Who is responsible for the product passport for furniture?

What you concretely have to do

What is expected of you

The ESPR places responsibility for the digital product passport primarily with the manufacturer. Who exactly qualifies as the manufacturer in this context is not always straightforward — a company that has furniture made and sells it under its own name can take on that role just as readily as the party that actually produces the furniture. In case of doubt, it is worth checking whether you qualify as an importer or manufacturer under the ESPR. Under Article 27 of the ESPR (Regulation (EU) 2024/1781), the manufacturer has a number of obligations, which are detailed below by element.

Ensure that the product complies with the requirements

The manufacturer ensures that the furniture is made and assembled in accordance with the requirements applicable to the product group once they come into force. For a company with 10 to 100 employees, this means in practice that the production and procurement departments must know what information on materials, components and origin is needed, and that information must be available at the time of production — not gathered only afterwards.

Prepare and maintain the digital product passport

Article 9 of the ESPR (Regulation (EU) 2024/1781) describes what a digital product passport must contain and how it must be accessible via a data carrier, such as a QR code. The manufacturer is responsible for the content of that passport. For a medium-sized furniture company, this means there must be a fixed process for collecting, checking and updating passport data whenever the product changes — a task that is often underestimated because it does not end at the point of sale, but continues as long as the passport is hosted.

Keep and make available technical documentation

The manufacturer maintains technical documentation that demonstrates that the product complies with the requirements, and keeps that documentation available to the supervisory authorities. For a company of this size, this means there must be an archive — digital or on paper — in which data from suppliers, test results and material declarations can be found, even years after the sale.

Take corrective measures in case of non-conformity

When a manufacturer has reason to believe that a product does not comply with the requirements, that manufacturer takes the necessary corrective measures or withdraws the product if necessary. This requires an internal process in which signals — from complaints to its own sampling — are picked up and recorded, with a clear line of who within the company makes decisions about it.

Cooperate with market surveillance authorities

The manufacturer cooperates with requests from supervisory authorities, including by providing requested information and documentation. In practical terms, this means there must be someone in the organisation who knows where the documentation is located and who is authorised to respond on behalf of the company to a request, without this causing delay.

Where things go wrong in practice

A number of situations come up regularly in practice.

A company sells furniture under its own brand name, while production is outsourced to a third party. Both parties assume that the other is responsible for the passport, with the result that no passport is drawn up at all. This is particularly common with selling under a private label and with the relationship between private label and manufacturer, where the division of roles has not been explicitly agreed in advance.

Another recurring problem: the manufacturer is located outside the EU and has no visibility into European obligations, while the European importer assumes the passport is already ready. Who gets which role in such a situation is detailed on the page about a manufacturer located outside the European Union.

When a piece of furniture is modified or upgraded — such as having it upholstered, painted or reconfigured from a base product — it is often not considered whether this brings with it a new manufacturer role. This can have consequences for who must provide the product passport; see when modification of an existing product leads to new responsibility.

Confusion also arises with sales via a platform: the marketplace is sometimes incorrectly regarded as the responsible party, whereas the obligation in principle remains with the manufacturer or importer.

Finally, things go wrong when data from a supplier is incorrect or incomplete, and no one has documented who is responsible for the accuracy of those specific data.

What you can put in order now

A number of agreements and documents help make responsibility for the product passport clear internally and externally:

• A written agreement with the supplier or producer on who supplies which data, including a moment at which data are reviewed if there are changes to the product.
• An internal designation of the person or department responsible for keeping the product passport current after first publication.
• An archive of technical documentation and material declarations, linked to the product model to which they relate.
• A documented procedure for dealing with signals of non-conformity, with a designation of who internally decides on corrective measures.
• An overview of who within the company is authorized to respond to a request from a supervisory authority.
• For private label or outsourcing: an explicit, written record of which party acts as the manufacturer within the meaning of the ESPR, to prevent the question who is liable for incorrect data from a supplier from being answered only afterwards.

These agreements do not prevent disputes from arising over the interpretation of the rules, but they ensure that within the company and between partners it is clear who is responsible for which part of the product passport and who monitors it.