As every year, we attended Milan Design Week 2026 — both at the trade fair and at the Fuorisalone — with a week packed with meetings, exchanges and direct field observations. For us at Matrec, this is an event that carries far more weight than a trade fair: it is a close-range reading of where the furniture sector genuinely stands with respect to circularity.
The proposals we encountered fall into two distinct categories. First, new recycled and bio-based materials with concrete applications in surfaces, panels and finishes — some technically sound solutions, with available supply chain documentation. Second, furniture and accessories designed with an explicit focus on circularity, with references — more or less deliberate — to the requirements of Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 (ESPR).
Among the most concrete proposals we mapped:
– post-consumer recycled composite materials
– modular systems engineered for end-of-life disassembly
Frequently, however, the quality of technical information at stands was highly inconsistent. Some exhibitors presented detailed material data sheets; others relied on generic claims, unsupported by documentation. This inconsistency is not incidental: it reflects the current stage of the sector, positioned midway between the voluntary adoption of circular practices and the mandatory regulatory compliance that is approaching. Overall, the trajectory on circularity and design is correct — yet the gap between design intent and technical verifiability remains, in many cases, significant.
ESPR and furniture: do the new documents on fashion and steel alter the approach to product design?
On the sidelines of the fair, we met with several clients and companies to discuss the latest regulatory updates relating to the ESPR Regulation, with a specific focus on the new preparatory documents for the fashion and steel sectors. The question we were most frequently asked was direct: do these documents change anything for furniture manufacturers?
The answer is not straightforward, as multiple factors must be considered. First, the working documents on fashion and steel do not apply directly to the furniture sector — furniture products follow their own regulatory pathway under ESPR, with specific timelines and requirements still under definition. Second, however, the methodology introduced by these documents — in particular the calculation methods for recycled content, the durability requirements and the circularity metrics — is becoming a cross-sector reference that many designers and product managers in the furniture industry are already studying in anticipation.
The signal we collect from the field is this: the more structured companies are not waiting for the furniture-specific regulation. They are using the available documents on fashion and steel as a methodological proxy, to begin structuring data collection on their own products. Those who wait for the definitive standard risk falling behind by a margin difficult to recover, given that data collection requires time and involves the entire supply chain. Investing in circularity, in this sense, is no longer merely a positioning choice: it becomes a technical requirement with precise deadlines.
Non-compliant environmental claims: how many infringements of directive 2024/825 were observed across the stands?
Across stands and installations, we systematically analysed the environmental claims on display — and this is where the picture becomes more critical. Directive (EU) 2024/825, which amends Directives 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU to counter unfair commercial practices related to greenwashing, defines precisely what may be communicated and under what documentary conditions.
The non-conformities we identified followed recurring patterns:
– generic claims such as “sustainable product” or “eco-friendly” with no reference to verifiable standards or certifications
– use of the term “recycled” without indication of percentage, material type or sourcing stage (pre-consumer vs. post-consumer)
– biodegradability claims without specification of degradation conditions (industrial, domestic, open environment) — a distinction rendered material by the standard
– self-produced environmental logos and pictograms not referenced to recognised certification schemes
Several companies use terminology such as “circular” or “low-impact” without supporting technical documentation — not always in bad faith, but reflecting an approach that remains insufficiently cautious given a regulatory framework that has become considerably more stringent. The issue is that Directive 2024/825 is already in force: Member States had until 24 March 2026 to transpose it, and exposure to enforcement risk is concrete. In the event of enforcement action, it will not be only the exposed brands that bear the consequences.
How is the circularity of a furniture product measured under the ESPR Regulation?
Measuring the circularity of a furniture product is not straightforward, as Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 (ESPR) takes multiple parameters into account. The week at Milan Design Week 2026 confirmed a perception we had already developed in the field: the majority of companies in the furniture sector do not yet possess a structured methodology for this measurement.
The issue, however, is that the ESPR Regulation does not require a generic sustainability declaration — it requires verifiable data on specific parameters. For furniture products, the relevant parameters concern, first, durability and repairability; second, the presence of recycled content, measurable as a percentage of total product weight; and third, end-of-life disassembly and recyclability, which must be demonstrable, not merely declared.
Matrec has been working on these parameters for the furniture sector for years, and what we observe is a growing gap between design intent and the capacity to document it in a compliant manner. Sustainable materials and circular economy are not a communication topic: they constitute a set of technical requirements that demand supply chain data, compositional specifications and verification protocols.
As a reference for measurement, the key parameters currently addressed in the ESPR preparatory work for furniture include:
– percentage of post-consumer recycled (PCR) and pre-consumer recycled (PIR) material by total weight
– repairability index: availability of spare parts and disassembly instructions
– technical end-of-life recyclability, differentiated by material stream (mono-material vs. composite)
– presence of substances that impede recycling, pursuant to the criteria of standard EN 15343
None of these parameters can be estimated — they require precise compositional mapping of the product, and this is precisely the gap most frequently identified across the stands.
Recycled materials, circular economy, design: where is the sector heading?
The direction is clear, even if the timelines are not yet entirely so. What we observed at MDW 2026 is a sector in transition: on one side, a segment of the supply offer — particularly among material producers — that has already internalised circular economy logic as a design requirement; on the other, a still considerable share of the market that treats these topics as narrative attributes, without the technical substance necessary to underpin them.
Going forward, with the progressive entry into force of ESPR requirements and the advancement of preparatory documents for specific product categories — including those for fashion and steel discussed during the week — regulatory pressure will intensify. The expected outcome is not an immediate transformation, but a progressive raising of the minimum documentation threshold required for access to the European market.
What we at Matrec observe is that companies equipping themselves today — building material mapping systems, collecting supply chain data, verifying their claims — will hold a concrete operational advantage when requirements become binding. Not because they have made “virtuous” choices, but because they will have already resolved a technical problem that others will have to address under pressure.
The topic, in short, is shifting from the plane of communication to that of compliance. And that changes everything.
Conclusions
Milan Design Week 2026 was, for us at Matrec, a useful observatory — not so much for absolute novelties, but for the snapshot it provided of the sector’s actual state. We observed interesting materials, more mature design approaches compared to previous years, and a broader regulatory awareness, at least in conversation. But we also measured the distance between this awareness and the concrete capacity to translate it into verifiable documentation.
The non-conformities with environmental claims identified across stands are not a marginal signal. They indicate that the sector is still metabolising a shift in logic: no longer sustainability as positioning, but circularity as a measurable technical requirement. Directive 2024/825 and the ESPR Regulation are not communication instruments — they are frameworks that require data, declared compositions and verification protocols.
The question we take away is not whether the furniture sector will adapt — it will, by regulatory necessity. The question is how many companies will reach that deadline with a data infrastructure already in order, and how many will be forced to start from scratch under pressure. The operational difference is substantial.