Furniture QCOs: What’s Working, What’s Not, and What Could Be Simpler

India bringing furniture under mandatory BIS certification is a good move. It raises product quality, improves safety, and brings more order to a sector that’s grown fast but unevenly.

Most people in the industry agree with the intent. The challenge shows up when you look at how the rules play out on the ground. After speaking with manufacturers, labs, and compliance teams, a few pain points keep coming up. These are not demands or complaints. Just practical observations from people dealing with QCOs every day.

Let’s break them down.

Grouping Rules Are Too Tight

Right now, the grouping rules make life harder than it needs to be.

If two furniture models look the same, work the same, and use the same materials, you’d expect them to be treated as one group. That’s often not the case. Small size changes or finish differences can trigger fresh testing.

The ±10 percent size rule is a big reason why. A chair that’s slightly wider or a table that’s slightly longer can mean another full test. That adds cost and slows everything down.

A simpler approach could help. Test one representative model for a product type. Pick the largest size. Test more only when the material or structure really changes. Other versions can be checked later during the licence period.

Quality stays protected. Waste and delays drop.

Too Many Samples, Too Much Cost

Furniture isn’t like toys or electronics. It’s big. It’s heavy. And it’s expensive.

Current testing often asks for multiple samples for the same product group. For manufacturers, this means high transport costs, lost inventory, and long lead times.

One well-chosen sample per product category should be enough to show compliance in most cases. Anything more just adds pressure without adding much value.

Custom Furniture Needs Clear Treatment

There’s also confusion around custom furniture.

Many products are made to order. The design stays the same, but the color, polish, or a small dimension changes to suit a client. Today, these small changes can push the product into a new model category.

That doesn’t make much sense.

If the structure and materials are the same, these products should stay in the same group. Clear guidance here would save time and avoid mixed interpretations.

Foreign Manufacturers Face Extra Friction

For overseas manufacturers, the process can feel even heavier.

Factory audits take time to schedule. Testing options are limited. Infrastructure requirements are sometimes higher than needed, especially for premium brands that don’t mass produce.

Some flexibility could go a long way. Allow testing at BIS-approved labs in India or accredited labs abroad, with proper checks. Keep in-house testing needs to the basics. If a manufacturer has a strong compliance history, reduce how often they need repeat testing.

Another big issue is audit timing. Delays hurt planning and supply. Fixed timelines and better coordination would make the system more predictable.

Inspections Can Be Better Planned in India

Domestic manufacturers face a different issue. When they file multiple applications for similar products, inspections often happen separately.

This means more visits, more paperwork, and more disruption.

If the same officer could handle all related inspections over one or two days, it would save time for everyone and keep assessments consistent.

Final Thought

The furniture QCO framework is a strong step forward. No question about that.

What the industry is asking for, quietly and consistently, is balance. Strong quality checks, yes. But also rules that reflect how furniture is actually designed, made, and sold.

Small tweaks can make a big difference. Lower costs. Faster approvals. Less confusion. And the same commitment to quality.

That’s how good regulation earns trust and works in the real world.