Bereaved people and survivors have expressed fury at the response of the three companies that supplied combustible materials to the Grenfell Tower for its disastrous refurbishment before the fire that killed 72 people in 2017.

The public inquiry, published on Wednesday, made damning findings about the firms’ conduct.

While there were apologies from the UK government and the local council – who were also responsible for serious failings in the lead-up to the blaze – the companies issued lengthy denials of wrongdoing.

Here are excerpts from what the report concluded and what the companies said:

Arconic – made the plastic-filled cladding panels that were the main cause of the fire’s spread

The public inquiry found:

The companies that made the cladding and insulation products – Arconic, Celotex and Kingspan – behaved with “systematic dishonesty” and “engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market”.

Arconic was “deliberately and dishonestly concealing from the market the true position in relation to Reynobond PE [the product sold for use on Grenfell] in cassette form”, and “Arconic itself must take responsibility for the use of Reynobond 55 PE on Grenfell Tower because it knew that the sale of the product had been obtained on the basis of the British Board of Agrément certificate, which it was well aware gave a misleading impression of the way in which the product in cassette form reacted to fire.”

Arconic said:

“Arconic Architectural Products [a subsidiary] sold sheets of aluminium composite material as specified in the design process. This product was safe to use as a building material, and legal to sell in the UK as well as the more than 30 other countries in which AAP customers bought the product. We reject any claim that AAP sold an unsafe product.

“AAP regularly conducted tests of its materials using third-party testing bodies. Reports on these results were all publicly available, and AAP made these reports available to its customers.

“AAP did not conceal information from or mislead any certification body, customer, or the public.”

Kingspan – made about 5% of the combustible foam insulation known as K15

The public inquiry found:

“The story of the development and marketing of K15 for use on buildings of 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 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.”

Kingspan said:

“We welcome the publication of today’s report, which is crucial to a public understanding of what went wrong and why. It explains clearly and unambiguously that the type of insulation (whether combustible or non-combustible) was immaterial, and that the principal reason for the fire spread was the PE ACM cladding, which was not made by Kingspan.

“Kingspan has long acknowledged the wholly unacceptable historical failings that occurred in part of our UK insulation business. These were in no way reflective of how we conduct ourselves as a group, then or now. While deeply regrettable, they were not found to be causative of the tragedy.

“Kingspan has already emphatically addressed these issues, including the implementation of extensive and externally verified measures to ensure our conduct and compliance standards are world leading.”

“We remain committed to playing a leading role in providing safe and sustainable building solutions, including continuing to work with government and industry partners.”

Celotex – made most of the combustible foam insulation

The public inquiry found:

“Celotex embarked on a dishonest scheme to mislead its customers and the wider market” and that “the dishonest and cynical way in which RS5000 [the insulation] was tested and marketed reflected a culture within Celotex stretching back to at least 2009.”

Celotex said:

“We conducted our own review to interrogate the circumstances in which the RS5000 product had been tested, launched and marketed. This review was a significant and thorough undertaking, and the results of that work were disclosed promptly and proactively to relevant stakeholders, including the Grenfell Tower inquiry.

“Independent testing commissioned following the review demonstrated that the cladding system described in the Celotex RS5000 marketing literature met the relevant safety criteria. That system was substantially different to that used at Grenfell Tower. Decisions about design, construction and the selection of materials for the Tower were made by construction industry professionals.

“Since the fire, we reviewed and improved process controls, quality management and the approach to marketing within the Celotex business to meet industry best practice. Celotex Limited continues to cooperate fully with all official investigations into the Grenfell Tower fire.”