Are the existing EU Ecolabel criteria for furniture products too complex? An analysis of complexity from a material and a supply chain perspective and suggestions for ways ahead

Abstract Purpose One possible reason for the poor uptake of the EU Ecolabel for furniture products may be that the criteria are too complex for applicants. Consequently, it was decided to develop a method which quantifies criteria complexity and subsequently, to propose ways for its reduction, which could be considered in future criteria revision. Methods The requirements behind the voluntary EU Ecolabel criteria for furniture products set out in Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1332 have been scored with a “criteria complexity index” (CCI), based on the answers to a series of six questions that relate to the effort required for proper assessment and verification. The criteria, and associated CCI values, have been grouped on a per material basis, allowing a “material complexity index” (MCI) to be calculated and consequently, a “furniture complexity index” (FCI) has been calculated as a function of the materials in different furniture products. Results and discussion Overall, it was found that CCI values can differ depending on the actual supply chain scenario, that textiles and leather had much higher MCI values than all other materials and that the FCI was completely dependent on the materials the furniture product was composed of. FCI values were much lower in general for non-upholstered furniture. Conclusions The FCI scores can be greatly reduced by the following: (i) using fewer materials in the product; (ii) having shorter supply chains; (iii) using uncoated metals, or at least carrying out coating in-house; (iv) using solid wood instead of wood-based panels; and (v) identifying competent and communicative suppliers who are especially well-informed about chemicals used. Since furniture manufacturers only have limited scope to make these changes, it is more effective to change the way the criteria are structured in future revisions in order to make the criteria more fairly balanced and flexible for potential applicants. Key points about any future restructuring would be to make the chemical requirements more SME friendly and to consider moving away from a rigid pass–fail approach to a more flexible scoring approach.