late 2028 (EPD International, 2025) (EPD-IES-0009949). Stora Enso’s Austria market EPD entry confirms EN 15804+A2 alignment with a 2025 issue and 2028 validity window (BAU-EPD, 2025) (BAU-EPD entry).
• HASSLACHER communicates IBU‑verified EPDs for glulam, CLT and structural solid timber, widely used in European specs (HASSLACHER, 2025) (company EPD page).

These are like seeing your rival’s jersey in the tunnel. It reminds buyers that alternatives with ready‑to‑download declarations exist.

Where EPD coverage stands today (big picture)

• Covered: CLT has a product‑specific EPD listed on Pfeifer’s site. FDES verification for CLT is also referenced for the French market on the same page.
• Partially covered or unclear: glulam, one‑ and three‑ply panels, and formwork items show technical files and CE/DoP documents but no public, product‑specific EPDs identified under Pfeifer’s name at major operator libraries.
• Out of scope for building credits: pellets and briquettes are energy products that typically do not contribute to building product EPD credits.

Why this matters more in 2025

LEED v5 was ratified by USGBC members on March 28, 2025 and is moving into market launch. It continues to recognize product‑specific, externally verified EPDs as a favored pathway in materials credits (USGBC, 2025) (LEED v5 overview). Projects now standardize submittal checklists around third‑party EPD PDFs. If your product lacks one, you are harder to swap in without delay or a conservative carbon assumption that hurts your spec position.

A practical playbook to close the gaps

If we had to prioritize, glulam should go first. It is likely a high‑volume line for structural frames where EPDs already exist from peers, which means specifiers expect apples‑to‑apples data. Next, cover one‑ and three‑ply panels, then formwork panels and beams. A single multi‑site EPD per product family is often viable when processes and inputs are harmonized, and it typically beats issuing dozens of micro‑EPDs that overwhelm sales teams. The lift is manageable when a partner runs white‑glove data collection across mills and handles PCR/operator alignment so engineering and plant teams dont have to.

Who Pfeifer most often meets in the lane

On European work and export projects, expect Stora Enso, HASSLACHER, Binderholz, Mayr‑Melnhof Holz, KLH and Rubner in like‑for‑like comparisons for CLT and glulam. For formwork items, systems providers like PERI or Doka are frequent alternates even when the underlying panel is from a commodity roster.

Where to learn more about Pfeifer’s sustainability stance

Their site hosts a sustainability section with goals, projects and energy policy. A good entry point is their page on sustainable purchase relationships.

The short takeaway

Pfeifer has breadth and scale, and CLT already carries a published EPD. Closing the glulam and panel gaps would strengthen day‑one specability on LEED‑driven jobs and corporate frameworks. The ROI case is straightforward in 2025 as more bids require product‑specific, externally verified EPDs. Getting there is mostly disciplined data wrangling matched to the right PCR and operator, executed quickly so sales can lead with documents instead of disclaimers.