Certificates

Our stance on product testing and certifications

The topic of product testing and certification is complex and often controversial. There are numerous reports and anecdotes on the subject, but at this point we would like to explain why we do not place particular emphasis on these marketing tools.

Product Tests: More appearance than reliable guidance?

Two organizations dominate the field of product testing:

1. Stiftung Warentest – a semi-governmental institution considered credible due to its status. However, the test results are not always entirely reliable, as consideration is given to companies. Especially in mattress tests, it is evident that the criteria are often set so low that even inferior products still receive acceptable ratings. Consumers seeking quality thus have no real guidance. Instead, price-sensitive buyer groups benefit in particular, as simple testing parameters lead to even inexpensive, less durable products performing well.

2. Ökotest – a private publishing house that cannot guarantee a clear separation between advertisers and tested products. Here, as with Stiftung Warentest, there are both plausible and questionable test results. Products with identical certified materials are sometimes rated differently – depending on the batch or the time of testing. Furthermore, there is a double standard: While synthetic products like Tempur mattresses are revised after poor reviews and suddenly rated "good" in the next test, natural mattresses are often immediately downgraded if they contain minimal plastic.

It is also striking that some manufacturers receive preferential testing, while others are ignored despite their high relevance – often due to a lack of appropriate "lobbying." Overall, it is clear that product testing is primarily a marketing tool used deliberately by the industry. However, for quality-conscious consumers, they often do not provide a reliable basis for decision-making, as high-quality products from smaller manufacturers are often not even tested.

Our many years of experience with product testing – predominantly positive – have nevertheless led us to refrain from advertising test results. Instead, we focus on transparency and well-founded information that is understandable for our customers.

Certificates: A matter of trust without real control?

The situation is similar with certificates.

The criteria for certifications are often difficult for consumers to understand, and ultimately, it remains a question of trust in the certification body. Many certificates are based on the assumption that manufacturers should adhere to certain standards – but regular or independent verification is often lacking.

An example: A manufacturer can obtain an organic certificate for cotton by submitting a sample for analysis once a year. Ultimately, you don't have to trust the testing laboratory, but the manufacturer itself. The same applies to textile eco-labels: They promise testing for harmful substances, but say nothing about the manufacturing conditions or the actual origin. In fact, many conventional products also pass tests for harmful substances – which shows that not every label automatically represents an ecologically sound product.

Here, too, experience shows that certificates often have more to do with marketing than with true transparency. That's why we focus on openness in product presentation and advice – rather than relying on a seal.

Our own quality standards

To ensure maximum transparency, we have consciously chosen other paths:

• The founder of Futonwerk was a co-initiator of the QuL association, but distanced himself from it due to ethical differences.
• We are a member of the IVN, the parent association of the GOTS standard.
• Our products are tested and certified annually by the eco Institute Cologne.

You can find the current certificate under Materials/Raw Materials.

We are convinced that true quality is not defined by seals or test results, but by honest, comprehensible information – and by products that deliver what they promise in everyday use.